Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: DHARWAD NORTH. in Sri. Subhash vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 October, 2025Matching Fragments
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 04.06.2021 passed by the third respondent (Executive Engineer, PWD, Bagalkot) being arbitrary, erroneous and opposed to law. The petitioner also impugns the proceedings dated 06.08.2021 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Engineer, CAB North, Dharwad being arbitrary and unreasonable.
2. It is the petitioner's case that certain work orders were issued to the petitioner for mining sand and transporting the sand from Malaprabha river basin, falling within the limits of Chettinahal, Papatnal, Chittaragi, Chinnapur, Palathi and Hiremagi villages of Hungund Taluk, Bagalkot District, and stocking the mined sand at Government designated stockyards. These work orders were issued during the period 26.09.2011 to 03.12.2011. The petitioner claims that since there were no approach roads for transportation of the mined sand from the river basin to reach the public roads NC: 2025:KHC:42792-DB HC-KAR and then to the Government's stockyard, a joint inspection was conducted in December 2011; estimates for laying the approach roads were prepared in 2011-2012; and the petitioner was directed to lay the approach roads. The roads were made in the lands of respective private land owners on payment of compensation. The petitioner made the said roads and performed the contract work of transportation of mined sand.
7. The petitioner states that the Superintendent Engineer had also recommended that the petitioner's bills be cleared but the same were not. The petitioner relies on a letter dated 16.11.2017 issued by the Superintendent Engineer, PWD addressed to the Chief Engineer, C&B North, Dharwad, recommending that the pending bills be approved referring to the Government notification dated 02.07.2011.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:42792-DB HC-KAR
8. Since the petitioner did not receive any response to his representations, he filed a writ petition being WP.No.104437/2018, inter alia, praying that the directions be issued to respondents to consider the representation dated 16.12.2015 along with the letter dated 16.11.2017 and to direct the respondents to make the payments of the amounts as reflected in the petition. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 08.03.2021.
9. It is material to note that the respondents had contested the maintainability of the said petition and contended that the claims raised by the petitioner were arising out of a contract and thus could not be considered in a writ petition. However, the learned Single Judge did not accept the said contention and directed respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 16.02.2015 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of the said petition. In compliance of the said order, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 04.06.2021, out-rightly rejecting the claims made by the petitioner and questioning the executive. Respondent No.3 found that the claims were not genuine. Subsequently, proceedings were held under the Chairmanship of the Chief Engineer, C&B, North NC: 2025:KHC:42792-DB HC-KAR Dharwad on 06.08.2021 and the claims made by the petitioner were not accepted.