Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Sadguru Education Trust on 22 July, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.S Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22"'DAT OF JULY, 2o1Q_
PRESENT V
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJEEATQEETTA
AND W ,V _. _
THE HON'BLE MR. JUsTICEf§;s:?#§iLnAFu"t
WRIT APPEAL No.§39/?0i0'kGMf§fi§l"»HI
WRIT APPEAE"E$41é§?[fi6i§:}GE-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. The Staté of Karnataka}«w'
R/byntheASecretaryVto_Govt.,
Dept; cg Social Wélfare,
9* flépr, M s Buiiding,
Bangaldrg.» A I T«7
.~2. Thé.C§mmissioner¢
".SdciéI Welfare Department,
,',GOvt;_o£kKarnataka,
=-5?':1¢o:,fM:s.Bui1ding,
'Banga1o:e+1. .. APPELLANTS
(By.Sri.B.Veerappa, AGA)
*4AED{;t
t*Ati.t$ri Sadguru Education Trust
~(Regd.), R/by its Secretary
Sri.Ramaprasad, R/at "Sriniketan",
Near Private Bus Stand,
/'
av"
Madikeri.
Kodagu Dist.
2. M S Raghavendra Rao s/o late
J.P;Subba Rao, President,
Sri.Sadguru Education Trust (Regd.)
72 years, R/at "Sriniketan", _f1
Near Private Bus Stand, "
Madikeri. _-e_
Kodagu Dist. 1
(By Advocate Sri.L.SvVenkatakrishna}y72
These two Writ Appeals are fiiled under Sec.4 of
the Karnataka High Court Aet to set aside the order
passed in WP No,2211/2QO7pC/n WP No56501/2008 dated
7.7.2009. 4;', g' "-0 :7. -«.*
These "Ap§eais< a:e.'c¢min§ on for preliminary
hearing' this' day,' MANJUHATH J. delivered the
following; ' ' V"- = *--'
37v and M E N T
These tnoaappeais are preferred by the State of
Kgagpataha being aggrieved by the order passed by
the elearned fsdngle Judge on 7.7.2009 in Writ
'7petit1on_Nca;2211/2007 and 6501/2008.
{_,/
.¥tRssBoNo;fiTsi_'y
2. The facts leading to this case are as
hereunder:
Sri Sadguru Education Trust filed the sfiegésagd
two writ petitions challenging the order passed bywa
the Department of Social Welfare dated 313.290? ass
per Annexure~G in Writ Petition No.6S0i;2uQd and to
issue a writ of Mandamus directiggxfifiésgommissioner
of Social Welfare '*+'.=c';'"'::«.=-.p1ease a sum of
Rs.22.S iacs in _te;ms.ggfi,§;§£§§§2é" of the Work
Order dated f;i;i1.§q§§.k.3 sursuant to tender
notificagigfiayéatgéfyéiH4i;é9uS. Pursuant to a
tender snotiticatiogtfiéated 12.5.2905 State of
Karnataka in*order to provide vocational training
'programme: for~_ unemployed youth belonging to
Ascheduied caste and Scheduled Tribe community and
the writ petitioner was one of the applicants and
if. the tender" submitted by Sri Sadguru Education
dwTrustf_Madikeri was accepted and based on the same
bug work! order was issued on 21.11.2035. For due
"performance of their services, petitioner furnished
1?"
5
for release of third instalment. In the mean
while, an order was passed by the Social Weifiare
Department to blggk-list the petitioner fiend ithe
Government and the Respondents_ called@ upon ;£¢,"
refund the amount as if the petitioner has claimed excess money without giving_ training" to "eligible' candidates, these petitions_are_fi1ed{=__yr
2. Learned single Judge after fiésggng the parties came to the concfiusionithatwafivenguiry has to be conducted betore hldnheiisting the petitioner and if any {§£§§ss, ehountd isi claimed by the writ petitioner, ssvegfihent has to work out its remedy in accordance, 'with- Tlaw. Accordingly, writ :petitions¥*were disposed of. Challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed in the '°aforesaidy~writ petitions, present appeals are "7§£iiea, "
hte,3f* eh; main contention of the learned Govt.
