Karnataka High Court
M/S Saipavani-Kbnr Jv vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305
WP No. 103146 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 103146 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
M/S. SAIPAVANI-KBNR JV,
PLOT NO.391, FLAT NO.301,
PADMINI NILAYAM ROAD NO.23,
AYYAPPA SOCIETY, MADHAPUR,
HYDERABAD ,TELANGANA-500 081,
BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
A. GURUNATH REDDY S/O. A. GURUVIRADDY,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: PROJECT MANAGER,
R/O. TUNGABHADRA BADAVANE, DAVANGERE.
PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
RURAL DRINKING WATER AND
Digitally
SANITATION DEPARTMENT (RDWSD),
signed by
GIRIJA A 2ND FLOOR, E BLOCK, KHB BUILDING,
GIRIJA A BYAHATTI
BYAHATTI Date: CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.
2024.08.14
11:24:23
+0530
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
R D W AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT,
1ST FLOOR , E BLOCK KHB BUILDING,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER,
R D W AND S DEPARTMENT, BALLARI CIRCLE,
33 CONTONMENT, INFANTRY ROAD,
BALLARI-583 102.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
RURAL DRINKING WATER AND
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305
WP No. 103146 of 2024
SANITATION DEPARTMENT,
BALLARI DIVISION, ABOVE SBI BANK,
SUDHA CROSS, CONTONMENT BALLARI-583 102.
5. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
RDW AND S DEPARTMENT,
SANDUR SUB DIVISION, SANDUR,
DIST: BALLARI-583 119.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL ASSISTED
BY AAG- SRI. GANGADHAR J.M. &
SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION LR.NO./SAI PAVANI KBNR
JV/NIDAGURTHI:JJM 2024-25 DATED 10/05/2024 AND LR.NO/SAI
PAVANI KBNR JV/NIDAGURTHI-JJM/2024-25 DATED 16/05/2024
VIDE ANNEXURE-AV AND AW; FURTHER DIRECTIONS BE ISSUED TO
THE RESPONDENTS TO APPROVE GAD DRAWINGS, STRUCTURAL
DESIGNS, PAYMENT SCHEDULES, SITE CLEARANCES, CO-OPERATE
IN GETTING NECESSARY PERMISSION FROM THE RAILWAYS, NHAI
AND FOREST DEPARTMENTS, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, CONDUCT
THE QC INSPECTION FOR DI AND HDPE PIPES AND TO HANDOVER
THE SITES TO EXECUTE THE PROJECT; TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO
RESPONDENT NO.4 NOT TO ENCASE THE BANK GUARANTEE
NO.000251G230000004 DATE.07.01.2023 FOR RS.2,97,80,651/- OF
INDIAN BANK, HIMAYATNAGAR BRANCH, HYDERABAD.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305
WP No. 103146 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General and also the learned AAG for the respondents.
2. The prayers sought for in this writ petition are as follows:
a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to consider the representation Lr.No./Sai Pavani KBNR JV/Nidagurthi.JJM 2024-25 dated 10/05/2024 and Lr.No./Sai Pavani KBNR JV/Nidagurthi.JJM dated 16/05/2024 vide Annexure-AV and AW.
b. Further directions be issued to the respondents to approve GAD drawings, structural designs, payment schedules, site clearances, co-operate in getting necessary permission from the Railways, NHAI and Forest Departments, Electricity department, conduct the QC Inspection for DI and HDPE pipes and to handover the sites to execute the project.
-4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 c. To issue directions to respondent No.4 not to encase the bank guarantee
No.000251G230000004 dated 07.01.2023 for Rs.2,97,80,651/- of Indian Bank, Himayatnagar branch, Hyderabad.
3. The factual matrix of the case of this writ petition is that;
3.1. The petitioner and respondent No.4 entered into an agreement of Tender of Multi Village Water Supply Scheme to Nidugurthi and other 60 Habitations, Sandur Taluk of Ballari District, through Design, Build, Operate and Transfer(DBOT) mode under Jal Jeevan Mission. The said agreement entered into between the parties on 10.01.2023 and respondent No. 4 in terms of the agreement, issued work order on 10.01.2023.
