Mr. M. Sadiq Ali vs The Commissioner and Assistant Revenue Officer

N.K. Patil, J.—The appellant in this appeal is assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 5.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 15094/2012 (LB). The appellant/petitioner, assailing the correctness of the Short Term-E-Tender -cum-E-Auction Notification for Pay and Park bearing No. ARO (E-M)/PRO1/2012-13 dated 18.4.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent and also seeking a mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 not to interfere in maintaining the parking area allotted in his favour till expiry of contractual period of 12 months as per Clause-3 of Technical bid dated 8.7.2011 from the date of putting him in possession of parking area on 9.2.2012, has filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 15094/2012, contending that, he was given contract for maintaining the parking lot on "pay and park" basis for a period of one year commencing from 28.1.2012 and he was put in possession of the parking lot as per letter/order dated 28.1.2012. The learned Single Judge, after careful perusal of the communication dated 28.1.2012, has observed that there is absolutely nothing in the order which indicates that the appellant/petitioner was put in possession of the parking lot for a period of one year, on the contrary, it shows that he was put in possession of the parking lot for a temporary period i.e. till regular tender was invited and the new Contractor was appointed and admittedly, the respondents invited the tenders some time in April 2012 and they have completed the process in May 2012. The appellant/petitioner did not participate in the process of the tender, but by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, he continued to hold charge of the parking lot on pay and park basis for more than ten months and therefore, dismissed the said petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/petitioner has presented this appeal.

We have heard the learned counsel Sri A.C. Balaraj appearing for appellant and perused the impugned order. After careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is manifest on the face of the order that, the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in para-4 of the order is well considered and well founded one and therefore, we do not find any error or illegality in the said order. In fact, it emerges from the material on record that, appellant/petitioner was put in possession of the parking lot for a temporary period, i.e., till the regular tender was invited and the new Contractor was appointed and admittedly, the respondents invited the tenders in April 2012, completed the process in May 2012 and the appellant/petitioner did not participate in the process of the tender and by virtue of the interim order, he continued to hold charge of the parking lot on pay and park basis for more than ten months. Taking all these factors into consideration, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal on merits, the relief sought by the appellant in IA No. I/2013 does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is dismissed as having become infructuous.