IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.14404 OF 2016 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
M/s. Kanthi Agency Network, No.17, 5th Block, Shivashakthi Road, Shakthi Nagar, Mysuru-570 019.
Rep: by its Managing Partner, Sri. Shivanna, Aged about 47 years, S/o. Late Siddaiah ….Petitioner (By Sri. Lohitaswa Banakar, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Department of Social Welfare, Rep by its Secretary, Vikasa Soudha, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Bengaluru-01.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Chamaraja Nagar-571 313, Chamaraja Nagar District.
3. The Deputy Director, The Social Welfare Department, Chamaraja Nagar-571 313, Chamaraja Nagar District. …Respondents (By Sri.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, AGA for R1 & R2; Notice not ordered in r/o R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to allot tender work and thereby issue work orders pursuant to the tender notification dated 17.11.2015 at Annexure-A in favor of the petitioner and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Lohitaswa Banakar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of both parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or Order or direction, in the nature of a Writ, directing the Respondents to allot tender work and thereby issue work orders pursuant to the tender Notification bearing No.
G¥À/¸ÀPÀE/¢2/¹§âA¢/¦.Dgï.14/2015-16 dated 17.11.2015 vide Annexure-A in favour of the petitioner.
b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.2, to consider the Representation dated 29/02/2016 vide Annexure-E and F, and consequently allot work orders infavour of Petitioner and c) Pass such other orders, as the Petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstance of the case, including the cost of the proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned AGA for the respondents submitted that the period for which tender was issued has already expired and thereafter, two tenders have been issued in respect of the work in question. Therefore, in view of the subsequent events, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
4. The aforesaid statement of fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-