Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, H.N. Pruthivinarayan, claiming to be an ongoing contractor, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. The petition sought to quash an e-tender notification dated 10.01.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent (Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Hassan Division) for commercial complexes in the KSRTC bus stand at Hassan. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondents to consider his representations dated 18.11.2022 and 18.01.2023. The court heard the matter and reserved order. Upon consideration, the court noted that the tender process had already concluded and the petitioner had not participated in the tender. Consequently, the court held that the petition had become infructuous and dismissed it. The court did not find any merit in the challenge as the tender process was already over.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Tender Matters - Locus Standi - Petitioner, claiming to be an ongoing contractor, challenged an e-tender notification for commercial complexes at KSRTC bus stand, Hassan - The court held that the tender process had already concluded and the petitioner had not participated in the tender, thus the petition became infructuous - Held that the court cannot entertain a challenge to a tender process that has already been completed (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned e-tender notification dated 10.01.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent for commercial complexes in KSRTC bus stand at Hassan is liable to be quashed and whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner's representations.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous since the tender process had already concluded and the petitioner had not participated in the tender.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
- Tender matters
- Locus standi
- Interim relief
- Mootness
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (10) 21
Writ Petition No.2940 of 2023 (GM-TEN)
Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, Senior Counsel a/w Sri. Venkataramana K S., Advocate for Petitioner; Sri. P D Surana., Advocate for Respondents
The Managing Director, KSRTC, Central Office, Bengaluru and The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Hassan Division
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an e-tender notification for commercial complexes in KSRTC bus stand at Hassan.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned e-tender notification dated 10.01.2023 and direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 18.11.2022 and 18.01.2023.
Filing Reason
Petitioner, claiming to be an ongoing contractor, assailed the e-tender notification issued by the 2nd respondent.
Issues
Whether the impugned e-tender notification is liable to be quashed.
Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner's representations.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he is an ongoing contractor and his representations were not considered.
Respondents argued that the tender process had already concluded and the petitioner had not participated.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition challenging a tender notification becomes infructuous if the tender process has already concluded and the petitioner has not participated in the tender.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner, claiming to be an ongoing contractor, is tapping the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the Notification dated 10.01.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-G calling for e-Tender inter alia in respect of commercial complexes in the KSRTC bus stand at Hassan.
The habendum of the said tender in colloquial reads as under: ...
The petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed on an unspecified date, heard, reserved for order, and pronounced on 04.10.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
