IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.42559 OF 2016 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
M/S. ANNAPOORNESHWARI ENTERPRISES CLASS-I ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS NO.534, 6TH MAIN ROAD K.N. EXTENSION, YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE-560 022 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR S. BASAVARAJ CLASS-I ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADV.) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) EAST ZONE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2-ABSENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 30.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE CORRIGENDUM AS WAS ISSUED EARLIER IN THE YEAR 2012 INCORPORATING FURNISHING OF THE GUARANTEE AS WAS IMPOSED BY OTHER SIMILAR CORPORATIONS AND MUNICPAL COUNCILS IN THE STATE AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND C ISSUED BY THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KOLAR DATED 16.10.2015 AT ANNEXURE-B AT CONDITION NO.25.1 AND MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION MANGALORE DATED: 20.07.2015 AT ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN “B” GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel for petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and perused the records.
3. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of certiorari to quash the tender notification dated 30.06.2016 issued by respondent No.2.
4. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that by the aforesaid tender notification, tenders were invited for a period of one year for operation and maintenance of street lights at Ganganagara and Hebbak area and a Bench of this Court by an ad-interim order dated 05.08.2016 permitted the petitioner to participate and submit his tender to the respondents.
5. Admittedly, the period for which the tender was called has expired and therefore, the issue raised in this writ petition has been rendered academic. Therefore, nothing further survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to agitate his grievance before an appropriate forum, if the same still subsists.
Sd/- JUDGE ST