Chandrasekar B Aski vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 1 September, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 6]

Karnataka High Court

Chandrasekar B Aski vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 1 September, 2008

Bench: N.K.Patil

{N me man com? OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No. 11 twzoas
1

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORIS' 
DATED mm 'mm 18? mm or annnmnmR.AV..Az¢%§8%<i%   ~ 

WRIT PETITION No.

THE Momma MR. JUSTlCvE'AA'N;K;P£$TIL«   " A  A

 

BETW EEN:

CHANDRASEKAR B ASK!

AGED ABOUT29YEARS,~.__ 
cuss: CONTRACTOR  p
11-31, 26TH 3 MAIN -
9TH BLOCK. JAYANAGA ._
BANGALORE  V  - 'V

 "  PETITIONER

(By Sri : Guauiéga    

AND :

1

THE Si-'ATE oFvKARN.aTA:<A'- 1. -
REPRESENTED E3Y 'iTS '$E(':RE-'fARY
WATEFZLRESOURCEDQARTMENT
v:KAsAs.=oLsc>HA-_ ' = -~

:3AN_C3At.0RE-ft' ~ ''
- "':'HE-LMANAGING DEEECTOR

MIS. KPJSHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED

V' " --»  aﬁrscss ANNEXE. 3RD FLOOR
- K.R,t3!_3€.1LE~,. BANGALORE4

._  THe_c;H'i;'+:;=éNcaIr~1EER
1. M13; mm-ena BHAGYA JALA mew LIMITED

CANAL ZGNE NO.1
BHEEMARAYANAGUDL 585 287

s ._ TQ: 'SHAHPUR
'~;.*>a$"z': GULBURGA

' H ma mspecroa GENERAL or POUCE WGILANCE CELL

WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
GGVERNMEN? OF KARNATAKA
BASAVA BHAVANA

BANGALORE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.l §l94i2ﬁ08

11194 wow G5>Rww} '~%ffk% 



IN THE HIGH COURT QF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No. iii94/2008
2

5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

W3. KRTSHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM UMITEI}
NRBC DWN. N06

AMARAPUR CRO$S, DEODURGA

CAMP: KRISHNAPUR

TQ: SURF-'UR, DiST: GULBURGA

(By Sri 1 NARENDRA PRF-SAD, HCGP )

ﬁtti-

THTSWRFF PETITTGN IS FILED UMBER ARTQCLES 226 RNGVVZQT OF
THE CONSTITUTTON OF INDIA PRAYTNG "TO QUASH  TMPUGNEI3
REPORT ISSUED BY RESPONDENT N04 QT. 31 WHICH IS

PRODUCED AS ANNEXM TO THE EXTENT SF' !TS'~CONTAiNiNG THE NAME .OF THE PETITIONER. QUAS_H'2.THE:'. IMPUGNEDWQRDER 1-SSUED BY RESPONDENT N0}! QT. ?.5.200€$, -'.!W-"FISH IS AS ANNEX-N. QUASH THE IMPUGNED SHOW CASUE NGTiCE-.¥$5I=LfED EY RESPONDENT N03 OT. 26.12008, WHSCH lS.~F'-RC§£)UCEU_ AS 'ANNEX-Q AGAINST THE PETITIONER; TO RESTRAIN THE N055 FROM PRGCEEDING TO REMOVE THE " Nr'¥ME THE""PET1TiOEi"4R....FROM THE LiST OF REGISTERED CQNTR;'§£3_TQRS" RESPQNBNET N02 AND FROM BLACKLISING THE i"'.ETiTiONER"\!%'-ITHQUT DUEPROCEESS OF THE LAW "AND RULES FRAMEG'_T§'jEREiJE§DER'. .. & V I THE! wan :'=¥é":'*:ﬁo§J c6M1.:Qe'oN FOR F'RELiMlNARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ms covknaape mg FQé.'£.OWiNG:

T ___quwtioning the correctness of the i:irp§gned'EEE%¢>rdéer dated 315' March 2008 bearing 7l§Jo.lC:TP!\}'ig3-.(3UeIiNVRDl72I20O7-08 passed by the fourﬂw "Ee::§§£$t3dent vide Annexure M to the extent of its :V'§;;§>_;'*itaining the name of the petiﬁaner, has prwented the Tinstant writ petition. Further, petitianer has sought for IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.i 119452008 RES?A¥£_§HEIE§lTS.A "

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE WJKNO. 1119442008 6 out the sub standard quality of work carried by petitioner and not fuifiited the speciﬁcations of the entered into between the parties. in pursuance' report of the vigiiance wing of 2008, the confidential communiceticn"d_eted 7?": . vide Annexuree M and N Neecond respondent has issuedA"«--tt'ge_ notice caiiing upon the petitioner__ as:Ato':.xéiizy_:' of petitioner shouid not HI eeiect list of contrectoreVe.o'f; to the show cause notice due date of receipt of the said noﬁce. The said s;.hoe?V cause notice is issued in the "tight stttet/igii'aVnoe"report and the communication respondent to me second respondent. : am-gt final decision to remove name of the ' " petitioner as recommended by the Vigiience end taking appropriate decision, petitioner has to this Court and praented the instant writ AM THE HIGH COURT OF KARNﬁ.TAI<'.A AT BANGALORE W.P.?~io.l 3 ISMJQQGS IN YHE HIGH COURT OF KARNATQ AT BANGALORE W.P.No, 1119432098 8 the Vigilance report or the conﬁdential communicatien issued by the first respondent ta ihe second The said submission made by ieamed petitioner cannot be accepted at_ s£:a?g'e= the '= relief sought for by petitioner is final decision is yet to béi.ﬁik_en ﬁieiivibbfnpetént authority. Petitienerv has airersiéiy. fepiieii show cause notice and being the cnmpetent is1A1_ya__;t'.:ti3 diacision on ﬂue basis o¥i_the1ié§:yiﬁied bme petmoner and the report to be Therefore, mtitioner 'inyoké" extra ordinary jurisdiction as Article 226 of me Cnnstitution of India. filed by petitioner is liable to be ' not maintainabie at ﬂ1is stage.

u Therefore, wiﬂiout expressing any opinion on and demerits of pei3'tioner's case and aiso on the IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.2€a,l 1 l9x$f2£Ii& IN THE HIGH COURT {BF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No. 1119492008 9 grounds urged by the petitioner, I am cf the View that, this is not a fit case fer interference-

6. So far as me judgments of this Apex Court relied upon by learned counsel I am of the View that, they have nnA.§§eVV on hand, at this premature stage. " open for the petitioner to produce aﬁ' before the second responden{A--t.§é1'o're giecision.

7. In the-Eight of the petition ﬁled by petitioner |iab:l_e':'» . Accordingly, it is , " _: rvéﬁgA'iébertyV"' to petitioner to redress his . . befere respondent.

Sd/-v Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.l §l94f2{)G8

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court