The Superintendent Engineer vs Sri.U.B.Shetty
2023 Latest Caselaw 652 Kant

                                               -1-

                                                      WA No. 101516 of 2016




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                        DHARWAD BENCH

                           DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                                            PRESENT

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

                                              AND

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

                           WRIT APPEAL NO. 101516 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

                      BETWEEN:

                      THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER,
                      KARNATAKA HEALTH SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
                      PROJECT (KHSDP), SHESHADRI ROAD,
                      K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.

                      POST OF SUREINTENDENT ENGINEER HAS BEEN
                      UPGRADED TO CHIEF ENGINEER AND PRESENTLY
                      R/AT: KHSDRP, 1ST FLOOT, PHI BUILDING,
                      SESHADRI ROAD, BENAGALURU.
                                                             ... APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADVOCATE
                           FOR SHRI S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   SRI.U.B. SHETTY,
         Digitally
         signed by
         VISHAL
                           S/O. LATE MADAYYA SHETTY,
         NINGAPPA
VISHAL
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL          AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: CLASS-I CONTRACTOR,
PATTIHAL Date:
         2023.01.12
         10:18:20 -
                           R/AT: BEHIND VITTOBHA MANDIR,
         0800
                           SAPTHAPUR, DHARWAD,
                           DHARWAD DISTRICT.
                           -2-

                                 WA No. 101516 of 2016




2.   THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
     GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
     VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

3.   THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
     DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
     FAMILY WELFARE, VIKASA SOUDHA,
     BENGALURU-560 001.

4.   THE PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR,
     K.H.S.D.P, 1ST FLOOR OF STATE OF FOOD
     LABORATORY, PHI BUILDING,
     SHESHADRI ROAD, K.R. CIRCLE
     BENGALURU-560 001.

5.   ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
     K.H.S.D.P. SUB-DIVISION,
     MEGAN HOSPITAL COMPOUND
     SHIVAMOGGA.

6.   ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
     K.H.S.D.P. SUB-DIVISION,
     NEAR DISTRICT HOSPITAL, DHARWAD.
                                   ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRINIVAS RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL
 FOR SHRI YASHODARAN HEDGE, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 SHRI G.H. HIREGOUDAR, GA FOR R2 TO R6)


    THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.02.2014, PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.15783/2006 AND TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS.


     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, K.SOMASHEKAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                               -3-

                                       WA No. 101516 of 2016




                           JUDGMENT

1. Learned counsel Shri Zulfikir Kumar Shafi

representing the learned counsel Shri S.C. Bhuti, who is on

record for appellant and the learned Senior Counsel Shri

Shrinivas Raghavan representing the learned counsel

Shri Yashodaran Hegde and representing Shri S.B.

Doddagoudar, who is on record for respondent No.1 are

present before the Court through video conferencing and

the learned Government Advocate for respondent

Nos.2 to 6 is present before the Court physically.

2. In this matter, the Registry is directed to delete

the names of the learned counsel Smt. Nirmala B.G.,

Jagadish Patil and Shri Nandish Patil, who have given NOC

for respondent No.1; and the name of Smt. Sumangala

A.Chakalabbi for respondent No.1, who is appointed in the

Judicial Service as District Judge, and show only the name

of learned counsel Shri S.B. Doddagoudar for respondent

No.1, in the cause list.

WA No. 101516 of 2016

3. Whereas, the learned counsel Shri Zulfikir

Kumar Shafi representing the learned counsel Shri S.C.

Bhuti for appellant submits that the order passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P. No.15783/2006, dated

07.02.2014 has been challenged in this writ appeal by

urging various grounds. In W.P. No.15783/2006, the

learned Single Judge made a specific observation that the

petitioner has to succeed and as there are no disputed

facts, accordingly, allowed the writ petition and also

directed the respondent to pay the amount as is

mentioned in the Audit Report. Further, mandamus is also

issued to disburse the amount in favour of the petitioner

as per the report dated 28th April 2006 with interest at the

rate of 18% p.a. for the delayed payment within a period

of four weeks from the date of the order by the learned

Single Judge.

4. These are all the submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing for the appellant, who is

present before the Court through video conferencing.

WA No. 101516 of 2016

5. In the writ petition, the learned Government

Advocate has given an opinion that this is a fit case for

challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge

and also as per the Audit report.

6. We have gone through the order passed by the

learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has

elaborately considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel and the records made available and at

paragraph No.15 of the order of the learned Single Judge

in W.P. No.15783/2006, it has observed that it is evident

that there is a delay in handing over the site to the

contractor, which fact has been considered in the PGB

meeting held on 17th August 2002. Further, in the audit

report also it is forthcoming that the authorities have

agreed that there is delay in handing over the site to the

contractor and in that view of the matter, the learned

Single Judge observed that there is binding on the

Government to pay the amount.

WA No. 101516 of 2016

7. In the light of the above, it is deemed

appropriate to dispose of this appeal. Accordingly, the

appeal is hereby disposed off.

In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending

applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and

the same shall stand disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE Vnp*