Karnataka High Court
WA/1500/2026 of MR T SUBRAMANYA SHETTY Vs THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA on 21 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010368832026 NC: 2026:KHC:37493-DB WA No. 1500 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1500 OF 2026 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: 1.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1500 OF 2026 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
1.
MR. T SUBRAMANYA SHETTY
S/O NAGAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT NO.81/A
RAJESHWARI LAYOUT
YALACHENAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 062
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
BENGALURU - 560 001
2.
THE BENGALURU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
BENGALURU FORT ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR CUM DEAN
Digitally
signed by
VEERENDRA
KUMAR K M
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
3.
THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT
VANI VILAS HOSPITAL
BENGALURU - 560 002
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R-1 &
SRI MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2 & R-3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA
HIGH
COURT
ACT
PRAYING
TO
CALL
FOR
CONCERNED RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
23.04.2026, PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No. 3988/2023 AND
THEREBNY EXTEND THE TERM OF THE APPELLANT TENDER
AGREEMENT FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF TWO YEARS BY
ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.3988/2023 (GM-TEN) [impugned order].
2. The appellant has filed the said writ petition, inter alia, impugning a tender order dated 04.02.2023 and a notification dated
HC-KAR
06.02.2023. The Appellant had participated in the bidding process for providing canteen services to Bengaluru Medical College and Research Institute hospitals [BMCRI].
3. The parties (Appellant and BMCRI) had entered into an agreement on 04.07.2012, whereby the appellant was appointed exclusively for the purposes of running canteen services subject to certain conditions. The term of the said agreement was sixty (60) months, which expired on 03.07.2017. However, thereafter the parties negotiated and extended the contract for a further period subject to the appellant erecting a lift for the use and utilization of the patients. It was also agreed that the petitioner would bear 60% of the total costs, while the balance would be paid by BMCRI. A separate agreement dated 03.11.2017 was entered into. The term of the said agreement has also expired.
4. The appellant made a representation for further extension, which was rejected by an endorsement. The appellant challenged the same by filing a writ petition (W.P.No.15806/2022). The same was allowed. The endorsement impugned in the said writ petition was set aside and BMCRI was directed to reconsider the appellant's representation. Pursuant to the said order, the
HC-KAR
appellant's representation was considered and rejected by an endorsement dated 04.02.2023.
5. Thereafter, the BMCRI proceeded to issue a notice inviting tenders from the eligible contractors. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present writ petition (W.P.No.3988/2023), which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
6. It is the appellant's contention that during COVID-19 the food court was closed and therefore he could not do the business and he suffered losses, and therefore it was necessary that his contract be extended. This Court granted an interim stay.
7. The appellant continued to operate the canteen by virtue of the interim order passed by the Court. The learned Single Judge found there was no justification for further extension of the appellant's contract and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
8. There is no principle of law which would entitle the appellant to enforce BMCRI to enter into a contract. The agreement with BMCRI had expired years ago and BMCRI cannot be compelled to extend the same. We find no grounds that entitle the appellant for further extension. We concur with the decision of learned Single
HC-KAR
Judge in dismissing the writ petition. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Pending applications stand disposed of.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8