- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10914 WP No. 105426 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105344 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 105426 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 105344 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) IN WRIT PETITION NO.105426 OF 2025: BETWEEN: SHRI YOGESH HABIB AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO.626, SHREE SHANKAR KRUPA, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023. DHARWAD DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH K. JAWALKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HUBBALLI-DHARWAD CITY DIVISION, HUBBALLI-580030, DHARWAD DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03-06-2025 Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10914 WP No. 105426 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105344 of 2025 BEARING NO. ¸ÀA:ªÁPÀgÀ¸Á:ºÀÄzsÁ£À¸Á«:¸ÀA:ªÁ/390 PASSED BY RESPONDENT WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-D & ETC. IN WRIT PETITION NO.105344 OF 2025: BETWEEN: SHRI YOGESH HABIB AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NO.626 SHREE SHANKAR KRUPA, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH K. JAWALKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HUBBALLI-DHARWAD CITY DIVISION, HUBBALLI-580030. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03/06/2025 BEARING no. ¸ÀA:ªÁPÀgÀ¸Á:ºÀÄzsÁ£À¸Á«:¸ÀA:ªÁ/389 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-D & ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10914 WP No. 105426 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105344 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: IN WP NO.105426/2025 A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order thereby quashing the order dated 03-06-2025 bearing no. ¸ÀA:ªÁPÀgÀ¸Á:ºÀÄzsÁ£À¸Á«:¸ÀA:ªÁ/390 passed by respondent which is at annexure-d. B. Such other directions or orders in the factual situation as deemed fit and proper be passed. IN WP NO.105344/2025 A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order thereby quashing the order dated 03/06/2025 bearing no. ¸ÀA:ªÁPÀgÀ¸Á:ºÀÄzsÁ£À¸Á«:¸ÀA:ªÁ/389 which is at Annexure-D. B. Such other directions or orders in the factual situation as deemed fit and proper be passed. 2. The respondent - Corporation had invited tenders for the allotment of shops on a license basis through e- tendering on 03.05.2025. The petitioner in W.P. No. 105426 of 2011 submitted a bid for the property shown at Sl. No. 9, and the very same petitioner, in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10914 WP No. 105426 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105344 of 2025 W.P. No. 105344 of 2011, submitted a tender for the property shown at Sl. No. 11 in the said notification. 3. The petitioner was successful in both the bids and, being the highest bidder, Shop Nos. 9 and 12 were allotted to the petitioner. As regards Shop No. 9, an EMD of ₹5,05,668 was paid. A corresponding EMD was also paid in respect of Shop No. 12. The petitioner contends that he could not proceed with the renovation work due to the construction of a flyover at Chennamma Circle, near the old bus stand. It is stated that due to the construction work, the bus stand was closed, and there was no business activity in the vicinity. As a result, the petitioner was unable to renovate and operationalize the allotted shops. 4. In the interim, a notice dated 21.05.2025 came to be issued by the respondent, which was duly responded to by the petitioner. However, on the ground that the balance amount had not been paid within 15 days of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10914 WP No. 105426 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105344 of 2025 the date of allotment, the respondent cancelled the allotments made in favour of the petitioner and forfeited the EMD amounts deposited. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Sri Prakash Javalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner in both matters, submitted that the petitioner was unable to carry out the renovation work solely due to the closure of the bus stand, which had restricted access to the area. In the absence of regular footfall and customer movement, the petitioner had taken a commercial decision not to expend money on renovation until the bus stand was re-opened and access restored. 6. On the other hand, Sri Prashant Hosmani, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that there was no restriction on the petitioner from carrying out the renovation. Access to the area was available, and customers continued to visit the bus stand area. He - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10914 WP No. 105426 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105344 of 2025 argued that the petitioner had delayed the renovation and failed to make the necessary payments without any formal permission or justification, and therefore, the action taken by the respondent was fully justified. He further contended that the petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground. 7. It was also submitted that, due to the petitioner's failure to fulfill the contractual obligations, the respondent approached the second-highest bidder, who accepted the allotment and has since made the required payments. A memo along with photographs has been placed on record, evidencing the development and renovation work now being carried out by the said allottee. 8. Heard Sri Prakash Javalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Prashant Hosamani, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the papers. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10914 WP No. 105426 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105344 of 2025 9. The facts are not in dispute and are detailed herein above. The submission of Sri.Prakash K Jawalkar being that there being no complete access and the possibility of customers visiting the shops not being as per what was agreed upon when the bus stand was functional, it is only a postponement of the interior works and payment which has been resorted to by the petitioner. The petitioner was always ready to make payment of the due amounts on the bus stand being opened. 10. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner in those circumstances only made a choice. If at all the petitioner wanted to delay the said payment and or seek for further additional time, it was always open for the petitioner to approach the respondent seeking for extension of time. The mere fact that the respondent was aware of the closure of the bus stand, prior to the issuance of the work order, would not by itself give rise to a postponement of the obligation on the part of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10914 WP No. 105426 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105344 of 2025 the petitioner. However, taking into consideration that respondent is also a Governmental authority, it is but required that respondent Governmental authority acts in a fair and reasonable manner, respondent being fully aware that the bus stand would be closed for renovation work and the bus stand would during that time be non operational because of the flyover being constructed, once a bus stand is non operational, the question of any successful tenderer being able to run a business successfully in a closed bus stand ought to have been taken into account by the respondent. Of course, they could not take that into account because no representation was made by the petitioner to that effect. 11. Be that as it may, on account of the closure of the bus stand, on account of the flyover being built, is not in dispute. Hence, now that the second highest bidder has paid the amount and has more or less completed the interior works, this Court cannot at this stage set - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10914 WP No. 105426 of 2025 C/W WP No. 105344 of 2025 aside the cancellation/termination of the work or allotment issued to the petitioner. But, however can only restitute the petitioner of the EMD which has been deposited by the petitioner. 12. In that view the matter I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ Petitions are allowed. ii. Respondent is directed to refund the EMD amount paid by the petitioner without any interest within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. IA No.1/2025 is allowed. Production of certified copy of Annexure-D is dispensed with. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE VB, Sh from para 9 CT:VP, LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 66