Karnataka High Court
M/S Drn Infrastructure vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, R Devdas
W.P.No.49173/2017
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.49173 OF 2017 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
M/S DRN INFRASTRUCTURE
ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS,
NAYAK'S HOUSE, DOOR NO.110,
3RD FLOOR, DOLLARS COLONY, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580 030
REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER,
MR.ARUN KUMAR NADGOUDA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LAKSHMISHAIAH S, ADV. FOR
SRI. R.G.KOLLE, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS
& INLAND WATER TRANSPORTS,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. THE DIRECTOR & COMMISSIONER
W.P.No.49173/2017
-2-
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
5. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST & COMPETENT AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY,
DAVANGERE- 577 002.
6. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LTD.,
MILLER TANK BED AREA, TIMMAIAH ROAD CROSS,
BENGALURU-560 052.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS TO COLLECT & DEDUCT
ROYALTY PURSUANT TO AN EARLIER GOVT. NOTIFICATION
NO.CI 56 MMN 2006 DTD 23.06.2007 AT ANNEXURE-F, TILL
THE COMPLETION OF WORK CONTRACT IN TERMS OF
AGREEMENT DTD 18.03.2013 AND WORK ORDER DTD
19.03.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & B RESPECTIVELY, IN
RESPECT OF MINOR MINERALS LIKE MURRAM, GRAVEL,
SAND, ORDINARY BUILDING STONES EXTRACTED FROM
PRIVATE PATTA LANDS & GOVT. LANDS AS PER RULE 36,
SCHEDULE-II, WHICH IS BEING CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT
OF R-5 SENIOR GEOLOGIST, IN TURN TO THE ACCOUNT OF
STATE TREASURY/EXCHEQUER..
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.No.49173/2017
-3-
ORDER
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the subject matter of this petition stands covered by the order dated 09.04.2018 as passed in W.P.No.50161/2017.
In the aforesaid order dated 09.04.2018, taking note of more or less similar nature arbitration clause in the contract in question, this Court has declined to exercise the writ jurisdiction while leaving it open to the petitioner therein in taking recourse to appropriate remedies, in accordance with law and while observing as under:
"Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made, we are not persuaded to entertain this matter in the writ jurisdiction. This is essentially for the reason that in the contract in question, admittedly, this nature dispute is envisaged to be settled in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by reference to the Sole Arbitrator, who could be appointed by agreement between the parties and failing such agreement, by the Appointing Authority, as specified in the annexure to the agreement.
It remains rather indisputable that the matters involved in the decisions referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner arose out of the respective arbitral awards and not by way of writ petitions. When the contract in question contains arbitration agreement and the dispute pertains to the particular deductions in the running account W.P.No.49173/2017 -4- bills; and the claim is of the refund with interest, we are clearly of the view that all the relevant aspects need to be gone into in the appropriate forum and for that matter, by the Sole Arbitrator, as envisaged in the contract in question.
The petitioner's representation dated 05.12.2014 (Annexure-C) had been rather vague and uncertain, where the petitioner only stated that the royalty amount was being deducted as per new notification in the interim payments and the request was made to 'compensate suitably'. Neither any specific claim was made nor even a request was made to refer the matter to arbitration. That being the position, it is difficult to construe the said letter dated 05.12.2014 as being a specific demand for arbitration.
For what has been stated above, we are not persuaded to entertain the matter in the writ jurisdiction.
However, we would hasten to observe that the option of taking recourse to appropriate remedies in accordance with law always remains open for the petitioner and for that matter, it is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not be of any impediment in the petitioner taking recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law.
With the observations foregoing, this petition stands dismissed."
The position aforesaid squarely applies to the present case also.
W.P.No.49173/2017-5-
Therefore, this writ petition stands disposed of in the same terms.
SD/-
CHIEF JUSTICE SD/-
JUDGE JT/-