Suresh Kumar B E vs General Manager, South Western ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11485 Kant

                          1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022

                      PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

            W.A. NO.155 OF 2021 (GM-TEN)
                          IN
            W.P. NO.9086 OF 2020 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:

SURESH KUMAR B.E.,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ENGINEER & CLASS I
PWD CONTRACTOR "KOTHARI NIVAS",
CHIKKA BASTHI ROAD,
HASSAN - 573 201.                         ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. RADHAKRISHNA, ADV.,)
AND:

1.     GENERAL MANAGER
       SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
       HUBBALLI - 580 031.
2.     DIVL. RAILWAY MANAGER
       SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
       MYSURU - 570 001.
3.     ADDL. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
       SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
       MYSURU - 570 001.

4.     SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER/CENTRAL
                            2



     SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
     MYSURU - 570 001.

5.   ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
     SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
     ARASIKERE - 573 103.
                                      ... RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS SERVED)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.12.2020
PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.9086/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

    THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE         DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal has been filed against the

order dated 26.12.2020 passed by the learned Single

Judge.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal

briefly stated are that the appellant is a Class I PWD

contractor. He was awarded the contract by the

Railways. The said contract was implemented by a

communication dated 28.05.2020. It challenged the

validity of the aforesaid communication in a writ

petition. The learned Single Judge by an order dated

22.12.2020 declined to entertain the writ petition

insofar as clause 27 of the agreement which provides

for resolution by way of arbitration. In the aforesaid

factual background, this appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the appellant had completed 90% of

the work and the same was on the advance stage of

completion and therefore, the contract could not be

rescinded. It is further submitted that the decision to

terminate the contract is arbitrary.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the

appellant and have perused the record. Clause 27 of

the Agreement dated 03.01.2020 provides for

resolution of the disputes and discouraging the

parties to approach the court. It is well settled in law

that this court would not exercise its extraordinary

jurisdiction in a case, which requires examination of

disputed facts. Since, the appellant has an alternate

and efficacious remedy with regard to his grievance,

the learned Single Judge has therefore, rightly

concluded that the disputed question of fact cannot

be adjudicated in a summary proceeding under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant has an

alternate and efficacious remedy. Therefore, in the

facts and circumstances of the case, we do find any

ground to differ with the view taken by the learned

Single Judge. Therefore, the appeal fails and is

hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE SS