Abdul Sabhan vs The Chairman on 17 July, 2009

{N THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE

DATED THIS THE 17:11 DAY OF JULY 3365;: L' 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTI(f;E"AJfI_' J   

WRIT PETITION No.1€)2_82 e§Je2é09iCgM-:'ENj  ' 

BETWEEN:

Abdul Subhan,
S/0 Kalandar Sal), _ V _ ._  1
Aged about 46 years,   " '

Proprietor:  Timbers 'i'1"a2"1_ei'e,

R/at Near: Gu1;«b:"(;hef::k _:Pd.St,v,   u 

B.M.Rea(i,. -  _  

Sri Ashok s.;.iensijr1:<ai;1=m:v*;e=eV    

AND:

1.

The Chairma;1,"--«  
Coffee 

L~*'Bafi8a1§i'e-;5§0..ee0o  ' %%%%% ~ «

. The   

Co£Tee"'°Bjoai'd;...,. 

1 V'  .v.Banga.1Q3:e-560 -
;.: .. J0iz1t'Qirector (Extension),
"  =B_oarci,
Haggai}. 

Q  Iiieputy Director (ffixiension),

Goifee Board, Lingawahna Oni,

L " Gandhmagar Road, Virajpet,
 Kodagu ii)isU'i{:t.

. The Chaiiman,

Tender Selection Special Cemmitiee,

' ...PETITIONER



(3/0 The Beputy Director (Extu),
Coffee Board, Virajpet, 
Kociagu District. ...RE)SPONDEN'}'S_ 

This W.P is filed under Articles 226 at}c;1_;'2;?.'?.f_0f  _
Constitution of India praying to quash tile  
order Vidfl Ax1ne:xure~»E dated 8.6.200? .'is';*iS~1}..:(:'{i 'bygtirgé  V
Deputing Director (Extension) I-Céfieeé -V 'fVirajpet*'A
under his No.DDV/Extn/2009» IQ] 30A1,_1 "   

This W.P coming on vft:r.._VpreV1'i1I1firLa;"yr~   *
day, the Court made the followifig:  _   

*oRnER W.
The petitioner <::§a--1'VmT   §arfi{.:ipated in the

tender     respbndent.

The teririér  _t:h"<V-§i3etitio1*:er claims that he
was a sr:cVcessfL11r_.b§¢£dér-.$116?' his offer was accepted. The

fom'£h--. resfiénrieiafg fioxréver, arbitrarily canceiled the

 texidar jzéinécgdmgs without assigning my reasons. The

   this Court aggrieved by the arbitrary

can'ee11a_fi0m.§'

"  'T  Learned counsei appearing far the petitioner

V'   srgbmits that no reasons are forthcoming for

V  , '4 cancefiaticsn 9f the tender notification.

3. 'I'wo optiens art: open for the petitioner. if, he is

aggieveci by the vioiation of the tenns of the terrier, he /fit

,/:<'/'



has to file a suit for damages. Ever} otherwise, it is to

be noticed that a communication issued by me 

responéent to the petitioner would indieate_  _

competent authority has cancelled _. ~    "  

{eI1der~cum--auc:tion proceedings  rejeeted 

bids regarding disposal of~'$ii?er  Vtrees.--é£.:_VV fI'§:c%

Gonicoppal. The  of  was
deposited is aiso refundefij _ -the petitioner,
in his wisdom has sent:b2i(:1€i"§1fie..(§§eIi3e;1ff{" 

Haviflge  to 'f:§*.et"'f;11%§;1t the tender itself is
aborted, 't,heef the fourth respondent

to award tiinétezxder-. te~–.st:he”»LVpetitiener would not arise. If

V’ Vx;1ade’Vby*’fi”1e petitioner for refund ef the said

ihguih respondent shad} consider the same.

If has suffered any damages, it is apex: for

~._’_ ‘i;he have his gievance redressed eisewhere.

With this ahservaiien, the petition stanés rejected,

Sd/-

Iudge

AI/~«