IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.5154 OF 2017 (GM-TEN) Between:
GEA Process Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. A company incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 Having its registered office at Savli Road, Vadodara – 397 740 Gujarat Represented by its authorized signatory Kumar Ashish Aged about 37 years ... Appellant (By Sri.Pramod Nair, Advocate) And:
1. Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru Rural & Ramanagara District Co-operative Milk Producers’ Societies Union Limited Bengaluru Dairy Dr.M.H.Marigowda Road Bangalore – 560 029 Represented by its Managing Director 2. State of Karnataka Department of Co-operation 6th Floor, M.S.Building Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore – 560 001 Represented by its Secretary ... Respondents (Sri.B.L.Sanjeev, Advocate for respondent No.1 Sri.V.Sreenidhi, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2) ---
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act, praying to set aside the order dated 11.8.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.26087/2017.
This appeal coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Chief Justice, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The writ petitioner is the appellant before us.
2. On the prayer of Mr.B.L.Sanjeev, learned advocate, liberty is granted to him to file vakalathnama on behalf of the respondent No.1.
3. By the order impugned the Hon’ble Single Judge directed the respondent No.1, that is, Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru Rural and Ramanagara District Co-operative Milk Producers’ Societies Union Limited, to hold negotiations with the bidders on August 28, 2017, and after holding such negotiations, to finalise the award of contract in favour of the bidder, who would give a better offer to the respondents.
4. Mr.B.L.Sanjeev, learned advocate, appears for the respondent No.1 and files a memorandum in the Court. Let it be kept with the record.
Mr.Sanjeev submits that negotiations were held on August 28, 2017, and the present writ petitioner – appellant became the lowest bidder. Mr.Sanjeev submits, on instructions, that the writ petitioner – appellant is the lower bidder and the contract will be given to them.
5. We feel that there is nothing further to be decided in the writ appeal. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous.
6. In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed.
7. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB