- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19963 WP No. 3162 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 3162 OF 2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. TOILETS AND TOILETS PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TF-10D, VASANT SQUARE MALL VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110 070. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. KUMUD RANJAN KUMAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNDARA RAMAN .M.V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CORPORATION OF CITY OF MANGALORE LALBAGH, MANGALURU-575 003. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. M/S. SERVE FACILITY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., LOWER BENDORE, 2ND CROSS ROAD MANGALURU-575 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SATHY .D, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H.S. AVINASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE WORK ORDER DATED 28.11.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-L ISSUED BY R-1 PERMITTING R-2 TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE THE FACILITY BUILT BY THE PETITIONER. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19963 WP No. 3162 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Petitioner is assailing the work order dated 28.11.2018 issued by the respondent No.1 as per Annexure-L thereby authorizing respondent No.2 to maintain and operate the facility built by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and claims to have engaged in the construction, maintenance, and operation of public toilet complexes at strategic locations for the use and benefit of the general public. The petitioner asserts that pursuant to an agreement dated 01.03.1999, it was granted permission to construct and operate a public toilet complex near Nehru Maidan Market, Mangaluru, for an initial term of three years. It is further contended by the petitioner that the said agreement contemplated an extension of the term by an additional 30 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19963 WP No. 3162 of 2019 years, and in particular, clause (7) of the agreement provided for a renewal for a further period of 15 years. 3. Based on this assertion, the petitioner challenges the work order issued by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2, impugned at Annexure–L. Upon perusal of the said work order, it is evident that respondent No.1 had granted operational rights to respondent No.2 for a limited period, i.e., from 28.11.2018 to 31.03.2019. 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had instituted a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.1201/2018, seeking enforcement of the agreement dated 01.03.1999. However, it is an admitted position that the said suit came to be dismissed for non- prosecution. No material has been placed before this Court to indicate that any application for restoration of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19963 WP No. 3162 of 2019 said suit is pending or that the order of dismissal has been assailed before a higher forum. 5. Having regard to the fact that the impugned work order was limited to the period between 2018 and 2019, and considering that we are presently in the year 2025, it is apparent that the relief sought in the writ petition has lost its efficacy by efflux of time. Further, in the absence of any subsisting contractual right or subsisting lis for enforcement of the agreement, and in light of the dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance, no interference is warranted by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the petition has rendered infructuous and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44