- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14423 WP No. 107914 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 107914 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: M/S SAMARTH ENTERPRISE, REPRESENTED ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. YANKATESH S/O NAGAPPA KUDER, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTORS, R/O. INDIRA NAGAR, OLD HUBLI, TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580 024. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAQBOOLAHAMED M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-580 001. 2. THE HUBLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SIR SIDDAPPA KAMBLI ROAD, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580 020. 3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, HUBLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ZONE-5 OFFICE, VIDYANAGAR, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580 021. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1) 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 OFFICE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 BY HDMC/01/2025-26 DATED 22.09.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-F; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE INTIMATION LETTER BY RESPONDENT NO.3 BY HDMC/74/05/2025-26 DATED 26.09.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14423 WP No. 107914 of 2025 RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.10.2025 AT ANNEXURE-J. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of first respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's work order granted to the petitioner is terminated without issuing notice to the petitioner. 3. When a specific question is put by the Court as to what is the date of the work order, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is 30.10.2009. The earlier work order dated 30.10.2009 was for a period of one year. It is submitted that, thereafter, it has been extended on 01.12.2010 till further orders. Now it is stated that the work order is terminated. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14423 WP No. 107914 of 2025 4. Since there is no valid work order in favour of the petitioner after 30.10.2009, to hold that the petitioner is entitled to continue to work till the new tender is floated and work order is awarded in accordance with law, there is no vested right in favour of the petitioner. 5. Hence, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NAA CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20