Karnataka High Court
Cyient Limited vs The Commissioner on 23 February, 2023
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
WP No. 54151 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 54151 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
CYIENT LIMITED.,
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS INFOTECH ENTERPRISES LTD)
4TH FLOOR, 'A' WING
11, SOFTWARE UNITES LAYOUT, MADHAPUR
HYDERABAD - 500 081.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY COMPANY SECRETARY.
MR. RAVIKUMAR NUKALA. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.S.RAJAGOPAL., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.SHYAM SUNDAR.H.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE COMMISSIONER,
Digitally signed by SURVEY, SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS
THEJASKUMAR N EX OFFCIO, DIRECTOR, UPOR
Location: HIGH K.R. CIRCLE , BENGALURU - 560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. A.R.SHARADAMBA., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP No. 54151 of 2017
ORDER
Sri.P.S.Rajagopal., learned Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.Shyam Sundar.H.V., for the petitioner and Smt.A.R.Sharadamba., learned AGA for the respondent have appeared through video conferencing.
The captioned Writ Petition is filed to quash the Communications issued by the Commissioner Survey, Settlement, and Land Records dated 25.10.2017 and 08.11.2017 both bearing Reference No.SSLR/MSA: (12)/2016- 17 vide Annexures-A & B.
2. The brief facts are these:
The petitioner Company is engaged in providing global solutions focused on engineering, manufacturing, data analytics, and networks & operations. The respondent issued a Request for Proposal (RFP-I) on the 25th day of September 2009 for the selection of a suitable Service Provider (SP) through the process of competitive bidding for adopting a private-public partnership model to implement the IT solution for the Urban Property Ownership Records Project. The petitioner's bid was selected and a Master Service Agreement -3- WP No. 54151 of 2017 was entered on the 11th day of January 2010 for undertaking and implementing the project as per the terms and conditions of MSA-I. Thereafter, the Project Director, Urban Property Ownership Records issued a Request for Proposal (RFP-II) on the 1st day of October 2009 for the selection of a suitable Technical Service Provider (TSP) through the process of competitive bidding for adopting a private-public partnership model to implement the IT solution for the project. Consequently, the petitioner's bid was selected, and a Master Services Agreement dated January 11, 2010 (MSA-II) was entered for undertaking and implementing the project. Both the Master Services Agreements related to the Project in Shimoga and Mangalore districts.
As per Clause 4.1 of the RFP-II, the geographical area of operation was initially for the five cities i.e., Mangalore, Bellary, Mysore, Hubli-Dharwad, and Shimoga. The increase in the coverage area was dependent on the post-successful implementation of the project in the above-mentioned five cities as per clause 4.1.1.-4-
WP No. 54151 of 2017
As things stood thus, the petitioner made representations to the respondent on 03.08.2011 and 21.09.2011 expressing its concern about exiting from the project. The respondent replied on the 30th day of December 2011. It is said that on the 22nd day of July 2013, the petitioner once again expressed its grievance and the issues faced by them in implementing the project. They also stated that the Company is unable to realize the revenues envisaged in the UPOR program, which is causing a major loss to the petitioner's revenues. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 6th January 2017 to the respondent stating that the MSA-I and MSA-II are going to expire on 10.01.2017 and informed the respondent about the challenges faced by the Company in executing the project. The petitioner also expressed that it is not willing to renew the project as the respondent failed to implement the purchase of PR Cards mandatory in the designated towns; delay in finalizing the digital records; delay in payments in Mangalore Project etc., It is averred that the petitioner approached the Principal Secretary, Revenue - Government of Karnataka to explain its difficulties in the execution of the UPOR project on 26.07.2017. -5- WP No. 54151 of 2017 The meeting was conducive and it was assured that the required changes would be made to the MSA to suit to the requirements after considering all assurances given by the Department earlier. The petitioner was under the assumption that the respondent would revise the MSA with changed terms and conditions, but it received a letter from Commissioner's office dated 23.09.2017 and 08.11.2017 for handing over source code and exiting from the project. It is said that a letter was issued on 25.10.2017 threatening the petitioner to hand over the source code or face consequences including blacklisting of the petitioner. Notably, the respondent also issued a handwritten letter dated 08.11.2017 stating that if the petitioner does not hand over the source code, the respondent shall initiate action under the Indian Penal code.
Under these circumstances, the petitioner having left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy has filed this Writ Petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent have urged several contentions.
-6-WP No. 54151 of 2017
4. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of respective parties and perused the papers with care.
The facts have been stated sufficiently and the same does not require reiteration.
The Government alleged that the petitioner being a service provider, did not return the Source Code and hence proceeded to initiate action for non-returning the Source Code and proceeded to blacklist the petitioner and also threatened to initiate Criminal action against the petitioner. The action of the Government is called into question in this Writ Petition.
This Court on the 14th day of December 2017, stayed the threatened action of blacklisting and the initiation of criminal action against the petitioner.
Sri.P.S.Rajagopal., learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in presenting his argument submits that the petitioner has returned the Source Code to the Government, thus the threatened action of blacklisting and initiating criminal action cannot be sustained. -7- WP No. 54151 of 2017
Smt.A.R.Sharadamba., learned AGA submits that the Government has received the Source Code from the petitioner.
Suffice it to note that the threatened action was solely on the ground that the petitioner did not return the source code. But now the petitioner has returned the Source Code to the respondent hence, the threatened action of blacklisting and initiating criminal action against the petitioner cannot be sustained. Hence, I deem it proper to issue a Writ of Certiorari.
The result is that the Writ Petition will be allowed. This Court orders a Writ of Certiorari. The Communication/ Notice dated:25.10.2017 issued by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records & Ex-Officio Director (Bhoomi & UPOR) vide Annexure-A and the handwritten Communication dated:08.11.2017 issued by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, K.R.Circle, Bengaluru vide Annexure-B are quashed.
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10.