IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.Nos.20851-20855 OF 2015(GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
M/s Mimesis Power Projects Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Director Mr. Sudhir Kumar.C No.12/1, Bellary Road, Hebbal Bangalore-560024. … Petitioner (By Ms.Deepika Mahesh, Advocate for Sri. H.Srinivas Rao, Advocate) AND:
1. Government of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Bangalore-560 001 Represented by Chief Secretary 2. Government of Karnataka Department of Energy Vikas Soudha Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore-560 001 Represented by Principal Secretary 3. Government of Karnataka Department of Irrigation Vikasa Soudha Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore 560001 Represented by Principal Secretary 4. Krishna Bhaghya Jala Nigama Ltd., (KBJNL) PWD Annexe, 3rd Floor K.R.Circle, Bangalore-560001. Represented by Managing Director 5. Karnataka Renewable Energy Development Ltd.,(KREDL) No.19, Maj.Gen.A.D.Loganadhan INA Cross, Queen’s Road Bangalore-560052. ... Respondents (By Smt.Niloufer Akbar, AGA. For R1 to R3:
Sri. Prashanth B.R. for Sri M.R.C.Ravi, Advocate for R4: Sri. Murugesh V Charati, Advocate for R5) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare the tender notification dated:04.05.2015 issued by the R4 calling for tenders to set up of Mini Hydel Projects under Scheme I at KM 100.570 of NRBC extension in Raichur, Karnataka and Scheme II at KM 102.20 of NRBC extension in Raichur Karnataka vide Annexure-C as illegal and invalid & etc.
These writ petitions, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER These writ petitions are directed against the tender notification dated 04.05.2015 vide Annexure-C issued by the fourth respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that pursuant to the tender notification dated 04.05.2015 respondents have not proceeded with the tender notification and also they have not called for any other tender. Therefore, the writ petitions do not survive for consideration.
3. The submission is placed on record.
4. These writ petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-