3.2. It is also contended that, the petitioner submitted DPR for approval on 14.04.2023. On 22.05.2023, the Government of Karnataka -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 issued a Circular stating that, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, directing all the departments to suspend all further release of payments with immediate effect in respect of all the works undertaken by the previous Government and also stop all the works which have not started.
3.3. On 05.08.2023, the respondent No.4 issued a Notice dated 05.08.2023 stating that the petitioner firm has not obtained permissions from the concerned authorities and directed to submit the required drawings and designs. 3.4. On 23.11.2023, the petitioner Firm wrote a letter to respondent No.4 explaining everything to him for the delay in executing the work and requested him for approval of DPR. However, the structural works is in progress and they will complete the work within the agreement time. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 3.5. It is also contended that, the respondents are making hindrance in all the level for the unnecessary quarries, delay in approving the DPR at different levels, non-getting the approval from the Railways, NHAI and Forest Department where the pipeline passes, not finalizing the locations for OHT's, ZBT's, non- handing over the possession of the sites. Hence, the petitioner Firm wrote a letter addressing the respondents, categorically explaining the delay in executing the work, vide letter dated 20.12.2023.
3.6. The respondents approved the DPR subject to certain conditions on 03.01.2024. The respondent No.4 also issued a notice dated 24.01.2024 styled as Notice No.5 thereby unnecessarily warned the petitioner Firm and threatened to cancel the tender.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 3.7. The petitioner Firm suitably replied and explained about the progress of the work of the project stating that it has already taken up the execution of OHTs and 5 OHTS are constructed up to ground brace level, excavation of 3 OHTS is completed. Approval for ZBTS design and drawings is awaited by the concerned authorities, possession of some sites are not handed over by the concerned authorities. NDT Test Reports are awaited. Necessary permission from the Railways, NHAI and Forest department is awaited and the firm is keen in getting the permission from these departments. The QAPs for HDPE & DI pipes were submitted on 15.11.2023, but till today the same was not approved by the concerned authorities. These being the facts for delay in progress of the work, assured that the work will be completed within a stipulated time.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 3.8. It is also contended that, again on 18.03.2024, the petitioner Firm has wrote a letter to respondent No.4 and the copies to other respondents explaining every steps it has taken for early completion of the work and the reasons for delay caused in execution of the work and the JV firm has spent more than 30 crores as on that day and requested the authority to consider the issue sympathetically and revoke notices issued to cancel the tender and permit the firm to proceed with the execution of the work.
3.9. The respondent No.5 again issued a Notice dated 03.04.2024 styled as Final Notice without satisfying or considering the explanation offered by the petitioner Firm, intimating the JV Firm has failed to show progress in the work, as such the firm is directed to stop the work and get the measurements of the work done in the -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 presence of the PMC. For that also firm has not come forward to get measured the same. Hence, finally called the firm to get measured the work done, otherwise the measurement will be conducted in their absence and further action will be taken.
3.10. It is also contended that, again the petitioner Firm has submitted detailed explanation with regard to the queries and other high handed acts of the respondents. Further the firm has categorically stated that, the respondent authorities have made intensive delay in approval of DPR, assisting to get the requisite permissions from the concerned departments like NHAI for Road crossing, Railways for railway crossing and forest department, failed to approve the GAD Drawings and Structural designs, QAP approvals in time etc., and the said reply was given on 08.04.2024.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 3.11. It is also contended that, respondent No.4 wrote a letter dated 24.04.2024 to the Executive Engineer, RWS & S Department Vijayanagar, requesting him to measure the work done by the petitioner Firm in the presence of the Officers of the department and the authorized persons of the petitioner Firm on 30.04.2024.
3.12. It is contended that, on 10.05.2024, the petitioner Firm in continuation of its reply dated 26.04.2024, once again requested the respondent No.4 to permit the petitioner Firm to continue with the work, by approving payment schedule at its all the levels, approving the GAD drawings and structural designs, by handing over the possession of the sites and directing the Railways, NHAI and Forest Departments, Electricity department, to
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 accord the permission to proceed with the work in their area of operations.
3.13. It is submitted that the petitioner Firm being the successful bidder has entered into Agreement No.132/2023 dated 10.01.2023 with respondent No.4 and the respondent No.4 with regard to Multi Village Water Supply Scheme to Nidugurthi and other 60 Habitations, Sandur Taluk of Ballari District, through Design, Build, Operate and Transfer(DBOT) mode under Jal Jeevan Mission, on the same day issued work order to the JV Firm.
