Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 44665 (KAR)

DEEPA H M v. BBMP COMMISSIONER

WP/8092/2024 · 2026-10-01

T P Vivekananda

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010151012024 NC: 2026:KHC:54673 WP No. 8092 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA WRIT PETITION NO. 8092 OF 2024 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: DEEPA H.M, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O SANJAYA M, RESIDING AT NO.35, 5TH CROSS MAGADI 1ST MAIN, BENGALURU - 560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BBMP COMMISSIONER RAJARAJESHWARI ZONE BENGALURU - 560 098. 2. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR DIVISION BBMP, BENGALURU - 560 054. 3. RAGHU H AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O HULIRAMAIAH NO. 45/A, MAGADI MAIN RAOD, SAJJEPALYA, Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010151012024 NC: 2026:KHC:54673 WP No. 8092 of 2024 BENGALURU - 560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.09.2026; SRI. M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) QUASH ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER NO. KAPPA A/ RARANAVI/ P.R. 356/23-24 DATED 14.02.2024 INFAVOUR OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND TO GRANT TENDER TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA ORAL ORDER The prayer in this writ petition is for quashing of Annexure- A by which the contract of maintenance of RO Plant in Ward No.73 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Division, Kottigepalya, Bengaluru was awarded in favour of respondent No.3. The - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010151012024 NC: 2026:KHC:54673 WP No. 8092 of 2024 contract awarded was for a period of two years from 14.02.2024. Since the duration of contract itself has elapsed, the prayer sought in the petition would not survive for further consideration. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (T.P.VIVEKANANDA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15