IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.107460 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)

BETWEEN:

JAYARAJ S/O. NARAYANAPPA SANGAPUR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WARD NO.1, SANGAPUR – 583 227, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI V. S. KALASURMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT, ANEGUNDI, GANGAVATHI – 583 227, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

2. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, ANEGUNDI, ANEGUNDI – 583 227, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

3. T. S. GOPIKRISHNA DVP LKD+ o AI a i a0 Sg cr T t5 i e H na T t 3: ta aA I 0 i 2t l H o L a0 y n A k 2 N : s a L 5 H iI g D. N 0 i n gh G 1 e ha. dA 2 rC P w2 b o P y a1 u A d0 r t :B5 oe7 fn:2c6h S/O. T. S. RAMACHANDRA ACHAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: ANEGUNDI – 583 227, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;

SRI V.P.VADAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. GRA PAM.AA/2024-25 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 DATED 02-12-2024 AND CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER BEARING NO. NO. GRA PAM/NO/2024-25 DATED 30-11-2024 VIDE ANNEXURE- A AND B RESPECTIVELY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing no. gra pam.aa/2024-25 passed by the respondent no. 2 dated 02-12-2024 and consequential order bearing no. no. gra pam/no/2024-25 dated 30-11-2024 vide Annexure- A and B respectively.

b) Grant such other relief/s as deems fit in the circumstances of the case and allow the writ petition with costs in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Heard Sri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Bhusan B. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri V.P. Vadavi, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. The petitioner calls in question an order dated

02.12.2024, by which, work order is issued to the private respondent herein. A notice inviting tender becomes the subject matter of the proceedings before this Court in Writ Petition No.102822/2024 filed by one V H Nikhil who was a participant in the tender. Another petition by the third respondent herein in Writ Petition No.103474/2024. The Coordinate Bench answering his claim, passes the following order :

i. This petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned order at Annexure-A dated

05.04.2024 is hereby quashed.

iii. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the requisition made by the petitioner vide Annexures-D and D1 dated 19.06.2024 and if the petitioner is eligible and fulfils all the requirements, suitable orders shall be passed in accordance with law within the time frame of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

4. Pursuant to the said order, it transpires that the tender scrutiny committee or the tender inviting authorities has issued the impugned order in favour of the third respondent. The petitioner is wanting to challenge it. The issue is “who is the petitioner”. The petitioner is neither participant in the tender nor is a party to the proceedings in both the cases referred to herein above. He admits that he is a stranger.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V.S. Kalasurmath with vehemence is that, if the panchayat would notify a tender, he would become a participant in the tender and therefore his rights are curtailed as third respondent has issued the work order contrary to law.

6. It is his submission that this Court directed consideration of the case, but an order is issued on the ground that he has been directed to be issued a work order. B