IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.40971 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DEPUTY MANAGER-CONTRACTS AND LEGAL SRI ADARSH G K S/O SRI K GOPALA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.30, G P ELITE, 8-2-283/4 ROAD NO.14, BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO.1, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD PHASE SHANDHI VANA, KODIGEHALLI SAHAKARANAGARA BANGALORE-560092. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADV.- ABSENT) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. CHIEF ENGINEER P R ENGINEERING DIVISION KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD RESILDAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-560020.
3. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FORT, BELGAUM-590 001.
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BAGALKOT DIVISION BAGALKOT-587101.
5. CANARA BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER PRIME CORPORATE BRANCH R.P.ROAD, SECUNDERABAD-500 034 RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. H.S. RUKKOJI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R5 ) *********** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION VIDE ANN-A DATED 7.9.2013 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 5TH RESPONDENT; QUASH THE COMMUNICATION VIDE ANN-A DATED 7.9.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT LODGING THE BANK GUARANTEE NOS.
[1] 2657BG3932010 DATED 5.10.2010 FOR RS.1,22,98,783/- [2] 2657BG1232008 DATED 24.3.2008 FOR RS.3,65,000/- AND [3] 2657BG0962008 DATED 23.2.2008 FOR RS.17,00,000/- GIVEN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR ENCASHMENT; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R None for the petitioner.
Sri. H. S. Rukkoji Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submitted that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous by efflux of time as the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner has expired during the pendency of the petition.
3. The aforesaid submission is taken on record.
Accordingly writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE RD