IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.23586/2016 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
SMT. VIJAYA H. TANTRY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WIFE OF H.G. TANTRY LAKSHMI NIVAS POST PADUR UDUPI-574 106. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMAESHCHANDRA, ADV.) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF POSTS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PARLIAMENTARY HOUSE NEW DELHI-110 001.
2. POST MASTER GENERAL S.K.REGION GENERAL POST OFFICE BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.
3. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE PUTTUR DIVISION, PUTTUR D.K.-574 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. PRAMOD, CGCS) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SAID NOTIFICATION MEMO DATED 13.04.2016 AT PUTTUR (D.K.) AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the tender notification dated 13.04.2016 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner relying on the document at Annexure-B seeks to contend that the work which had been assigned to the petitioner was for the period of three years between 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2017. In that light, the petitioner contends that the issue of the tender notification even prior to the said period coming to an end would not be justified.
2. The respondents have filed their objection statement and the learned counsel for the respondents would however dispute the said position and contend that the said period is not relevant for the said purpose inasmuch as the period is only for the purpose of claiming subsidy.
3. Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact that this Court while directing notice to the respondents had permitted the petitioner to participate in the tender process without prejudice to the contentions, only if the petitioner had participated in the said process, any consideration relating to the work order subsequent to 31.12.2017 would have arisen.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has not participated in the tender process and the petitioner in any event does not dispute the said position.
5. Therefore, in that circumstance, irrespective of the nature of the right as claimed by the petitioner, in any event, since the petitioner contends right only up to 31.12.2017, without adverting to the other aspects of the matter, the interest of both the parties could be protected, if an appropriate order is made herein. In that view, the respondents are permitted to proceed further with the tender process. However, the work order shall be issued in favour of such successful bidder only with effect subsequent to 31.12.2017 and until then, if the petitioner is carrying on the work, the same shall not be disturbed.
The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above direction.
Sd/- JUDGE ST