3.14. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his pleadings brought to notice of this Court all the Annexures which have been annexed in the writ petition and would contend that, when the notices are issued, replies are given by the petitioner and those replies are not considered by the respondents. Counsel would also
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 vehemently contend that, Annexure-E clearly discloses that a letter was submitted on 14.04.2023 itself for DPR. Counsel would also contend that Annexure-H - Government Circular is also placed on record as directed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister to suspend all further works, if the work is not started and would contend that, in view of the said instruction only the work was denied. The counsel would also vehemently contend that, in terms of Annexure-AR, permission is sought from different departments.
3.15. In spite of all efforts being made, without considering the replies given by the petitioner, the respondents started troubling the petitioner by issuing notices. Hence he sought for only relief to consider the replies given by the petitioner by issuing writ of mandamus. It is submitted that, without considering the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 explanation, the respondents issued notice to stop the work. The petitioner has already undertaken the work and continued the work. The delay is not on the part of the petitioner and arbitrary decision was taken by the respondent - State in giving instructions to stop the work and the same ought not to have been done. Hence, he prayed that this Court has to exercise the writ jurisdiction to direct the respondents to consider the replies and pass the orders.
3.16. The counsel in support of his arguments also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M. P. Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur Vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited reported in AIRONLINE 2022 SC 1573 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph 15 of the said judgment, wherein the Hon'ble ApexCourt,
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 after discussion and considering the pleadings of the parties, framed the points for consideration, particularly brought to the notice of this Court with regard to the consideration of what is arbitrariness; and what is the concept of public law in judicial review in a contractual matter; and also whether there is arbitration clause with regard to the subject matter. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the discussions made in paragraph 54 with regard to the writ jurisdiction is a public law remedy. A matter, while lies entirely within a private realm of affairs of public body, may not lend itself for being dealt with under the writ jurisdiction of the Court. Discussion was also made that the relief sought under a contract which is not statutory, will not entitle the respondent-State in a case by itself to ward-off scrutiny of its action or inaction under the contract, if the complaining party is able to
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 establish that action/inaction is, per se, arbitrary. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the discussion made in the said judgment with regard to the decision in Tata Cellular V. Union of India, regarding the judicial review. Discussion is also made in detail with regard to existence of an alternate remedy, undoubtedly, a matter to be borne in mind in declining relief in a writ petition in a contractual matter. Again, the question as to whether the writ petitioner must be told off the gates, would depend upon the nature of the claim and relief sought by the petitioner, the questions, which would have to be decided, and, most importantly, whether there are disputed questions of fact, resolution of which is necessary, as an indispensable preclude to the grant of the relief sought.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 3.17. The counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend that, the very contention of the State that, when there is arbitration clause in the agreement, the petitioner cannot invoke writ jurisdiction, cannot be accepted and contend that, when the decision was taken in arbitrariness, the Court can invoke the writ jurisdiction and hence the contention of the State cannot be accepted.
4. Per contra, learned Advocate General and learned Addl.Advocate General appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that;
4.1. It is not in dispute that there is a contract between the petitioner and respondent No.4 vide agreement dated 10.01.2023. The counsel would vehemently contend that, when there is arbitration clause, if there is any dispute, the parties have to approach the Arbitrator. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 the Arbitration Clause No.4, wherein also there is a clause with regard to the dispute or difference will be referred to a Sole Arbitrator. The Sole Arbitrator will be appointed and the arbitration proceedings will be held at Bengaluru, and other conditions are also there that the contract shall continue during the arbitration proceedings and the payments due to the contract by the employer shall not be analysed from the subject matter of arbitration proceedings.
4.2. The AAG also vehemently contends that the very writ petition is not maintainable. The learned AAG bringing to the Court notice all the notices issued to the petitioner from the beginning, contended that, the petitioner has not taken any steps even from the date of agreement dated 10.01.2023. Learned AAG also brought to the notice of this Court that, even first notice was issued on 15.02.2023 as
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 per Annexure-R2 and the second notice was issued on 10.04.2023 as per Annexure-R3. Learned AAG also brought to the notice of this Court that, when the meeting was called on 15.04.2023, the petitioner did not participate in the meeting. He gave reply that due to network problem they could not appear and as per Annexure-J, it clearly discloses that the petitioner was not interested from the beginning in carrying out the contract. The AAG also would submit that, only after three months, the petitioner approached with letter dated 14.04.2023 and the same is also defective. When the defective attempt is made by submitting application on 14.04.2023 and due to compliance only delay was caused and delay was not on account of the action of the State.
