Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 75894 (KAR)

M/S L V TRADERS v. THE DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED TRIBE WELFARE

WP/35169/2025 · 2025-12-17

Suraj Govindaraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53864 WP No. 35169 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35169 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: 1. M/S L V TRADERS REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT.KRISHNAVENI W/O PARASHURAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEAR JOSEPHNAGAR BEHIND CHURCH, SAGARA , SAGARA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 401 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY H.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED TRIBE WELFARE REP BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED TRIBE WELFARE DEPARTMENT, LOTUS TOWER, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN OF TENDER ACCEPTANCE COMMITTEE Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53864 WP No. 35169 of 2025 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101 4. THE PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ZILLA PANCHAYAT BUILDING K M ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 AND 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER FIRM DT. 09-10-2025 (ANNEXURE-A AND A1) AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS. 3 AND 4 TO ISSUE WORK ORDER IN PURSUANCE OF DECLARING THE PETITIONER FIRM SUCCESSFUL BIDDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION DATED 28/08/2025 ANNX-F AND A LOW THE PETITIONER FIRM TO SUPPLY FOOD MATERIALS TO THE ASHRAMA SCHOOLS CONSIST OF PRE-AND POST METRIC RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL AND HOSTELS, COMING UNDER 1 RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT FOR CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53864 WP No. 35169 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: " A. ISSUE an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 and 4 to consider the representation made by the Petitioner Firm dt. 09-10-2025 (Annexure:-A and AI) and further direct the Respondent No. 3 and 4 to issue work order in pursuance of declaring the petitioner firm successful bidder for the notification dated 28/08/2025 Annexure-F and a low the petitioner firm to supply food materials to the Ashrama schools consist of pre-and post metric residential school and hostels, coming under 1 respondent department for Chikkamagaluru district `in the interest of justice and equity; B. GRANT such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstance of the case." 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite being the lowest bidder, the respondents have not issued a work order in favour of the petitioner. It is in that view of the matter that the petitioner has submitted a representation on 09.10.2025 at Annexure A and A1 which also has not been considered by the respondent. Whenever any representation is submitted by a citizen to an authority, it is required for the said authority to consider the said representation and pass necessary orders, either accepting or rejecting the representation. Needless to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53864 WP No. 35169 of 2025 say, if an order of rejection has passed, just to be followed with reasons. Neither having been done, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) A mandamus is issued directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.10.2025 at Annexure A and A1 and pass necessary orders thereon within 15 days from the receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner. The same would have to be independently considered by respondent Nos.3 and 4. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47