Karnataka High Court
D.S.Mallaplur S/O. Singadeppa vs State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490
WP No. 106221 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 106221 OF 2014 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
D.S. MALLAPLUR S/O. SINGADEPPA,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: CLASS-I CONTRACTOR
R/O. SHAHAWAKAR, NEAR KMP ROAD,
BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION,
VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.
2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
JALA SAMVARDHANE YOJANA SANGHA,
(DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI H
M
AND MINOR IRRIGATION)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
NO.42, 5TH CROSS, RMS LAYOUT,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560080.
Date:
2024.06.13
12:18:48 +0530
3. THE DISTRICT PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR,
JSYS, DISTRICT PROJECT UNIT (R),
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
SECTOR 32, PLOT NO.51,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587102.
4. SHRI RANGASAMUDRA KERE
BALAKEDARARA SANGHA (R),
RANGASAMUDRA, TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587201,
BY ITS SECRETARY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490
WP No. 106221 of 2014
5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER-I,
JSYS, NO.42, 5TH CROSS RMS LAYOUT,
SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560080.
6. THE UPPER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587102.
7. THE TAHASILDAR,
BADAMI TALUKA, BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R3 & R5-R7;
SRI. S.C. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2014
BEARING NO.JA.SAM.YO.SAM/BHAG/TANTRIK/14-15/2185 PASSED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-T AND THE
ORDER DATED 02.06.2014 BEARING NO.
JA.SAM.YO.SAM/JI.YO.GHA/BHAG/TANTRIK/2014-15/2215 PASSED
RD
BY THE 3 RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-X AND ALSO
ORDER DATED 26.05.2014 PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN RRC/CR-5/2014-15 AT ANNEXURE-Y.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490
WP No. 106221 of 2014
ORDER
The petitioner filed the captioned petition assailing
the impugned order dated 25.04.2014 passed by
respondent No.3 as per Annexure-T, consequent order
dated 02.05.2014 passed by respondent No.3 as per
Annexure-X and also order dated 26.05.2014 passed by
respondent No.6-Deputy Commissioner as per
Annexure-Y.
2. Respondent No.3 floated tender notification to
implement a project relating to canal concrete lining of
Rangasamudra Tank Development Work. Petitioner was
the successful bidder and a tender agreement came to be
executed between the petitioner and respondent No.4 on
20.11.2010. The petitioner completed the contract work
and on inspection of the project implemented by the
petitioner, respondent No.5 in his report indicated that the
work done by the petitioner is found to be satisfactory.
Similar opinion was expressed by respondent No.3.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490
3. De hors these two opinions expressed as per
Annexures-C, D and E, respondent No.2 issued a notice
indicating that respondent No.3 has not taken note of the
defects as per report dated 30.06.2011. The respondents
indicated certain shortcomings in respect of one of the
canal work.
4. Petitioner contends that, in terms of the defects
notified by the respondents, he has carried out the repairs
and the same is examined by the respondents and
satisfactory reports are issued as per Annexures-H and L.
Petitioner's grievances is that without taking cognizance of
the reports at Annexures-H and L, respondent No.3 has
issued the impugned order as per Annexure-T, thereby
ordering for forfeiture of the security deposit of
Rs.15,17,910/- and the retention of money to the tune of
Rs.1,86,395/- was also sought to be forfeited. Pursuant to
order passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-T,
respondent No.3 issued a communication addressed to the
Tahasildar on 02.06.2014 requesting to create a
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490
charge/encumbrance on the properties of the petitioner as
per Annexure-X. Respondent No.6-Deputy Commissioner
directed respondent No.3 to recover the amount from the
petitioner as per the impugned endorsement vide
Annexure-Y.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned HCGP and perused the material on record.
6. The orders under challenge are found to be
cryptic in nature. Strangely, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have
not taken cognizance of the reports submitted by District
Project Coordinator, which is evident from Annexure-H. It
is relevant to take cognizance of the report submitted by
District Project Coordinator, which reads as under:
"Main canal left Bank: The rectification in the main
canal and in Chimmalage Branch canal cement concrete
lining is taken up 25-2-2011. The surface is demolished
and redone. Thickness is maintained and curing is going
on. This matter is noted for future guidance.
This is for favour of kind information."
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490
7. The report submitted by EGIS India Consulting
Engineers Pvt. Ltd., 14.05.2011 to the District Project
Coordinator is also relevant and the same has a bearing on
the controversy relating to the deficiencies alleged against
the petitioner while implementing the project. The said
company has visited the site and on spot inspection, has
also submitted a report indicating that petitioner has
rectified the deficiencies indicated by the concerned
authorities and accordingly, the company has opined that
the work done by the petitioner is found to be satisfactory
and the bad quality of concrete found at some places has
been removed and rectified. The relevant portion of this
report prepared by the said company which was addressed
to District Project Coordinator is also relevant and the
relevant portion is extracted, which reads as under:
"RANGASAMUDRA TANK (TC: 200042)/RANGASAMDRA
VILLAGE/BAGALKOT DFT/BADAMI TO:
Est.Cost: Rs.44.22 Lakhs.
This tank is under list of 10% Random Selection of works
in tank.
• CC Lining work on LBC Branch canal completed for
600.00m. The section is trapezoldal and concrete
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490
is M15 grade with a thickness of 7.50CM at sides
and 7.50CM thick at bed. Curing period completed.
Concrete cubes have casted and results for 28
days strength is to be obtained from laboratory.
Concrete has been checked at several locations
and it is found satisfactory. The thickness also
found 7.50CM. In some locations, there was a bad
quality of concrete was laid and it was removed
and rectified.
• In the RBC branch canal 675.00M length of CC
lining has been done and the work is found
satisfactory.
• We have reported in our letter no Egis
India/Bang/Bagalkot/0208/2010-11, dated
14.02.2011, that the concrete was not satisfactory
in LBC main canal. The defective portions have
been removed and rectified the concrete work.
Now the work is found satisfactory."
8. Now let me examine the impugned order
passed by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-T. The order
under challenge does not advert to these two reports and
therefore, the consequential orders passed as per
Annexures-X and Y are also not sustainable. The company
which was assigned to examine the quality of the project
implemented by the petitioner after visiting site, has
submitted a report indicating that deficiencies notified by
the concerned authorities are rectified by the petitioner.
Therefore, the impugned orders under challenge are not
sustainable. The order passed by respondent No.3 as per
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490
Annexures-H and L, has not at all taken cognizance of the
reports. Even before this court, the respondent-State to
justify the orders passed by respondent No.3 as per
Annexure-T has not placed any credible material to doubt
the reports placed on record by the surveying company at
Annexures-H and L, which are culled out supra.
9. For the forgoing reasons, the impugned orders
are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this court passes the
following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned orders at Annexures-T, X and
Y are hereby quashed.
iii) It is open for respondent No.3 to re-examine
the matter by taking cognizance of
Annexures-H and L. Respondent No.3 shall
also strictly adhere to the observations made
by this court in the course of the judgment
rendered.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490
iv) This exercise shall be completed within a
period of three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
v) Respondent No.3 shall secure any further
explanation from the petitioner and after
affording reasonable opportunity shall
proceed to pass appropriate order.
In view disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2016
does not survive for consideration and the same is
disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS
Ct-mck
