A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce a contractual arrangement that is either determinable in nature or has already expired by efflux of time, as there is no subsisting enforceable right to warrant the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

IN WP No. 12143/2025

BETWEEN:

MATHA TECHNOLOGIES

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER AND

DULY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,

MR. RAMAPPA RATHOD

O/A NO. 106, MATHRU KRUPA, 1ST MAIN,

5TH CROSS, SAPTHAGIRI NAGARA

YALAKKI SHETTAR COLONY

DHARWAD-580 004

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADGI, SR. COUNSEL FOR

SMT. SANJEEVINI PRABHULING NAVADGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,

6TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING,

DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI,

BENGALURU-560001.

REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2. THE COMMISSIONER,

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,

TANTRIKA SHIKSHANA BHAVANA,

PALACE ROAD,

BENGALURU-560001

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. KIRAN V. RON, ADDL. AG FOR

SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE BEARING NO. DTE/06/IST(3)/2024 DATED 12.02.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 CANCELLING THE TENDER AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER AND APPROVAL GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR CANCELLATION OF TENDER VIDE ITS COMMUNICATION BEARING NO. ED 222 DTE 2024, DATED 24-01-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONTINUE THE ARRANGEMENT AS PER THE WORK ORDER BEARING NO.DTE EST (3) 2017/1769/A DATED 21.07.2018 READ WITH AGREEMENT DATED 22-09-2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND E RESPECTIVELY.

IN WP NO. 12145/2025

BETWEEN:

OBJECT TECHNOLOGIES

PARTNERSHIP FIRM

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER

AND DULY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,

MR. A NAGARAJ, O/A NO. 11/39A,

1ST FLOOR, BULL TEMPLE ROAD

BASAVANAGUDI

BANGALORE-560 004

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADGI, SR. COUNSEL FOR

SMT. SANJEEVINI PRABHULING NAVADGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,

6TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING,

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,

BENGALURU-560001.

REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2. THE COMMISSIONER,

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,

TANTRIKA SHIKSHANA BHAVANA,

PALACE ROAD,

BENGALURU-560001

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. KIRAN V. RON, ADDL. AG FOR

SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE BEARING NO. DTE/06/IST(3)/2024 DATED 12.02.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 CANCELLING THE TENDER AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER AND APPROVAL GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR CANCELLATION OF TENDER VIDE ITS COMMUNICATION BEARING NO. ED 222 DTE 2024, DATED 24-01-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONTINUE THE ARRANGEMENT AS PER THE WORK ORDER BEARING NO. DTE EST (3) 2017/1769/A DATED 21.07.2018 READ WITH AGREEMENT DATED 22-09-2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND E RESPECTIVELY.

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned writ petitions are instituted by two private partnership firms calling in question the legality and correctness of the action of respondent No.1 in approving the cancellation of the tender earlier awarded in favour of the petitioners, culminating in communication bearing No. ED-222-DTE-2024 dated 24.01.2025, produced at Annexures-A and B respectively. Consequentially, the petitioners have sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to continue the contractual arrangement in terms of the work orders issued in their favour.

2. The gravamen of the grievance, as projected in both the petitions, is that pursuant to a tender process initiated by the Directorate of Technical Education, the petitioners were invited for negotiations, wherein, through a consensual arrangement, the petitioners agreed to apportion the scope of work by dividing the operational responsibilities, each firm undertaking services in 15 districts. It is the specific case of the petitioners that such division of contractual obligations was not unilateral, but a mutually agreed arrangement arrived at in the presence of the departmental authorities.

3. It is further contended that followi