IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.56434 OF 2014 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
M/s.DEEPAK CABLES (INDIA) LTD. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI K.VENKATESHWARA RAO SON OF LATE K.SURYA RAO, AGED 52 YEARS, NO.7, N.S.IYENGAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. ...PETITIONER (By Smt.KUSUMA.R.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR Sri.L.M.CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.
2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.
3. CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY) TENDERING AND PROCUREMENT, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.
4. CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY) TRANSMISSION ZONE-BENGALURU, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, A.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 009.
5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) BENGALURU MAJOR WORKS, SOUTH DIVISION, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 009.
... RESPONDENTS (By Sri PRADEEP DARAK, ADVOCATE FOR Sri S.SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH RESULTED IN PASSING THE ORDER IMPUGNED AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 10.10.2014 PASSED BY THE R-3 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 10.10.2014 PASSED BY THE R-3 AND OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM VIDE ANNEXURE-A1 DATED 05.12.2014 PASSED BY THE R-5, ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Smt.Kusuma R.Prasad, learned counsel for Sri.L.M.Chidanandayya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Pradeep Darak, learned counsel for Sri.S.Sriranga, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a memo seeking dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that in respect of the relief sought in the petition, the petitioner had filed CMP No.26 of 2019 in which an Arbitrator has been appointed to adjudicate the arbitration proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to prosecute two remedies simultaneously.
3. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the parties to prosecute the proceedings pending before the learned Arbitrator.
Needless to state that the petitioner is granted liberty to seek revival of the writ petition, incase, the petitioner finds that the statement made by the respondents on behalf of the petitioner is incorrect.
With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE DH