The Chief Engineer vs Srinivasa Construction India ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11807 Kant

                          -1-


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
      DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                       PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

          WRIT APPEAL NO. 866 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.    THE CHIEF ENGINEER
      KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
      AND DRAINAGE BOARD
      KALBURGI ZONE, AWIN SHAHI ROAD
      OPPOSITE TO MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
      KALABURGI - 585 102

2.    THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
      KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
      AND DRAINAGE BOARD
      JAL BHAVAN
      BANNERGHATTA ROAD
      BENGALURU - 560 078

3.    THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
      KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
      AND DRAINAGE BOARD
      DIVISION BELLARY
      BELLARY - 583 101                 ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR
 SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRINIVASA CONSTRUCTION
INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR
Y. PITCHESHWARA RAO
SHIVA SHANKAR NILAYAM
OPP. SHAKTI NURSING HOME
TALLUR ROAD, BELLARY - 583 103          ... RESPONDENT
                           -2-




     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2022 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED     SINGLE   JUDGE    IN  WRIT   PETITION
NO.23676/2021 (GM-RES) AND FURTHER TO DISMISS THE
SAID WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

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


                       JUDGMENT

Sri Veeresh R. Budihal, learned counsel for Smt. Sumangala Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the appellants.

This intra Court appeal has been filed against

an order dated 17.06.2022 passed by the learned

Single Judge by which, the writ petition preferred by

the respondent has been disposed of with the

direction to the appellants to consider the

representation dated 26.11.2021 and to pass an

appropriate order on the request of the respondent

to pay R.A. Bill No.17 in accordance with law within

a period of two months.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the

appellants, it is clarified that any finding/

observation contained in the impugned order shall

not be treated as finding on merits of the claim of the

rival parties.

Needless to state that the appellants shall deal

with the representation preferred by the respondent

in accordance with law as directed by the learned

Single Judge.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkv