Karnataka High Court
Mr Sri G Shankar vs State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2026
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9972
WP No. 24843 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 24843 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR SRI G SHANKAR
S/O LATE SOMA BANGERA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT NO GANESH NAGAR
SATATION ROAD,
VIJAYPUR -586 104
ALSO AT
"JOLLY APARTMENT"
FLAT NO. C1, C2 NO 11
N.S IYENGAR STREET
SHESHADRIPURAM
BANGALORE - 560 020.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KIRAN J., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N
Location: HIGH
AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMETN OF MAJOR
IRRIGATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDAH
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALUU - 560 001.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD.,
IBCO AND M DIVISION
RAMPUR, SINDAGI TALUK
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9972
WP No. 24843 of 2022
HC-KAR
VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 586 202.
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD.,
YARGAL 26, RAMPUR - 586 202.
4. CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER
KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD.,
BHIMARAYANAGUDI
SHAPUR TALUK
YADAGIRI DISTRICT - 585 223.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. M.R.C. RAVI., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRASHANTH B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 08.09.2022 BEARING NO.
KBJNL/ IBC/ O AND M/DN/RMP/PB-1/2022-23/1351 ISSUED BY
THE R2 ANNEXURE- A.DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE
THE AMOUNT FOR A SUM OF RS.2,20,60,472/- AS AGAINST
THE WORK DONE RESTORATION AND PROVIDING
MECHANICAL GATES TO THE UMARANI BARRAGE
CONSTRUCTED ACROSS BHIMA RIVER FOR AUGMENTATION OF
WATER TO CHADACHAN LIS ON TURNKEY BASIS AS PER
ANNEXURE G RUNNING ACCOUNT BILL DATED 19.01.2022 AND
PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT DATED 04.01.2021 IN TENDER
AGREEMENT NO.68/2020-21 AS PER RUNNING ACCOUNT BILL
DATED 14.01.2022 ANNEXURE E AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9972
WP No. 24843 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
After arguing the matter for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition and to seek alternative remedy as contemplated under clause-29 of the tender document which reads as under:
''SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE-TIME FOR DECISION.
Clause 29:
(a) If any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever were to arise between the Executive Engineer/Superintending Engineer and the contractor regarding the following matter namely;
(i) The meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned;
(ii) The quality of workmanship or materials used on the work and
(iii) Any other question claim, right, matter, thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, or orders or those conditions or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work, or after the completion, termination or abandonment thereof, the dispute shall, in the first place be referred to the Chief Engineer who has jurisdiction over the work specified in the contract. The Chief Engineer shall within a period of sixty days from the date of being requested by the Contractor to do so give written notice of his decision to the Contractor. If the Contractor is aggrieved by the decision of the Chief Engineer, or if the Chief Engineer fails to give written notice of his decision within the above said period of sixty days, the contractor may appeal to the Managing Director, KBJNL within 60 days from the receipt of written notice of Chief Engineer's decision or from the expiry of first named period of 60 days.
(b) Subject to the Managing Director's decision on appeal and subject to other form of settlement hereafter provided the Chief Engineer's decision in respect of every dispute or difference so referred shall be final and binding upon the contractor. The said decision shall, forthwith be given effect to and contractor shall proceed with the execution of the work with all due diligence.-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:9972 WP No. 24843 of 2022 HC-KAR Remedy when Managing Director's decision on appeal is not acceptable to contractor
(c) In case the decision of the Managing Director is not acceptable to the contractor he may approach the Law Courts at Bijapur (*) for settlement of dispute after giving due written notice in this regard to the Managing Director within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the written notice of the decision of the Managing Director.
Time limit for notice to approach law court by contractor:
(d) If the Managing Director has given written notice to the contractor of his decision on his appeal and no written notice to approach the law court has been communicated to him by the contractor within a period of ninety days from receipt of such notice the said decision shall be final and binding upon the contractor.
Time limit for notice to approach law court by contractor when decision is not given by Managing Director:
(e) The Managing Director fails is give notice of his decision within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the contractor's appeal, the Contractor may within ninety days after the expiry of the above named period of ninety days approach the Law Courts at Bijapur (*) giving due notice to the Managing Director.
(*) in sub-clauses (d) and (e) specify the place where the Court under whose jurisdiction the work is situated/located.
(f) Whether the claim is referred to the Chief Engineer or Managing Director or to the Law Courts, as the case may be the contractor shall proceed to execute and complete the works with all due diligence pending settlement of the said dispute of differences.
Obligations of the Executive Engineer and contractor shall remain unaltered during considerations of dispute:
(g). The reference of any dispute or difference to the Chief Engineer or Managing Director or the Law Courts may proceed notwithstanding that the works shall then be or be alleged to be complete provided always mat the obligations of the Executive Engineer and the contracts shall not be altered by reason of the said dispute or difference being referred to the Chief Engineer or Managing Director or the Law Court during the progress of works.
(h). It is clearly understood and agreed upon by both the parties that no part of the above clause 29 shall be construed to be an Arbitration Clause under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any other Act. In the event of any dispute or difference arising between the parties to this contract; upon exhausting the remedies available under clauses 29(a) to (g); the only final remedy available shall be approached the jurisdictional Civil Court agreed to under clause 29(e) of this contract by filing a suit in accordance with law.'' -5- NC: 2026:KHC:9972 WP No. 24843 of 2022 HC-KAR
2. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute/ object for the same.
3. Submissions are taken on record.
4. Petition is disposed of reserving liberty as sought for.
5. It is made clear no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16