Karnataka High Court
R. M. Rajashekhar vs State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.39048/2018(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
R. M. RAJASHEKHAR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O MALLIKARJUNAIAH,
VEERABHADRESHWARA TEMPLE BEEDHI,
NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, HALEPETE,
BIRUR, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 548.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN B. SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
RURAL DEVELOPMENT &
PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPT
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KRIDL CHIKKAMAGALUR DIVISION,
KADUR ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 101.
2
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT LTD.,
ANANDA RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 009.
5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
K.R.I.D.L. SUB DIVISION,
KADUR-577 548.
6. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
K.R.I.D.L. SUB DIVISION,
KADUR TALUK,
KADUR-577 548
7. THE BRANCH MANAGER
VIJAYA BANK,
BIRUR BRANCH, BIRUR-577 116
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. KUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6)
...
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO SEND THE RECORDS
AND ACCOUNT OF PETITIONER; DIRECT RESPONDENT
NO.4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE VIDE
ANNEXURE-C(a).
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.4 to consider the representation dated 28.11.2017 as per Annexure-C(a) to examine the accounts of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Civil Contractor engaged by the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (KRIDL) and on his service recognition being good, he was provided to execute and undertake building, demolition, etc., in the Rural Karnataka and as such, he was undertaking 17 projects in Kadur and Tarikere Taluk.
3. For payment of his dues for the works undertaken by him, the petitioner approached the respondents-authorities, but he was informed that all payments had been disbursed and no payments are due 4 to him for which he was shocked. Thereafter, he got an endorsement stating that there were no dues outstanding in his name for the works executed by him. Ultimately on 13.8.2018, the Deputy Director of Rural Development and Panchayath Raj called a meeting between the petitioner and respondent No.5 and directed respondent No.5 to produce the accounts, cheques issued and goods delivered to the petitioner, but on 16.8.2018, respondent No.5 remained absent and again on 19.8.2018, respondent No.5 produced a report to the Deputy Director, RDPR hastily setting out the payments made and claimed that the petitioner had received an amount of Rs.53,83,184/- whereas the project estimation was only Rs.49,55,960/-. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations including the one dated 28.11.2017 to examine his accounts and pass orders. Inspite of such representations, the respondents particularly, respondent No.4 has not considered the representations of the petitioner nor has 5 passed any orders. Therefore, he is before this Court for the relief sought for.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri Harshavardhan B. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition contended that the inaction on the part of respondent No.4 in not considering the representations made by the petitioner to examine the accounts and pass appropriate orders is in utter violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He further contended that though the representation was made as long back as on 28.11.2017, even after a lapse of more than one year, the respondents have not passed any orders and hence, he is unnecessarily driven before this Court. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition for the relief sought for.
6
6. Per Contra, Sri H. Devendrappa, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 on instructions submits that the representations of the petitioner would be considered within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already considered and disposed of. The said submission is placed on record.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, according to the respondents, the petitioner has received an amount of Rs.53,83,184/-, but according to the petitioner, the respondents are still due in view of the works undertaken by him with regard to 17 projects in Kaduru and Tarikere Taluk. When the petitioner has made representations to the 4th respondent on 28.11.2017, the respondents particularly respondent No.4 ought to have considered the same and passed appropriate orders within a reasonable period, but the same has not been done.
7
8. In view of the aforesaid submission and considering the material on record, representation dated 28.11.2017 made by the petitioner for examining the accounts and payments made to him, shall be considered by the respondents particularly respondent No.4 and appropriate orders be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in accordance with law, if not already considered and disposed of.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
Judge Nsu/-