Karnataka High Court
Subhash S/O Siddalingappa Kalawadi vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 11 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4800
WP No. 200466 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.200466 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SUBHASH S/O SIDDALINGAPPA KALAWADI,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CLASS-1 PWD
CONTRACTOR,
R/O MAHANTESH NAGAR, RAMDURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591123.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SECRETARY,
Digitally signed PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
by RENUKA
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
Location: High
Court Of
Karnataka 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAICHUR
DISTRICT: RAICHUR-584101.
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
4. JOINT DIRECTOR,
KALYAN KARNATAKA REGION DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585102.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4800
WP No. 200466 of 2023
5. KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT BHAVAN,
4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3;
SRI. AMRESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4
RESPONDENT NO.5 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2022 IN FILE NO.
PÀP¥
À C
Àæ ªÀÄA/AiÉÆñÁ/QæAiÀiÁ/gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ/ªÉÄÊPÉÆ/æ 02/¨sÁUÀ-2/2021-22/9062
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 THE COPY OF WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 30.12.2022 bearing No.PÀP¥ À C Àæ ªÀÄA/AiÉÆñÁ/QæAiÉÆÃ/gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ/ªÉÄÊPÉÆÃæ/02/¨sÁUÀ- 2/2021-22/9062 passed by respondent No.4 by which the Agency to implement the tendered project was changed from Department of Public Works to respondent No.5.
2. The petitioner submits that he is a Class-I contractor registered with the Public Works Department ('PWD' -3- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4800 WP No. 200466 of 2023 for short). The respondent No.3 had invited bids under the Kalyan Karnataka Rural Development Board, MICRO Project, from eligible contractors during 2021-22 for laying the approach B.T Road at Apral village in Deodurg Taluka, Raichur District. The bid of the petitioner was accepted by respondent No.3 vide letter of acceptance dated 17.06.2022. The work was to be completed within six months from the date of the work order. The respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 06.07.2022 directing the petitioner to execute the work. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- being the Earnest Money Deposit as per the terms of the contract. The contract was valued at a sum of Rs.3,39,00,000/-. The petitioner requested the respondent No.3 for providing markout map of the layout of the road to commence the work. However, the respondent No.3 delayed the issue of the markout map. The office of respondent No.3 purportedly directed the petitioner to invite the Member of Legislative Assembly (M.L.A) of the Constituency to flag off the commencement of the work. The petitioner approached the local M.L.A., but he refused to accept the invitation of the petitioner. Nonetheless, the petitioner claimed that he commenced the work since he was required to -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4800 WP No. 200466 of 2023 complete it within six months and completed the first stage of construction of levelling the land. At that stage, the petitioner was allegedly threatened by the officials of the respondent No.3/PWD as to how he had commenced the work without the permission of the local M.L.A. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the officials laid one or the other obstacles in the execution of the work. The petitioner was therefore forced to approach the Lokayukta by filing a complaint against the officials of respondent No.3/PWD. When things stood thus, the petitioner contends that the local M.L.A had addressed a letter to the respondent No.2 dated 25.11.2022 to transfer the work from the PWD to respondent No.5-Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited ('KRIDL' for short) without there being a reason to do so. Respondent No.3 on the basis of the letter of the M.L.A., requested the respondent No.2 to transfer the work from the PWD to KRIDL. Respondent No.2 blindly granted permission for transfer of work from the PWD to KRIDL. Hence, the petitioner contends that the work has not taken off and the petitioner is exposed to hardship and he is not able to commence the work. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the order dated 30.12.2022 -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4800 WP No. 200466 of 2023 passed by respondent No.4 by which subject work was shifted from the PWD to KRIDL.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the work order was issued by respondent No.3, there is no reason for changing the department. He submits that in the event of change of department, there would be serious issue in the matter of settlement of running bills as well as the final bill which may affect the work seriously. He, therefore, submits that change of work from one department to another while the work is underway is designed to harass the petitioner since he did not invite the local M.L.A. for starting of the works.
