IN THE EIGH CQURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN GALGKE
DATED THIS THE 4m DAY 01?' AUGUST 2009; V
BEFQRE ' » . ~ '
mg HQNBLE MR. JUSTICE A.JYI'4J;G{I;§;--
WRIT PETITION NO. 19385;%2o0§,*%(c§:xMfe:n&)
BETWEEN: L %
Raopa Engineering C0rpmfation’,”” –. V’
Jyothi .Building, Maidan–R{aéad;’_ V T u A
Ixéfangalore ~– SYS 061, ‘
A registfirtad parmr:_rshipAfirm’». ‘
Represerzied by_,its_ 1 V’
Managng _ ” V
Sri. Navirz. {)11;aji”:{_ira”’17§,._S1ix{z:;1f1*1a.’ -~ . . .. .FE3’I’I’£’iONER
{B§%xSri.Sa¥fi:é3izéI1fifa::_:B~ij_ai, Adv.)
AND : A
1 ” ‘~ 2. Ciaiwery I’#3’t:er,23Lra1’i
H’ mgems; Lt:s.:”1«.J_,._ 4&1 Flam”,
vC,;cf£¢e%%T39as::+;3’Bui:dnzg,
.Df,ALmb€d_kafR0ad, –
Ba;f:ga1Q.1’§’;27i+_»56Q 001,
_ Répresfinted by its
.Ma1:1a:§’13.g Biractor.
Chiffff Engineer,
7.{I*’I”1 lga.*{.’10:1 South,
V Cauvery Ncseravari
V “Nigama Ltd.,
K.R.Moha.fla,
Myscyrc -~ 5′?G (._}047§
” M’
bié ffc;:Ls;j>ectn’c1f-‘» .§:;§f;¢«.eI1tire wcrk relating to suppiy,
‘._ra1’¢¢’t:’£Qn,.V_v €}.5c::_’ific&tion and c0:11I:1iSsiniI1g of
.. with the afiied Work far Lift Efzigatisn
H at Garkhaily, Chanmapatxaa Taiuk,
.___” “Ra ;na11agara:m Distiiat- it appears mare was 3 deiay in
” .ce::mpIeti0I1 cf the werk. fiance, a meeting was
3. Executive Engnear,
Cauvery Nesravari Nigama Ltd,
Manchanabela Preject Division,
Ramanagaram,
Raxnanagaranl Qistrici. . . .§Rfs3SP’O.?%{{}”}33E:E -1: ‘ _ V
(83; Sri.K.L.Rame:sh, Adv. for (21 R3,. »
Sri.M.RC. Ravi, Aciv. fzrzffii é%R3«}_ .y «
This writ petitiois fi1:=:d’*-.L.1nde:’v.A1″tiC1i5%S 2:25 3:516
227 of ‘£1516 C0£’1:’s’i;ii:uti0n Of I11(;1i:»zi3e*.iYtE1 a ‘p._r_a§’=::.’ ttfiviquash
the: order dated 02.G3.2OO9V_._._1§a.sse;d bywihe R8 in
stappage €)fAI1I}€X’z1I”€ ~~a_nd_V€tc.’ 1′ V H M
This Writ petition prelirninary
hearing, this da§,f,*”i;¥;e X’i:f19.C§€’;.:’fi:1€ foizlcilwing:
TEE: : ‘ was accepted by the
re5po:1den’é’s, %’I’t165V’;;euz:i1:i’r;:f:;g2r submitted item wise tenafier
cQ:I:p0t:en’t§é~I’Lj —:12}? pumping machixleries and accessories
I
%
schefiuied iaetween the petitioner and tbs I’€S§3OIiC§fiI1tSfl
-5-
were is fake iI”1’§{?:’ consideration the meeting which was
had an 17. 11.12008 and the reply fives on 04. A4
am of the Vi€’W that the question of upsettirxgfiiie ”
on the geund that there is :10 apf-iicatiécn-‘cf ticés
not arise.
5. Appsaremfly, the enfiiré’ ~v..:;1isp9p1tee§, *.a;f;fi::.1di’:..;’é:%3111ii”e
arouné ‘she terms of the. contmcfiv-. Rance, ‘bf the
View that the question of ‘e§<_::311ii,r3.§1}:?g t_i*1<;3_$a:L{1:1esti0ns in a
writ petition u:1<ifcé:*v.. ".Cé;3mstituii0n of
Ezzdia wauici Apex Court in the
C836 Gf Its Ltd., 8:: others V/S.
Vardar; Li;1k.#rs reported it} 2068 AIR
‘V .. hafs 0i)’S6.’i*:–.–‘–€d thus:
V whether there was <1 csnfract
H " C3125' ':;£é'§:et§1§é}r there was at breach may,
iz:'3u.:réire'~::*: be examined inczidentaily whiée
V _ the reasanableneas af the
A . jbézgimizzistrazéye action, But where the
ejiéestion whether there was ex cazzfract, is
T serwusly disputed the High Court cannot
assume that there was a vaiid contract and
/3»
.. 5 –
on that basis, examine the validity of the
administrative action, ‘
6. If any dacision is required in this raga-1f*é’i–»a
can refer to a Divisicm Berach miing of this Cogift. vin: us mxzsfiaration, I am of
the Vi€’W the’ Vqi1eAS1:i{§i*’.1 of granting the relief sought
‘fer by izhé :p€%tiZ:iat1e:9’i$%:fiu.Id not arise.
rejected.
A ‘—.51}v_a:2t3%:€%%r 1’e2:13?edies availabla :0 the petitioner are
Sci/..
IUDGE
SP8