Karnataka High Court
Sri K S Arun Kumar vs The Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara ... on 25 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29308-DB
WA No. 1314 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1314 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K.S. ARUN KUMAR,
S/O SRI.K.T. SRINIVAS GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCC - BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT NO. 921,
38TH CROSS, 22ND MAIN, 4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by K G
RENUKAMBA 1. THE BRUHATH BENGALURU
Location: MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
High Court of REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
Karnataka CORPORATION CIRCLE,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
THE BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
JAYANAGAR DIVISION,
BBMP BUILDING,
18TH MAIN, 39TH CROSS,
4TH 'T' BLOCK,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29308-DB
WA No. 1314 of 2022
JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SINCHANA M R, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
R2 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN W.P. NO., 61791/2016 (LB-BMP) ON THE FILE OF
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, HEAR
THE PARTIES, AND PASS A JUDGMENT TO MODIFY THE ORDER
DATED 13.09.2021 IN W.P. NO. 61791/2016 (LB-BMP),
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AWARDING INTEREST
AT 18 PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM JULY 2015, TILL
09.11.2022, ON EMD AMOUNT OF RS. 1,87,500/- AND PASS
SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO
PASS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated
13.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.61791/2016(LB-BMP) whereby
the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition by issuing
mandamus to the respondents to consider the
representations and refund the Earnest Money Deposit (for
short 'EMD') as claimed by the petitioner, within 12 weeks
NC: 2024:KHC:29308-DB
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. But no
interest was granted. It may be stated here that, the said
order was challenged by way of a review petition by the
appellant herein before the learned Single Judge.
2. Suffice to state, the review petition was dismissed
on 15.11.2022. Though the said review order has not been
challenged in the petition but the fact is the Writ order
having been challenged, we proceed to decide the present
appeal.
3. It is informed by the learned counsel for the
appellant that, pursuant to the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 13.09.2021, the respondents have paid an
amount of Rs.1,87,500/- to the appellant on 09.11.2022. In
other words, the respondents have accepted the order of the
learned Single Judge.
4. In view of the aforesaid position, the only issue
need to be decided as urged by the learned counsel for the
appellant is, whether the learned Single Judge has erred in
not granting interest on the payment which the respondents
NC: 2024:KHC:29308-DB
have made pursuant to the order of the learned Single
Judge.
5. We may state here that, there is a finding of the
fact by the learned Single Judge that, the forfeiture of the
EMD is unsustainable. The submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that, in view of the order in writ petition,
there is no reason for the learned Single Judge not to award
interest on refund of amount deposited by the appellant as
earnest money against the tender issued by the respondents
for which, he was the bidder. The respondents having
accepted the tender of the appellant in respect of two works
for which the appellant had deposited an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.87,500/- respectively, as per the
terms of the notice inviting tender (for short 'NIT'), the
respondents were to convey the approval to the appellant
being a successful bidder within a period of 90 days from the
opening of the tender. The appellant, having not heard from
the respondents, the appellant had vide letter dated
27.11.2014 expressed himself for the refund of the EMD be
made to him. It appears that, the respondents pursuant
NC: 2024:KHC:29308-DB
thereto had conveyed decision to the appellant that, he is
successful in respect of two works.
6. It is also noted that, on 23.12.2014 and
09.01.2015, the respondents had informed the appellant to
deposit an amount of Rs.93,641/- as the difference of
amount within 7 days from the date of the receipt of the said
letter dated 23.12.2014 along with Rs.200/- agreement
stamp paper in respect of item No.1 and to also pay
difference of amount of Rs.66,269/- along with stamp paper
for Rs.200/- in respect of item No.4. It appears that, the
appellant had not deposited the above amounts. The same
has resulted in the forfeiture of the EMD deposited by the
appellant.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would
submit, even before the forfeiture of the EMD, the appellant
had expressed himself for the refund of the EMD amount
submitted by him while submitting his bid against the NIT.
It is the submission that, despite the communication from
the appellant on 27.11.2014 and even thereafter, in the
month of August, 2015 the respondents have not refunded
NC: 2024:KHC:29308-DB
the amount, rather taken a stand that the EMD has been
forfeited.
8. Suffice to state, the forfeiture of EMD has been
set aside by the learned Single Judge as unsustainable.
9. We agree with these submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant, because on a specific
prayer of interest made by the learned counsel for the
appellant in the writ petition upon refund of the amount of
Rs.1,87,500/-, the said aspect has not been referred to by
the learned Single Judge in as much as while granting the
prayer of refund in favor of the appellant in the writ petition,
no interest has been granted.
10. It is also conceded position that, the respondents
have not challenged the order of the learned Single Judge,
rather they without passing an order on the representations
has refunded the amount of Rs.1,87,500/- and the said
amount having been paid to the appellant only on
09.11.2022 there has been a delay of almost 7 years from
(09.10.2015) the date when the appellant had made a
demand for a refund of the said amount with interest. As we
NC: 2024:KHC:29308-DB
find that, in the letter dated 27.11.2014, the appellant had
only made a demand for a refund and it is only for the first
time in the letter dated 09.10.2015 the appellant had also
sought interest, we accordingly grant interest on the amount
of Rs.1,87,500/- at the rate of 6% p.a. with effect from
09.10.2015 till the date of payment i.e., 09.11.2022 which
shall be paid to the appellant within a period of 8 weeks from
today. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SMC
