Patil And Company vs The Executive Engineer And Or on 17 July, 2017

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Patil And Company vs The Executive Engineer And Or on 17 July, 2017

Bench: G. Narendar

                               1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2017

                         BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

       WRIT PETITION NO.202739/2015 (GM-TEN)

BETWEEN

Patil and Company
Head Office: Pandit Nivas, 20/12
South Sadar Bazar, Opp. Vinayak Sabhagruh,
Solapur
By its General Power of Attorney Holder
Anil S/o Basanna Yelure
Aged about: 31 Years,
Occ: Business, R/o Wadkabal
South Solapur, Dist: Solapur-400001.
                                              ... Petitioner

(By Sri.Shivakumar Kalloor, Adv.)

AND

1)    The Executive Engineer
      PWP and IWTD Division
      Kalaburagi-585103.

2)    The Superintendent Engineer
      PWP and IWTD Circle,
      Kalaburagi-585103.

3)    Chief Engineer C & B Engineer (North)
      Dharwad-585103.

4)    The Assistant Executive Engineer
                                 2




      PWP and IWTD Sub Division
      Kalaburagi-585103.

5)    State of Karnataka
      Department of Public Works
      Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560001.
      By its Secretary.
                                                 ... Respondents

(By Sri.R.V.Nadagouda, AAG along with
Sri. A.Syed Habeeb, AGA)


      This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari
quashing the impugned letter/order Annexure-k dated
13.06.2014    in   No.   PÁ¤C/¯ÉiÀÁÃE/«UÀÄ/vÁ±Á/3/2014-15/809   of

respondent no.1 and direct the respondents not to cancel the
tender allotted to the petitioner etc.


      This petition coming on for orders this day, the court
made the following:


                             ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a contractor and has been allotted certain works under the tender notification produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition. The said tender was entrusted by the Government of Karnataka, Department of Public Works, Ports and Inland Water Transport Department, Kalaburagi Division and the work allotted under the tender pertained to widening and strengthening of Tawargera cross to Sawathkhed cross, km 27.00 to 38.20 (MDR) and Sawatkhed cross to Tadkal cross (Irrigation road), km 0.00 to 7.00 in Kalaburagi taluka.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the petitioner completing majority portion of the work allotted to it, the respondents have failed to adhere to the payments schedule and that they have also failed to return the EMD amount.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the contract work is yet to be completed and that the respondents have a right of lien over the deposit and it is not open to the petitioner to assert that laying of the roads should be as per the Indian Roads Specifications.

5. On perusal of the tender notification, it is seen that as per Clause-4 of the condition of the contract, the dispute relating to agreement shall be settled in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In view of the disputes to be settled in arbitration proceeding, the writ petition is not maintainable in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard.

6. Hence, the writ petition is disposed off by directing the petitioner to seek recourse for redressal as provided under the agreement.

All the contentions of the parties are left open. The writ petition stands disposed off in the above terms.

Sd/-

JUDGE Srt

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court