Karnataka High Court
M/S Drn Infrastructure vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
1
W.P.No.49174/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JULY, 2018
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.49174/2017 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
M/S DRN INFRASTRUCTURE
ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS
NAYAK'S HOUSE, DOOR NO.110
3RD FLOOR, DOLLARS COLONY, GOKUL ROAD
HUBBALLI-580030
REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER
MR.ARUN KUMAR NADGOUDA
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: R G KOLLE, ADV)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS
& INLAND WATER TRANSPORTS
BENGALURU-560001.
2
W.P.No.49174/2017
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. THE DIRECTOR & COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
5. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST &
COMPETENT AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
HAVERI-581110.
6. THE CHIE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.,
MILLER TANK BED AREA
TIMMAIAH ROAD CROSS
BENGALURU-560052.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI:VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO DIRECT THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS TO COLLECT
AND DEDUCT ROYALTY PURSUANT TO AN EARLIER
GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 23.06.2007, TILL
THE COMPETITION OF WORK CONTRACT IN TERMS OF
AGREEMENT DATED 06.07.2013 AND WORK ORDER
DATED 20.07.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B
RESPECTIVELY, IN RESPECT OF MINOR MINERALS LIKE
MURRAM, GRAVEL, SAND, ORDINARY BUILDING STONES
EXTRACTED FROM PRIVATE PATTA LAND AND
GOVERNMENT LANDS AS PER RULE 36, SCHEDULE-II,
WHICH IS BEING CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF
RESPONDENT-5 SENIOR GEOLOGIST, IN TURN TO THE
ACCOUNT OF STATE TREASURY/EXCHEQUER AND ETC.,
3
W.P.No.49174/2017
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
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 4 W.P.No.49174/2017 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 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."5 W.P.No.49174/2017
The position aforesaid squarely applies to the present case also.
Therefore, this writ petition stands disposed of in the same terms.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-