IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.8375/2016 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN M/S SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RANI SEETHA HALL, 6TH FLOOR, NO.603 ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR MR. S.V.RAAMASWAMEE. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI ISMAIL M MUSBA, ADV.) AND 1. THE KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD., SHAKTHI BHAVAN, NO.82, III FLOOR, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. KARAM CHAND THAPAR AND BROS (C.S) LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: THAPAR HOUSE, 25, BRABOURNE ROAD, KOLKATA-01 (WEST BENGAL) REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER ALSO AT:
BUX RANKA HOUSE, SRI.N.R.SQUARE, OTC ROAD, BANGALORE-560002. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ASHWINI PATIL , ADV. FOR SRI AJAY J.NANDALIKE, ADV. FOR R1, SRI M NAGAPRASANNA, SR.COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT-2.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD.10.2.2016 VIDE ANNEX-A WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Ismail.M.Musba, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri M.Nagaprasanna, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.2.
Smt. Ashwini Patil for Sri.Ajay.J.Nandalike, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter-alia seeks for direction to respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 10.02.2016 submitted by the petitioner within a reasonable time.
4. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, Sri M.Nagaprasanna, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.2 submits that work order in respect of contract in question was issued in favour of respondent No.2 on 22.01.2016. Thereafter, an agreement was executed in favour of the petitioner on 05.02.2016. It is further submitted that a fresh Notice Inviting Tender has been issued on 08.11.2018 and the completion of the work order has already been issued in favour of respondent No.2 on 08.03.2019.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance made by the petitioner in its representation is yet to be adjudicated.
6. In view of the aforesaid fact situation, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VM CT-HR