Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner vs M/S K M V Projects Limited on 1 March, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashok S.Kinagi
-1-
WA No. 1313 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1313 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
NO.39, B.M.ROAD,
RAMANAGARA - 562159.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MURTHY D. NAIK, SR. ADVOCATE, FOR
SRI. MAHENDRA G., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by R DEEPA AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 1. M/S KMV PROJECTS LIMITED
NO.302, 3RD FLOOR, 7TH EAST PARK ROAD,
KUMARA PARK EAST,
BENGALURU-560020.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
SRI. D. TARANATH
2. THE COMMISSIONER / MEMBER SECRETARY
CHANNAPATNA PLANNING AUTHORITY,
NO.39, B.M.ROAD,
RAMANAGARA-562159.
-2-
WA No. 1313 of 2022
ALSO AT,
NO.2850, FIRST FLOOR, CHURCH STREET,
RAJA KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT,
APPAGERE ROAD,
CHANNAPATNA -562160.
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHEIF SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VASU DEVA NAIDU S., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN W.P. NO. 18044/2021 (LB-RES); SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.08.2022 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO. 18044/2021.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra-court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Courts Act challenging the order dated
22.08.2022, passed in W.P.No.18044/2021 by the learned
Single Judge.
WA No. 1313 of 2022
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are
as under:
Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition seeking for
mandamus directing the appellant for release of RA Bill-1
amounting to Rs.4,74,06,698/- dated 23.07.2014, as
requested through a letter dated 25.03.2021, vide
Annexure-B to the writ petition. In the year 2013, the
appellant along with City Municipal Council, Chennapatna
entered into a joint venture to develop a private bus stand
and commercial complex in Chennapatna. Respondent
No.1 participated in the tender and became a successful
bidder of the said project. Work order was issued to
respondent No.1 and agreement was entered into between
the appellant and respondent No.1. In terms of the
agreement, respondent No.1 has undertaken development
of project and raised a bill for a sum of Rs.4,74,06,698/-.
The appellant did not consider the bill raised by
respondent No.1. Hence, respondent No.1 filed the writ
petition. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties,
allowed the writ petition. Hence this writ appeal.
WA No. 1313 of 2022
3. Heard learned senior counsel Sri. Murthy D. Naik
for the appellant and Sri. Vasu Deva Naidu S., learned
counsel for respondent No.1, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent No.3.
4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits
that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in
entertaining the writ petition. He further submits that the
writ petition filed by respondent No.1 is not maintainable
as there is an arbitration clause in the agreement. He
submits that respondent No.1, without exhausting the
alternative efficacious remedy available, has filed the writ
petition. The said aspect was not considered by the
learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order.
The impugned order is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence on
these grounds, he prayed to allow the writ appeal.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the
impugned order.
WA No. 1313 of 2022
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The appellant issued a tender notification inviting
tenders to develop a private bus stand and commercial
complex in Chennapatna. Respondent No.1 was the
successful bidder. After completion of tender process, the
appellant issued work order to respondent No.1. It is the
case of respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 has
completed the project in terms of the tender and raised RA
Bill-1. The appellant did not release the amount as
claimed by respondent No.1 in RA Bill-1 dated 23.07.2014.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant before the
learned Single Judge did not dispute that respondent No.1
is entitled for release of amount. The learned Single Judge
considering the submission made by learned counsel for
the appellant, has recorded a finding that respondent
No.2, "the appellant herein, did not dispute that
respondent No.1 is entitled to release of amount of
Rs.4,74,06,698/- towards the work executed by him".
WA No. 1313 of 2022
When there is no dispute in regard to the claim made by
respondent No.1, the question of invoking arbitration
clause would not arise. As per the terms of the
agreement, if there is any dispute between the parties,
then the matter is to be referred to the Arbitrator.
Admittedly, from the perusal of records and submission of
learned counsel for the appellant before the learned Single
Judge, there is no dispute in regard to the claim of
respondent No.1. Learned Single Judge considering the
submission made by learned counsel for the appellant,
disposed of the writ petition directing the appellant to
release the amount as claimed by respondent No.1.
8. The appellant filed statement of objections. We
have perused the statement of objections filed by the
appellant. The appellant has not disputed the amount
claimed by respondent No.1 towards the work executed by
him. Now, the appellant is estopped from contending that
respondent No.1 is not entitled for the sum as claimed in
RA Bill-1. The appellant cannot raise a new ground which
WA No. 1313 of 2022
was not raised in the statement of objections and also
before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge
after considering the entire material on record was
justified in passing the impugned order. We do not find
any error apparent on the face of the record warranting
indulgence by this court. Accordingly, we decline to
interfere with the impugned order. Hence we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The writ appeal is dismissed.
In view of disposal of the writ appeal,
pending IAs., if any, do not survive for
consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RD