4. Per contra, respondent 3 denied in his statement of objections that respondent No.3 had not furnished the markout map. He alleged that the petitioner did not commence the work immediately after giving the markout map. He contends that PWD is only the executing department for execution of the tender work but the funds are released by the respondent No.4. He alleged that the petitioner did not commence the work, therefore, respondent No.4 shifted the executing agency from PWD to KRIDL and respondent No.4 issued the order by shifting -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4800 WP No. 200466 of 2023 the agency and entrusted the supervision of the work as per the impugned order.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that since there was a delay in commencing the work, the implementing agency was changed and there is no error in doing so.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 orally opposed the writ petition and contends that respondent No.4 is bound to follow the orders passed by respondent No.2 and that its duty is to only ensure that the funds are released from time to time as per the bills that are recommended to be released.
7. When this Court queried the learned counsel for the petitioner whether he would be able to execute the tendered work at the price quoted by the petitioner, he after obtaining instructions submitted that the petitioner was willing to execute the work at the same price, quoted by him and would not claim any escalation. This submission is noted and placed on record.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:4800 WP No. 200466 of 2023 Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
9. The fact that the petitioner was awarded work in question is not in dispute. The petitioner has alleged that he had completed the initial levelling of the land to start off the work and awaited the issuance of a markout map to commence the work. Respondent No.3 has contended that the markout maps were issued and that the petitioner did not commence the work. However, nothing is produced before this Court to establish that markout map was issued to the petitioner. It is a matter of common sense that the petitioner cannot commence the work without the markout map in hand. Annexure 'F' which is produced along with the writ petition, is a letter addressed by Mr. K.Shivanagouda Naik, an M.L.A. and the then Chairman of respondent No.5 to the Deputy Commissioner to shift the subject work from the PWD to KRIDL. This letter is apparently not based on any reason but appears to be issued only to bring the work within the control of KRIDL. If the funds for implementing the subject work is released by respondent No.4 and is supervised by PWD it is not known as to why the subject work had to be brought within the supervision of KRIDL. -8-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4800 WP No. 200466 of 2023 Therefore, it is apparent that neither the respondent No.3 nor respondent No.4 have felt any need to shift the subject work from the PWD to KRIDL but such shifting is based on a letter addressed by M.L.A., who was also the then Chairman of KRIDL. This, therefore, indicates that respondents are acting in tandem to lay obstacles in the execution of the work by the petitioner. In matters of creating infrastructure in the State, the respondents are bound to co-operate to ensure that the infrastructure proposed by the tender is implemented within the time stipulated in the tender so that general public would benefit from it. Due to the bickerings between the petitioner and the respondents, the subject work is getting delayed resulting in escalation of cost of the work which would not benefit the general public. On the contrary, it would cause loss to the public exchequer. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 shifting the subject work from the PWD to KRIDL is without any basis and without any need but is an ill motivated move at the behest of the then Chairman of KRIDL. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot stand and deserves to be quashed. Hence, the following:
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4800 WP No. 200466 of 2023 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order passed by respondent
No.4 bearing No.PÀP¥
À C
Àæ ªÀÄA / AiÉÆñÁ / QæAiÉÆÃ/
gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ/ªÉÄÊPÉÆÃæ/02/¨sÁUÀ-2/2021-22/9062 dated
30.12.2022 is quashed and the subject work shall henceforth be retained in the Public Works Department (PWD) and shall be supervised by respondent No.3.
iii. As undertaken by the petitioner, the subject work shall be completed at the tendered cost without claiming escalation.
iv. The respondent No.3 shall hand over the markout map of the road within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
v. Once the markout maps are issued by the
respondent No.3, the petitioner shall
commence the work without waiting for
anybody's presence.
vi. Bills submitted by the petitioner shall be
processed and recommended for release by respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 shall release payment without causing any undue delay.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4800 WP No. 200466 of 2023 vii. It is open for the respondent No.3 to ensure quality of work executed by the petitioner before recommending the bills for payment. viii. In the event of respondent No.3 causing any delay of whatsoever nature, the petitioner is permitted to approach, this Court for necessary orders.
In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2024 for direction does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMA Ct:si List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14