- 1 -

WP No. 22793 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION NO. 22793 OF 2022 (GM-TEN)

BETWEEN:

1.

THE CAP A PIE,

D-12, FIRST FLOOR PRUTHVI,

NEAR JODHPUR CROSS ROADS,

SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD 3 380 015.

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,

BHUPESHKUMAR,

S/O JAGADISHCHANDRASHAH,

AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,

R/O D-12, FIRST FLOOR PRUTHVI,

NEAR JODHPUR CROSS ROADS,

SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD 3 380 015.

&PETITIONER

(BY SRI.GIRISH V BHAT., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS,

REPRESENTED BY

SR. DIVISIONAL

MECHANICAL ENGINEER,

BANGALORE DIVISION,

SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,

BANGALORE 3 560 023.

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.B.S.VENKATANARAYANA, ADVOCATE)

R

Digitally signed by

PADMAVATHI B K

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

- 2 -

WP No. 22793 of 2022

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.B/M.271/CONT/LINEN/W AND

I/2022-23 DATED 10.11.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT

TERMINATING THE CONTRACT OF THE PETITIONER VIDE

ANNEXURE 3 K AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the

notice dated 10.11.2022 terminating the contract of the

petitioner and seeks a consequential direction to permit the

petitioner to execute the work in terms of the contract dated

17.10.2022.

2. Heard Sri. Girish V. Bhat, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, Sri. B.S. Venkatanarayana, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent and perused the materials on

record.

3.

Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief are as

follows:

- 3 -

WP No. 22793 of 2022

The petitioner is in the business of performing work of

collection, washing and ironing of bedroll linen supplied to AC

coach

passengers

in

several

trains

coming

under

the

respondent 3 South Western Railways. The respondent- South

Western Railways issue a notice inviting tender for the

aforesaid work which the petitioner is said to be performing on

24.05.2022. The petitioner participates in the said tender. On

17.10.2022 the respondent awards the contract in favour of the

petitioner. In terms of the said order of award of contract, the

petitioner requests permission to execute the work at M/s.

Laundry Labs India Pvt. Ltd., which was not the one that was

necessary in terms of the tender conditions. Noticing the fact

the petitioner did not have appropriate infrastructure and had

deliberately misrepresented with regard to the laundry space

issues a notice on 02.11.2022 seeking to show cause as to why

the contract of the petitioner should not be terminated.

4. The petitioner replies to the said notice. Pending

consideration of the reply, certain developments take place.

The respondent terminates the contract between the petitioner

- 4 -

WP No. 22793 of 2022

and the South Western Railways on account of the aforesaid

circumstance of the act of the petitioner being in violation of

tender conditions. It later transpires that the tender itself gets

cancelled. In the light of the cancellation of the tender, what

remains to be considered is, whether the impugned notice of

termination would be necessary to be gone into.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

though would accept the fact that the tender has been

cancelled and, in the light of such cancellation, the prayer with

regard to termination of the contract of the petitioner would not

survive, the learned counsel claims that he is still aggrieved of

the impugned order dated 10.11.2022 insofar as it blacklists

the petitioner for a period of 2 years.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondent

Sri.B.S.Venkatanarayan

would