Sri. Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 August, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 August, 2017

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA

     WRIT PETITION NO.35507/2017(GM-BWSSB)

BETWEEN :

Sri.Venkatesh,
S/o.Gorlappa,
Aged about 36 years,
Class I Contractor,
J.V.Colony,
J.Thimmasandra Post,
Srinivaspura Taluk,
Kolar District - 563 135.                 ...PETITIONER

       (By Sri.T.M.Venkata Reddy, Adv.)

AND :

1.     The State of Karnataka,
       By its Principal Secretary,
       Department of Water Resources
       (Minor Irrigation)
       2nd & 3rd Floor,
       Vikas Soudha,
       Bengaluru - 560 001.

2.     The Chief Engineer,
       Minor Irrigation (South)
       K.R.Circle,
       Bengaluru - 560 001.
                            -2-




3.   Superintending Engineer,
     Minor Irrigation Circle,
     Jayanagar Complex,
     Bengaluru - 560 011.

4.   Executive Engineer,
     Minor Irrigation Division,
     Kolar - 563 101.

5.   Assistant Executive Engineer,
     Minor Irrigation Sub-Division
     Kolar - 563 101.                 ...RESPONDENTS

     (By Sri.A.C.Balaraj, HCGP)

                        . . . .


     This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the
respondents to consider the demanding letter dated
15.05.2016 produced at Annexure `V' and the letter
dated 24.07.2016 is produced at Annexure `W' for
sanctioning the bills and etc.



     This writ petition coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
                             -3-




                       ORDER

The learned Government Advocate, to accept notice to respondents 1 to 5 and file memo of appearance in four weeks.

2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the demanding letters dated 15.05.2016 and 24.07.2016 at Annexures `V' and `W' respectively. In that regard the petitioner is seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the sanction of the pending bills.

3. Though contentions are urged in the instant petition, the details need not be adverted to since while another Contractor who was similarly placed as that of the petitioner, was before this Court in W.P.No.33423/2016. This Court through the order dated 20.10.2016, after taking note of a similar prayer has ordered as follows:

-4-

"4. Having noticed the contention put forth by the learned Government Advocate, what is necessary to be indicated is that such situation has not arisen at this point in time. The prayer as made in the instant petition is for a direction to the respondent to take note of the letter of the petitioner and take a decision thereof. Therefore, insofar as the averments as made in the petition, this Court at this juncture in any event cannot come to a conclusion as to whether the work has been satisfactorily performed by the petitioner and as to whether the amount as claimed by the petitioner is due and payable to the petitioner. These are aspects which are to be taken note by the respondents themselves while taking into consideration the bills that are submitted by the petitioner and considering the letter as at Annexure `M'. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, the respondents are to be directed to take note of the letter submitted by the petitioner keeping in view the contract entered into by way of agreement as also the details furnished by the petitioner regarding the work said to have -5- been performed, the bills submitted and thereafter take a decision on the same in accordance with law.

           To     enable    such    consideration     the
     petitioner    shall    now     submit      a   fresh
     representation    along      with   all   supporting

documents to the 4th respondent who shall collate all materials, take a decision and convey the decision taken to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months from the date on which the representation is submitted. Needless to mention that if the amount is due and payable the same shall be paid.

Petition is disposed of accordingly."

4. In that view, a similar direction is required to be issued in this petition. Hence, the petitioner shall now file a fresh representation along with all the supporting documents to the respondent No.4, who shall collate all materials, take a decision and convey the decision taken to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months from the date on which the -6- representation is submitted. Needless to mention that if the amount is due and payable the same shall also be paid.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE SPS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court