Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2025WP/17963/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ petition (GM-FOR) mandamus; KFDCL forest tender dispute; appeal AAPAJEE114/FPC 2024 dated 8.11.2024; Clause 66 tender notification; Executive Director KFDCL Shimoga adjudication; Managing Director KFDCL Bangalore appellate authority; re-filing permitted within 10 days; limitation objections waived; 3-month disposal timeline; contentions kept open; Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav; decided 16 July 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:26477; WP No. 17963 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; petitioner permitted to re-file his appeal before the Managing Director, KFDCL, Bangalore (respondent No.1) within 10 days without limitation objection; appellate authority directed to dispose of the appeal within 3 months; all contentions kept open; respondents' action made subject to the outcome of the appeal. ¶¶43

Praveen Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondent No.4 (Addl. Chief Secretary, Forest, Ecology and Environment Department) to consider the petitioner's appeal AAPAJEE114/FPC 2024 dated 8.11.2024 filed as per Annexures-L and M. +1 more

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

The appeal made out directly to respondent No.4 is permitted to be re-filed before the Managing Director, KFDCL, Bangalore (respondent No.1), the appellate authority indicated under Clause 66 of the tender notification.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

If the appeal is re-filed before respondent No.1 within 10 days, it is to be taken up without raising any objections on the ground of limitation.ratio¶¶36
Once taken up, the appeal is to be disposed of expeditiously, at any rate within a period not later than 3 months from the date of filing, considering that the present proceedings relate to a tender.ratio¶¶37
Action taken by the respondents is subject to the outcome of the appeal, and if the petitioner succeeds in the appeal, legal consequences will follow.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-FOR) No. 17963 of 2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:26477), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, oral order dated 16 July 2025 by Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav: Praveen Kumar, a forest contractor, sought mandamus directing the Additional Chief Secretary, Forest, Ecology and Environment Department (respondent No.4) to consider his appeal AAPAJEE114/FPC 2024 dated 8.11.2024 filed as per Annexures-L and M. Respondents' counsel placed on record that under Clause 66 of the tender notification, the Executive Director, KFDCL, Shimoga is the authority to adjudicate tender disputes while appeals lie to the Managing Director, KFDCL, Bangalore (respondent No.1). The court permitted the appeal to be re-filed before the Managing Director within 10 days, to be entertained without limitation objections, and directed expeditious disposal within 3 months given the tender context; all contentions were kept open, respondents' action was made subject to the appeal's outcome, and legal consequences were declared to follow on the petitioner's success. Petition disposed of; no precedents cited; no monetary quantum involved; single-judge order, no dissent.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:26477 WP No. 17963 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 17963 OF 2025 (GM-FOR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶11

S/O VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, FOREST CONTRACTOR, R/AT ESTHUR VILLAGE, BENDIGANAHALLI POST, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 122.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., 'VANA VIKASA' 1ST FLOOR, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., VANA VIKASA' 5TH FLOOR, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:26477 WP No. 17963 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CHIRANJEEVI

¶22

S/O ESTHUR NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS FOREST CONTRACTOR, R/AT ESTHUR VILLAGE, BENDIGANAHALLI POST, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 122.

¶23

ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY FOREST , ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT (FOREST-A) BENGALURU-560 001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R4; SRI. R SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DIRECT THE R-4 TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER IN AAPAJEE114/FPC 2024 DATED 8.11.2024 AS PER ANNX-L AND M AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the 4^th respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner as per Annexures-L and M.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:26477 WP No. 17963 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Petitioner is stated to have filed an appeal before the 4^th respondent.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that in terms of Clause 66 of the tender notification, while the Executive Director, Karnataka State Forest Development Corporation Limited (KFDCL), Shimoga, is the Authority to adjudicate on the dispute, the appeal would lie to the Managing Director, KFDCL, Bangalore, who is the 1^st respondent herein.

¶36

In light of the same, if the appeal that is now made out directly to respondent No.4, the same is permitted to be re-filed before the Managing Director, KFDCL, Bangalore - 1^st respondent. If such appeal is refiled before the 1^st respondent within 10 days from today, the same to be taken up without raising any objections on

¶37

the ground of limitation. Once the appeal is taken up, the same to be disposed off expeditiously, at any rate within a period not later than 3 months from the date of filing of

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:26477 WP No. 17963 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

the appeal, considering that the present proceedings

¶42

relates to tender.

¶43

Accordingly, petition is disposed off . All contentions are kept open. Needless to state the action taken by the respondents would be subject to outcome of the appeal. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner succeeds in the appeal, legal consequences would follow.

¶44

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶45

Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.N. Yogish Bhat Vs the Authorised Officer, Icici Bank Limited

Smt. Kavitha G Vs the Authorized Officer/Manager

Mrs. Preethi Shenoy Vs the Authorised Officer

Sri. Swamy K R Vs State Bank of India

Annapurneshwari Recreation and Sports Club Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Hasnain Tayyeb Ashraf Vs the Union of India