Karnataka High Court
M/S Rudramuni Consultants vs State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2022
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.44129 OF 2013(LB-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.52776 OF 2013 (LB-RES)
IN W.P.NO.44129/2013:
BETWEEN:
M/S RUDRAMUNI CONSULTANTS,
BY SRI. RUDRAMUNI,
NO.471-1, 15TH "A" CROSS,
IDEAL HOMES CO-OPERATIVE
BUILDING SOCIETY LAYOUT,
KENCHENAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 098.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G C SHANMUKHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATH RAJ,
M.S.BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD BUILDING,
RASILDAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE-560 020.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH ENGINEERING DIVISION,
RAMANAGARAM DIVISION,
RAMANAGARAM 571 511.
4. THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT,
2
RAMANAGARAM-571 511.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. B J SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.6.2013(ANNX-V) PASSED BY
THE R-2 AND ETC.,
IN W.P.NO.52776/2013:
BETWEEN:
M/S RUDRAMUNI CONSULTANTS,
BY SRI. RUDRAMUNI,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
NO.471-1, 15TH "A" CROSS,
IDEAL HOMES CO-OPERATIVE
BUILDING SOCIETY LAYOUT,
KENCHENAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 098.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G C SHANMUKHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATH RAJ,
M.S.BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD BUILDING,
RASILDAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE-560 020.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT,
CHAMRAJNAGAR.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
ZILLA PANCHAYATH ENGINEERING DIVISION,
CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT,
CHAMRAJNAGAR.
3
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. ASHOK N NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE ORDER DTD.3.8.2013 VIDE ANNEX-W
PASSED BY THE R2 AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In both these petitions, regardless of the structure
of the pleadings and the prayer made, the claim is for a
certain sum of money.
2. The respondents having entered appearance
through their advocates, oppose the writ petitions by
filing the Statement of Objections inter alia contending
that the awards have been passed in terms of the
judgment in the earlier W.P.No.33544/2010 (LB-RES)
disposed off by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on
23.07.2012 and therefore, the fate of the petitioner is
sealed by the awards in question. So contending, they
seek dismissal of these writ petitions.
3. These two petitions involving substantially
similar fact matrix, are taken up together for hearing this
day since common questions of law arise therein. Having
heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant
indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) In respect of the dispute in question, petitioner
was before this Court in the writ petition mentioned
above, the following observation was made:
"3. Regard being had to clause 8(i) of the
settlement of disputes as extracted in
paragraph 7 of the statement of objections,
which is not in dispute, it is for the petitioner
to seek a decision at the hands of the
Engineer-in-chief, Public Health
Engineering, Bangalore, and not come
rushing to the court for a writ of mandamus
to direct payment of money due as ordered
by the tate vide Annexure - 'J'.
b) Pursuant to the above judgment in the earlier
writ petition, the dispute was treated by the Chief
Engineer, Panchayath Raj Engineering Department,
Bangalore, and the awards in question came to be
passed on 27.06.2013 & 03.08.2013 wherein the claim
of the petitioner has been negatived. The operative
portion of the award being same in both the cases reads
as under:
"DzÉñÀ:
ªÉÄÃ: gÀÄzÀæªÀÄĤ PÀ£Àì¯ÉÖAmïgÀªÀgÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÀ CDRsUÀ¼À
£ÀÆå£ÀvÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÄjvÀÄ. CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß JA¥sÀªÀgï× PÀ«Än/vÁAwæPÀ
G¥À ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ°è C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉUÉÆArgÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ
E®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÉ. PÉëÃvÀæPÉÌ ¨sÉÃn ¤ÃqÀzÉÃ, ¸ÀªÉÃð
ªÀiÁqÀzÉ, PÀbÉÃjAiÀįÉèà PÀĽvÀÄ CDRs UÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
ºÁUÉ vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÀ CDRs UÀ¼ÀÄ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀPÉÌ ¨ÁgÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÉ. FUÁUÀ¯Éà D ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è EªÀgÀ C¥ÀÆtð
CDRs UÀ¼À£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ, PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ §ºÀÄUÁæªÀÄ
PÀÄrAiÀÄĪÀ ¤ÃgÀÄ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ AiÉÆÃd£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
C£ÀĵÁ×£ÀUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. FUÀ EªÀgÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÀ CDRs
UÀ½UÉ ±ÉÃ.25%gÀµÀÄÖ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ
ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤gÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁr ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ D¢ðPÀ ºÉÆgÉ
ªÀiÁrzÀAvÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. C®èzÉÃ, EzÀPÉÌ ªÀĺÁ¯ÉÃR¥Á®gÀÄ PÀÆqÀ
DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀA¨sÀ«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ªÉÄÃ:
gÀÄzÀæªÀÄĤ PÀ£Àì¯ÉÖAmïgÀªÀjUÉ CDRs UÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÀ
ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ DzÉñÀ ¤ÃrzÉ.
ªÀÄÄRå EAf¤AiÀÄgï ¥ÀgÀªÁV,
¥ÀAZÀAiÀÄvï gÁeï EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï E¯ÁSÉ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ."
c) The petitioner has not chosen to lay a challenge to
these orders/awards till date by invoking the provisions of
Section 34 or such other provision of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. Challenge cannot be structured in the
form of a writ petition thereto. In a catena of decisions, the
Apex Court has said that where a statutory remedy is
provided for laying a challenge to the compulsive arbitrable
awards, ordinarily writ petitions do not lie. In fact, the
statutory remedy is much wider in score than the writ
remedy that can be granted in a restrictive jurisdiction
constitutionally vested under Article 227, Article 226
insignificantly being mentioned in the writ petition
notwithstanding.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are
liable to be dismissed and accordingly, they are.
However, it is open to the petitioner to lay a challenge
to the awards in question elsewhere in accordance with law.
The period spent in prosecuting these writ petitions
shall be liable to be discounted while computing the period of
limitation prescribed for laying a challenge to the subject
awards.
All contentions are kept open.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv
