Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Appellant contended that there were defects in the construction of the building, which were noted in the letters under challenge. Appellant called upon the respondent No.1 to cure all the defects noted in the letter. However, respondent No.1 did not cure the defects of the construction as well as fixtures. In view of the said reason, the said RA bill submitted by respondent No.1 was not approved. Merely Appellant took possession of the building and inaugurated the same does not mean that there were no defects. Bill amount was inflated. Hence WA NO.1013 of 2022 C/W CCC NO.1005 of 2022 Respondent No.1 was not entitled for entire amount of the Bill. He cannot file Writ Petition to recover the alleged outstanding amount. Serious question of facts are involved in this case, which has to be decided by the civil court and not under extraordinary jurisdiction of the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Writ petition is not maintainable. With these reasons appellant prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

- 13 -

WA NO.1013 of 2022 C/W CCC NO.1005 of 2022 amount. The writ court in detail discussed these facts and rightly held that this could be decided under Article 226 of Constitution of India and it does not call for interference by this Court. With these reasons respondent No.1 prayed to dismiss the appeal.

14. The writ Court considering the materials available on record as well as considering the contentions of both the parties and also following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court held that the writ petition is maintainable. Pleadings of the parties indicates that most of the facts of the case are undisputed. Entitlement of respondent No.1 to claim the amount of the bill is also not disputed. Contention of the appellant is that there were defects in the construction work as noted in letters under challenge and they were not attended by the respondent No.1. The alleged defects of construction stated by the appellant in its reply letters were not at all notified by the engineers of Tourism Department or Architect nominated by the appellant at the time of joint inspection of building while taking over possession. Undisputedly building was

- 14 -

WA NO.1013 of 2022 C/W CCC NO.1005 of 2022 put into use by the appellant and earned few crores of rupees as per press statement, which is not disputed. During the use of building also, alleged defects were not notified to respondent No.1. The alleged defects appear to be noted for the first time when respondent No.1 sent letter requesting the appellant for payment of the dues. From the materials placed on record any prudent man can infer that just to delay the payment of the bill amount said notice was sent by the appellant. The officers of the appellant (KSDTC) themselves requested the Government to grant the funds for clearing outstanding bills of respondent No.1. About a year after handing over the building, appellant started contending that there were defects in the construction. Even at that time also there was no joint inspection of the construction to assess the defects/short comings in the buildings.

- 17 -

WA NO.1013 of 2022 C/W CCC NO.1005 of 2022 dated 07.04.2018, for the first time informing respondent No.1, that there were defects in the construction of the building and called upon the respondent No.1 to cure the said defects. Respondent No.1 sent notice dated 25.04.2018 (Annexure - AV) through his advocate calling upon the appellant to pay the amount due to him. Thereafter, the appellant sent another notice dated 10.05.2018 informing additional defects in the building and the defects were increased to seven in numbers. These defects were not noted, while taking over possession of the building. Undisputedly possession was taken by the appellant, respondent No. 2 and 3, in the presence of Engineer of Tourism Department as well as architect- representative appointed by the appellant - KSTDC. Even thereafter, till writing of letter by the respondent No.1, no such complaint was made. These facts prima facie shows that just to delay payment of outstanding bill of respondent No.1 said objections were raised by officers of the appellant, as repeatedly contended by respondent No.1. If, really, there were such