Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, three concrete products firms, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondent, the Managing Director of MESCOM, to consider their representations (Annexures J, K, and L) and allow them to participate in a tender process. The matter came up for hearing before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru on 1st July 2020. At the hearing, Shri Jagadeeshachari, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that he did not press the petition and undertook to send a memo for withdrawal through email. He further stated that a copy of the memo for withdrawal had already been served on the learned advocate for the respondent. Smt. Rakshitha D.J., learned advocate for the respondent, acknowledged receipt of the memo. In view of the submission, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The court also noted that an interlocutory application (I.A.No.1/2020) did not survive for consideration and stood disposed of. No costs were awarded. The judgment is a brief order recording the withdrawal and dismissal without any adjudication on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Withdrawal of Petition - Petitioners sought directions to respondent to consider their representations for participation in tender process - Counsel for petitioners submitted that he does not press the petition and undertook to send a memo for withdrawal - Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn without adjudicating on merits - Held that once petition is withdrawn, no further orders are required (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to directions to the respondent to consider their representations and allow them to participate in the tender process.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. I.A.No.1/2020 does not survive and stands disposed of. No costs.
Law Points
- Withdrawal of petition
- Dismissal as withdrawn
- No adjudication on merits