4.3. Learned AAG also vehemently contend that, without seeking any relief of writ of certiorari,
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 quashing of notices issued by the State as per Annexure-AO, AQ and AS dated 27.03.2024, 03.04.2024 and 24.04.2024 respectively, they cannot seek relief of mandamus.
4.4. In support of his arguments, learned AAG relies upon the judgment of the High Court of Madras in the case of V. Munuswamy Vs. Secretary to Govt. and Others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 6910 and brought to the notice of this Court the discussion made in paragraph No.3, wherein it is held that, on perusal of prayer of the writ petition, it appears that the writ petition is not maintainable, since it was filed without challenging the orders passed by the District Level Committee held on 22.04.2015 and the State Level Empowered Committee held on 25.05.2016. An observation is also made in the said judgment that, even now the Court is not satisfied with the amended prayer, since the claim was made
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 without challenging the orders passed by the District Level Committee held on 22.04.2015 and the State Level Empowered Committee held on 25.05.2016, and at this juncture, permission was sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file fresh writ petition by raising appropriate grounds and challenging the rejection order passed by the authorities concerned.
4.5. Learned AAG also relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of V. Krishnamoorthy Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu represented by Principal Secretary to Government and Others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 27465 and brought to the notice of this Court the observation made in paragraph No.5, wherein also observation is made that, the petitioner without challenging the order of rejection, has come up with the writ petition, seeking only for a direction to the
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 respondents to promote him as Sanitary Inspector; Such prayer needs to be rejected outright; When a conscious decision was taken by the authority in rejecting the request of the petitioner that he was not qualified and eligible, instead of challenging the reasons for the rejection, merely seeking a direction for his promotion is gross abuse of process of the court; Even otherwise, the Court finds hardly any averment or ground in the affidavit in support of the claim of the petitioner. 4.6. Learned AAG referring these two judgments would vehemently contend that, Annexures-AO, AQ and AS, subsequently stated additional work and the same has not been questioned before this Court and hence the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of mandamus. 4.7. Learned AAG also vehemently contend that, the decision was not taken unilaterally as
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 contended by the petitioner and the same does not amount to any arbitrariness. Learned AAG also brought to the notice of this Court that, from the date of entering into the agreement several notices are issued and even the State reminded the petitioner throughout to take action and also to seek permission from the concerned Forest Department and Railway Department. Even after issuance of notices also, the petitioner has not shown any interest in honoring the contract and ultimately without any option of decision was taken to stop the work.
4.8. Learned AAG would also submit that, this project is only for the benefit of the public for providing water to 60 villages and the time bound contract was given for a period of two years and the same completes in the month of January, 2025 at Annexure-R6. Learned AAG also brought to the notice of this Court
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 Annexure-R6, which also clearly discloses with regard to the work progress periodically and the same is also time bound project and the petitioner did not show any interest. Hence Annexure-AQ is issued to stop the work and hence there is no any merit in the writ petition.
