Mahatma Gandhi Rural Development and Youth Welfare Centre, Tumkur Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, 85/A, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, 4^TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE JOINT SECRETARY KARNATAKA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:11263-DB WA No. 881 of 2024

¶19

WELFARE BOARD IN KARNATAKA KALYANA SURAKSHA BHAVAN ITI COMPOUND, DAIRY CIRCLE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶20

THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD IN KARNATAKA KALYANA SURAKSHA BHAVAN ITI COMPOUND, DAIRY CIRCLE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶21

SHUBHODAYA SEVA SAMSTHE 389/1-2 BASAPPA TOWER 8^TH MAIN, P.J.EXTENSION DAVANGERE - 577 002 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY KUMAR H.B. AGED 52 YEARS.

¶22

ADARSHA SOMAJIKARYA SAMSTHE 1^ST FLOOR, 5^TH MAIN, 15^TH CROSS VIDYANAGAR, DAVANAGERE - 577 005. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. MANJAPPA AGED 55 YEARS.

¶23

UDBAV EDUCATIONAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY OFF: NO.3B, 60 Ff ROAD BALARAM LAYOUT, RR NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:11263-DB WA No. 881 of 2024

¶26

REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT CHANDRAKALA BAI L. AGED 40 YEARS.

¶27

M/S. BLOSSOM MULTI SPECIALITY

¶28

HOSPITAL ( A PROPRIETARY CONCERN) REP. BY ITS MANAGER/ AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. SANJAY A. No.98-99, VINAYAKA NAGAR, NAGANATHAPURA ELETRONIC CITY BENGALURU - 560 012.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; R4 TO R6 ARE SERVED AND UNRERESENTED; SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R7)

¶31

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2024 MADE IN WP No.2648/2023 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL.

¶32

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11263-DB WA No. 881 of 2024

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶37

The appellant is original petitioner No.1, who, in the writ petition, called in question the order dated 14.12.2022 of cancellation of tender. Further prayer was made by the appellant for issuance of mandamus to award contract in terms of the tender in which it had participated. The tender was in respect of supply of equipments and manpower for the Mobile Health Clinic Project announced by the State Government.

¶38

Learned Single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, dismissed the petition. The petitioners were given liberty to participate in the fresh tender process. It was further observed by learned Single Judge that the fresh tender may be taken to its logical conclusion. It is against the said order, the present appeal is filed.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11263-DB WA No. 881 of 2024

¶40

3. In the background, the relevant facts were that in the tender

¶41

process, the appellant-petitioner No.1 though a participant, was not declared as lowest bidder and before the tender process could conclude its material stages, the tender inviting authority cancelled the tender.

¶42

When the appeal came up for consideration, it was given out that the respondents have already issued fresh tender. Respondent No.7, who was impleaded by the order of this court dated 18.03.2025, has filed the affidavit, in which certain facts and subsequent developments are stated.

¶43

The subsequent developments that took place are as under,

¶44

(i) Subsequent to the dismissal of the writ petition, fresh tender notification dated 02.03.2024 has been issued by the Karnataka State Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board for supply and delivery of 100 numbers of Mobile Medical Unit Vehicles across the State.

¶45

(ii) The Board has issued another tender notification dated 07.03.2024 for selection of agency for operating and managing 100 Smart Mobile Medical Units and preventive health checkup.

¶46

(iii) After the issuance of the aforesaid tender notifications, tenders have been submitted by various entities. The tender of M/s. Burma Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., for supply and delivery of

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:11263-DB WA No. 881 of 2024

¶49

100 numbers of Mobile Medical Unit Vehicles has been accepted and Purchase Order/Work Order dated 13.06.2024 is issued.

¶50

(iv) Work Order dated 21.06.2024 in favour of M/s. Shoba Renaissance Information Technology Pvt. Ltd., is issued for supply and installation of equipments.

¶51

(v) Work Order dated 12.08.2024 is issued in favour of the impleading applicant-M/s Blossom Multi Specialty Hospital which was selected as an agency for operating and managing 100 Smart Mobile Medical Units and preventive health checkup.

¶52

5.1 Learned advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 invited the attention of the court to the affidavit dated 18.03.2025, in which it is stated in paragraph 15 that Work Orders to the successful bidders have been issued and they have completed their work. It is further stated that the Mobile Medical Units have been formally inaugurated and they have been deployed throughout the State of Karnataka for the use of building and other construction workers and their dependants.

¶53

5.2 It was undisputedly stated in course of the hearing that the appellant did not participate in the fresh tender process, although it is sought to be submitted by learned advocate Mr. Ashok

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11263-DB WA No. 881 of 2024

¶55

Bannidinni for the appellant that the appellant was ousted because

¶56

of the eligibility required from the fresh tender. Be that as it may.

¶57

5.3 In view of the above subsequent developments of issuance of fresh tender and the Work Orders/Purchase Orders having been issued to the successful bidders, no further adjudication survives in the present appeal. It has become infructuous and in any case, rendered academic. The court would not go into the infructuous subject matter, nor would undertake adjudication of a controversy which has become academic in nature.

¶58

Learned advocate for the appellant sought to assail the legality of the fresh tender process. In any view, the subsequent developments of issuance of fresh tender notice etc., would furnish a fresh cause of action to the appellant. The appellant is not precluded to take recourse, as may be permissible in law, to avail any remedy in respect of his grievance, if has survived.

¶59