-__gnflV$Cate before us ii; that giving vocational 6 training to un--employed youth belonging to SC & ST community and other weaker sections of thev_.s'o'ceiety, respondents had claimed excess money bogus documents. According to the a_ppel:l,ants._, candidates were not at all ,'...1;}ra'i.1'11ed--, training them excess amount.
lacs was drawn, therefore"-V,p:_on of non-~ performance of ti-1%' of the contract, Statepwof call upon the writ excess amount iblock--listing the writ contended by the learned Govt . Advyocatxey if blcigk--listing of the _,.petit.i§:one:: ash.' calling upon the petitioner to refund V'the;"amVou%ntp based on the report submitted by the Welfare Officer and Taluka Social 'Welfare "Officer in all the 20 Districts which were entrusted to the writ petitioner. In the 'Wcii;-Zcumstances, on physical verification of the Wcandidates based on the survey conducted on door- &1/ 7 to--door basis, therefore the order of the learned single Judge should not be interfered with.
4. Per contra, Sri.L.S.Venkatakrishna,peiearned counsel appearing for the tgQ?;w:it petitioner/respondent contends that leerned.singlek_ Judge is justified in granting; reiief»=te, the»_' petitioner. According to himf SC &;$$ candidates and other weaker sectionsy of the: society were identified by the Social Weifazézbepartment based on the recommendationg.D%catione1* training was imparted by the fespondents in all the 20 centres and certificates twereV also issued. He further contends that .some "of the students who were riadmitted to vocational course on the recommendation er *tne1fs§eieip Welfare Department had left the '».eourse' in "tee middle for which writ petitioner _rf~cannot "be blamed. He further contends that iiconsidering the actual training given to the Viweendidates, bills were submitted by the writ Vi*.petitioner and that the same has been passed and 8V 8 still the petitioner is entitled to receive the' balance amount. He lastly contends that "without holding an_enquiry by giving an opportunity is the writ petitioner and behind 1;,1r;e_ back"'V"the w.-my petitioner unilateral report? has» been~ secured Iby *"
the Government from its'of§iciais.and such report would not bind the writme§etitioner,_: In the circumstances, he Vcontendsg that' learned single Judge is justifiied in gfiashing the order passed by the Governmenti :ln the circenstances, he requests the court to disbiss the appeais.
5. Having heard the counsel for the parties, the only point autoiv Acoinsidered by us in these two fappeais is whether the order of the learned single Judge reguires to be interfered with and whether an x'<error,is cofifiitted by the learned single Judge? nid}, Facts of this case are not in dispute to the 'W, fcllowing extent: That pursuant to the tender .ub*, 'notification of the State, writ petitioner has 5/ 9 L. participated in the tender,( he became the successful tenderer. It is also not in "dispute that the eligible candidates from among§§'t"s'c'y;'««§r:a"st:
and other weaker sections of» the "society. were' required to be selected by, the: Social hteifareh Department and based on their selection candidates were sent to the petitionerho The éfiestidn is tt how many candidates here identifiéd_by the Social Welfare Department -;a@§hg§ty lthen, how many candidates _were} trained" by] tte fwrit petitioner. These are deli ttheyddispeted: duestions of fact. Whether ®really'qthe»icandidates who were selected have joined *the.Rpetitioner--institution and that they "here really :trained by the petitioner- 'institntion-- has to be examined by conducting detailed "ezqfiiry by the Department by giving reasonable "opportunity to the writ petitioner. ljflithcut holding an enquiry if a report is secured "ht free the District Social Welfare Officer or Taluka fd"»_y Welfare Officer behind the back of the writ 'Z'/.
1} L. course éf on their own have left in the middle of the course, in such circumstances what course of action has to be taken by the Government toepayuthe fees in terms of the contract,__when'H'nojv.1:§re'ach_ '' committed by the writ petitioner:' in yiee of the 'J above, we are of the opinion that unilaterally writ petitioner cannot be_blagk&listed.
7. Accordingly, writ appeals are disposed of. Any order passed blopk-listing the urit petitioner is hereby set asideTah§ g g;eah order has to be passed only after conductino detailed enquiry. Similarly, it is for the'erit petitioner to extend the bank guarantee offered ibyu the writ petitioner till 5enquiryaiis"ycompleted. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from today E'7and ion coepletion of the enquiry if the writ " {petitioner is entitled for balance of the amount, «same"shall also be settled. If the amount paid by Vdthe_éovernment is found to be excess, it is for the "Government to take action to recover excess amount 8/ 12 received by the writ petitioner. Parties to bear their costs.
In view of the above order, bank igfiaréntee already furnished shall be extended £i§m"th§ péhgx by producing the copy of this order," it is hedein very clear that this order sheli not come~@nthe way of COD proceeding with ite*inveStioation as the said proceedings ere _5gghefigf §o_ do with the recovery proceed;ngsg"hCQDdengnirpdie in regard to the criminai,hreech=of rest or Q5 offence committed under the provieione or i§d;WL sd/3 mace hhhhhh Sag IUDGE i"=.__ R/26b71o