Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 44716 (KAR)

MRS. RAJIYA SULTANA v. BBMP COMMISSIONER

WP/8027/2024 · 2026-10-01

T P Vivekananda

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010146382024 NC: 2026:KHC:54679 WP No. 8027 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. 8027 OF 2024 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: MRS. RAJIYA SULTANA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O. SAYYED ALI, NO. 146, 16TH CROSS, MALAGALA, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH M.G, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. MAHESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BBMP COMMISSIONER RAJARAJESHWARI ZONE, BENGALURU - 560 098. 2. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR DIVISION, BBMP, BENGALURU - 560 054. 3. SMT. JAYANTHI. S AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O. RAJU, Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010146382024 NC: 2026:KHC:54679 WP No. 8027 of 2024 R/AT NO. 36, SAJJEPALYA, SUMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; 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 QUASH ANNEXURE- A ISSUED BY THE R2 UNDER NO/KAPAA A/RARANAVI/P.R. 356 /23-24 DTD 14.02.2024 IN FAVOUR OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT AND DIRECT THE R1 AND 2 TO GRANT TENDER APPLIED FOR BY 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 at Ramakrishnappa Layout was awarded in favour of respondent No.3. The contract awarded was for a period of two years from 14.02.2024. Since the duration of contract itself has - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010146382024 NC: 2026:KHC:54679 WP No. 8027 of 2024 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.: 5