IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.49264 OF 2014 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
SMT. VADAMABAI WIFE OF LATE SOHAN RAJ AGED 83 YEARS PROPRIETOR: M/S. K.SOHAN RAJ 736, MANDIPET, DAVANAGERE KARNATAKA STATE REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI TEJU S. JAIN AGED 46 YEARS SON OF LATE K. SOHAN RAJ RESIDING AT 736, MANDIPET DAVANAGERE-577 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV.) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NEW GOVERNMENT OFFICES NRAPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-575 001.
2. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-575 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, A.G.A.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION/ORDER DTD 07.10.2014 PASSED BY THE R-1 WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNX-J AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Subramanya R., learned counsel for petitioner. Sri Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of learned counsel for 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 has assailed the validity of the order dated 07.10.2014, by which the work order issued in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the tender proceeding for supply of steam boilers in relation of 365 schools in the State of Karnataka has been cancelled.
4. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 01.04.2019 stating that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has received payment in respect of 86 steam boilers and the petitioner be granted the liberty to approach the State Government for reconsideration of the order which has been impugned in this petition dated 07.10.2014 and to make a representation with regard to the petitioner’s grievance. The aforesaid memo is taken on record.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that, in case the petitioner submits such a representation, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
6. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that in case the petitioner submits such a representation to the competent authority, the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST