High CourtsDIVISION BENCH(2017) 07 KAR CK 0109

PRABHAKAR H.J. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA RERPESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, & ORS.

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 26 July 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, P S Dinesh Kumar
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
4226-4227 of 2017 and Writ Appeal No 4228 of 2017 (GM-TEN)

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 278 words
1.

All these appeals, being Writ Appeal Nos.4226- 4227 of 2017 and Writ Appeal No.4228 of 2017, are taken up for hearing as, by a common order, the writ petitions were disposed of.

2.

The appeals are barred by limitation. However, as the matter concerns project of drinking water supply, we took up the appeals for consideration on merits.

3.

A tender was invited for implementation of a drinking water supply project to Balenahalli and twenty other villages in Tarikere Taluk.

4.

The appellant-writ petitioner submitted his bid. The bid was accepted and he was entrusted to do the work. It is admitted that the work could not be completed within the timeframe despite several undertakings given by the writ petitioner to complete the work. There was some dispute with regard to extent of work completed by the writ petitioner. However, as he was failed to implement the project, the authorities cancelled the tender and invoked the bank guarantee. A fresh tender notice was issued.

5.

The order cancelling the tender agreement and the order proposing to issue a fresh notification for implementation of the project have been challenged before the Hon''ble Single Judge.

6.

Having regard to the fact that the contract was terminated for non-completion of the work entrusted, the Hon''ble Single Judge, rightly, dismissed the writ petitions. We do not find any merit in the appeals.

7.

Therefore, the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed.

8.

In view of the dismissal of the appeals, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are, also, dismissed.

9.

We make no order as to costs.