Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a registered Class-I Contractor, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, seeking to quash letters dated 7.9-4.2018 and 10.5.2018 issued by the Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation (respondent No.2) refusing to honour his final bills for completed tender work. The petitioner alleged that despite certification of completion of the tender work, the respondents failed to pay the bills. The matter came up for preliminary hearing in 'B' Group. On the hearing date, the petitioner was absent. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued vehemently that there was no reason for not honouring the bills, but then stated that "he leaves certain things to the wild imagination of the Court." The court found this submission vague and lacking in substance. The court noted that the petitioner had not pursued the petition diligently. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution. The court did not consider the merits of the case due to the petitioner's absence and the counsel's unhelpful submission.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Non-Prosecution - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner, a Class-I Contractor, sought quashing of letters refusing to honour final bills for completed tender work. The petitioner was absent and counsel made a vague submission leaving matters to the court's imagination. The court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution, holding that the petitioner failed to pursue the remedy diligently. (Para 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioner is absent and counsel makes a vague submission leaving matters to the court's imagination.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
- Non-prosecution of petition
- Dismissal for default
