IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.10206 OF 2016(GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
M/s Sanjay Marketing and Publicity Services, No.131, 1st Floor, 15th Main, 35th Cross, 4th ‘T’ Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 041.
By its Sole Proprietor Sri.R.Nagaraj. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Reuben Jacob, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Karnataka Public Works Department, Vikasa Soudha Bangalore-560 001.
2. Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited, 1st Floor, 16/J, Below Tank Bed Area, Thimmaiah Road Cross, Bangalore-560 052.
By its Managing Director.
3. The Commissioner of Police, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001.
4. The Addl. Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001. ...Respondents (By Smt. M.C.Nagashree, AGA. for R1,R3 & R4: Sri.Ajay J Nandalike, Advocate for R2) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the proceedings and decision dated: 03.10.2015 and further quash the termination letter dated: 24.11.2015 issued by R-2 at Annexure-F and etc.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner was awarded with a contract on 27th February 2015. On 8th June 2015, second respondent issued a notice to proceed with work. On 8th July 2015, second respondent informed that user firm had requested to withhold activities until grants were released from Government. Finally, second respondent cancelled the contract on 24th November 2015.
2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of cancellation order.
3. Sri Reuben Jacob, learned advocate submitted that pursuant to earlier directions of this Court second respondent has filed an affidavit dated 20th December 2017 stating that subject contract has not been re-tendered. In the circumstances, he seeks leave to work out his remedies before the civil court to claim damages.
4. Sri Ajay J.Nandalike, learned advocate for second respondent submitted that writ petition is not maintainable as it is in the nature of seeking specific performance.
5. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner Sri Reuben Jacob, this petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits. It is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition does not come in the way of petitioner seeking appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-