5. The counsel appearing for the petitioner in his reply argument vehemently contended that the contention taken by respondent-State that the petitioner has not done the work cannot be accepted and in detail explanation is given in each of the reply and the same has not been considered. None of the explanation given by the petitioner was considered while issuing the periodical notices to the petitioner and this Court has to exercise the writ jurisdiction.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and taking note of the material on record, it is not in dispute with regard to the fact that the water supply scheme was introduced and tender was called and
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 agreement was entered between the petitioner and respondent No.4 on 10.01.2023. It is also not in dispute that the work order was issued on the very same day in terms of the agreement dated 10.01.2023. It is important to note that in the statement of objections, the State has also relied upon the notice issued on 15.02.223 itself reminding the petitioner since no action was taken even expiry of one month from 10.01.2023 and till date not filed DPR to the office and hence requested to submit the same on or before 21.02.2023 and also in the notice cautioned for the responsibility to the petitioner in non-filing of DPR. Learned Advocate General also brought to notice of this Court one more letter addressed to the petitioner on 10.04.2023, wherein also cautioned the petitioner that not taken any action in submitting the DPR and it shows negligence on the part of the petitioner and once again reminded to submit the DPR on or before 14.04.2023 and it is not in dispute that the DPR was submitted
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 on 14.04.2023. He brought to notice of this Court that meeting was held on 15.04.2023 and petitioner also not disputes the fact that he has not appeared in the meeting but has given explanation in terms of Annexure-J that he could not appear and participate in the meeting due to network issues. It is important to note that respondent also periodically issued notice to the petitioner reminding to take action in terms of agreement on 20.05.2023 and one more notice was issued as per Annexure-R7 and also other notice dated 26.07.2023 reminding the petitioner to take permission from various departments including NHAI, Railway and other departments and so also notice was issued on 05.08.2023 as per Annexure-R9 and continuously issued notices and also reply was given in terms of Annexure-R10 by the petitioner so also one more notice was issued on 24.01.2024 as per Annexure-R12 i.e. notice No.5.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024
7. No doubt the petitioner has also given reply to the notices issued by the State and also the very grievance of the petitioner before this Court also is that those replies were not considered by the State. No doubt, the principles laid down in the judgment referred by the petitioner's counsel in case of any arbitrariness in taking the decision the writ jurisdiction is not ousted and elaborate discussion was made in the judgment of the Apex Court and in case of any arbitrariness decision is taken the writ jurisdiction can be invoked.
8. Learned AGA appearing for the State contends that the judgments of Madras High Court clearly discloses that the relief is sought for mandamus. When the respondent directed the petitioners to stop the work, without challenging the same he cannot seek for the relief of mandamus. It is important to note that having perused the material on record and also documents produced along with the writ petition and
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 the replies given, the time bound scheme is made for the multi village water supply scheme to Nidugurthi and Other 60 habitations in Sandur, taluk of Ballari District and when the time bound contract is also given to the petitioner and also particularly from the date of agreement itself work order is issued in favour of petitioner, petitioner ought to have been vigilant while carrying out the work. It is also important to note that the notices which have been issued by the respondent even from beginning from the month of February itself issued notice and reminded the petitioner to act upon in terms of the contract. Admittedly, the DPR ought to have been taken within three months but the very approach for the DPR itself is after the lapse of three months and that too after issuance of notice R2, R3 and even R3 also specific date was given to the petitioner to submit the DPR within the specific date of 14.04.2023 and also subsequent notices clearly
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 disclose that even the petitioner was reminded periodically to act upon as per the contract.
9. All these aspects disclose that the petitioner was not diligent in acting in terms of the agreement and when such being the case mere filing of writ petition for the relief of issuance of mandamus and when respondent State itself has reminded periodically to carry out the work and take permission from the concerned department including NHAI, railway, petitioner has not shown any interest with regard to taking of permission. When such being the case, the very contention of the petitioner that arbitrary decision was taken by the respondent cannot be accepted. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the State also that through out from the date of entering into contract only respondent was vigilant in issuing notice and reminding the petitioner to start the work with permission from the concerned departments and
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 when same has not been done and when the time bound period was also fixed, the petitioner has not shown any progress and when such being the case no doubt instruction was given properly after the change of Government and communicated the same as per Annexure-H but the fact that even before issuance of such communication itself, the respondent State has reminded the petitioner from the month of February itself. When such being the case, I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner's counsel that decision was taken in arbitrariness and hence judgment of Apex Court will not come to the aid of the petitioner to give any such direction of writ of mandamus.
10. It is not in dispute that there is arbitration clause in terms of the agreement and when there is dispute between the parties with regard to not completing work as well as no doubt the contract was not terminated but instruction was given not to continue
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11305 WP No. 103146 of 2024 the work and stop the work, there is force in the contention of the counsel for State that without seeking relief of quashing of Annexures-AO, AQ and AS, mere seeking the relief of mandamus is not proper. Hence, this Court cannot grant any relief as sought to consider the representations and hence I do not find any merit in the petition to grant the relief as sought for.
11. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE gab - upto para 5 SH from para 6 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34