The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct respondent no.1 to issue the necessary order or notification bringing into the knowledge of all the MLAs/politicians in the state not to interfere in any manner with the functioning of any executive or administrative bodies including municipal corporations; not to pressurize them to work in a particular manner or to do a certain thing in a manner not known to law; and, not to seek favors from any service provider or contractor or to threaten them of any adverse consequences. The Court observed that the respondent would always be at liberty to take such action in accordance with the law as available to them as also in terms of the contract. The petitioner cannot seek such a relief to tie down the respondents.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner claims to have been awarded a contract for carrying out works relating to Solid Waste Management in terms of the letter of acceptance dated 27.8.2019, pursuant to which an agreement dated 11.8.2020 was executed. Thereafter, extension orders were granted on 5.3.2022, 6.3.02022, and 22.9.2023. The said extension is being granted until a new agency is finalized to attend the process or further orders. The apprehension on the part of the petitioner is that at the intervention of MLAs and Politicians of the State, the respondent is likely to cancel the contract awarded to the petitioner without following due process of law. In that view of the matter the aforesaid reliefs have been sought, the interim relief that is sought is not to cancel the termination of service of the contract to the petitioner in any manner unknown to law.
The Court noted that there has been no notice which has been issued by a respondent nor any steps taken by the respondents against the petitioner for cancellation of the tender.
The Court observed that at this stage, the petitioner cannot approach a writ Court on the basis of the anticipatory breach which is not permissible. The respondent would always be at liberty to take such action in accordance with the law as available to them as also in terms of the contract. The petitioner cannot seek such a relief to tie down the respondents. If at all, respondents have any grievance or any ground to cancel the contract of the petitioner they would be free to do so, after issuing necessary notice and providing an opportunity to the petitioner to reply thereon.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, disposing of the petition, held that both the reliefs that have been sought amount to an abuse of process of the Court, requiring the Court to impose exemplary cost on the petitioner for such abuse of process of the Court.
Case Title: M/S CPC And Sons v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Suraj Govindaraj
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 29033 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Navuduri Sathya Vijayanth Babu
Advocate for the Respondents: Ms. Sarita Kulkarni
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
