IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.27973 OF 2018 AND WRIT PETITION Nos.28034-28037 OF 2018(GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
1.P. PARAMESH @ PARAMESHWARAIAH S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA @ GOVINDAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT No:5615/1176, VINAYAKANAGAR, PAVAGADA TOWN PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-561 202.
2.K V SOMANATH S/O K.VENKATACHALAPATHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT SIRA ROAD, PAVAGADA TOWN, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-561 202.
3.B L MAMATHA W/O K.RAVINDRA SETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT No.1114, 1ST CROSS, BANASHANKARI BADAVANE PAVAGADA TOWN PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-561 202.
4.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O NARASIMHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT No.350, SHANTHINAGAR, PAVAGADA TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT-561 202.
..PETITIONERS (BY SMT M V THANUJA, ADVOCATE – ABSENT) AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2.THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPALITIES, UNITY BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
3.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 102.
4.THE CHIEF OFFICER PAVAGADA TOWN MUNICIPALITY, PAVAGADA, PAVAGADA (TALUK) TUMKUR DISTRICT-561 202.
..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3, SRI MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4-ABSENT) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED COMMERCIAL SHOPS E-TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 25.05.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-Z AND IMPUGNED AUCTION NOTICE PUBLISHED IN VIJAYAVANI DAILY KANNADA NEWSPAPER DATED 20.06.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-X ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER None for the petitioners.
Mr.Vijay Kumar A Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
None had appeared on behalf of the petitioners on 16.08.2019. Thereupon hearing of the petitions was deferred and it was directed that in case petitioners do not appear on the next date of hearing, appropriate orders would be passed.
Today also none appear on behalf of the petitioners. It appears that petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petitions. Accordingly same are dismissed for want of prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN