Karnataka High Court
Vishal L. R vs State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17785
WP No. 28810 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 28810 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. VISHAL L. R.,
S/O RAMAKRISHNA H.N.,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
DIRECTOR R.K. INFRA ELECTRICALS PVT.LTD.,
NO.8/1, IST MAIN, SULTHANPALYA, R.T. NAGAR,
BENGALURU AT(PO),
BENGALURU - 560 032.
2. KIRAN R.P.
S/O PUTTASWAMY R.B.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
OCC-CONTRACTOR AND DIRECTOR,
DWAITHA INFRACON PVT.LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, NO.C-143
2ND STAGE, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
Digitally signed PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
by VANDANA S BENGALURU - 560 058.
Location: HIGH ...PETITIONERS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. NEGAWADI BASAVARAJAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17785
WP No. 28810 of 2023
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTY),
TENDERING AND PROCUREMENT KPTCL,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY)
TRANSMISSION ZONE, KPTCL
PRASANNA BHAVANA, 3RD FLOOR, SANTHEPETE,
B.M. ROAD,
HASSAN - 573 201.
4. CHIEF ENGINEER(ELECTY)
PRASARANA BHAVANA,
TRANSMISSION ZONE,
KPTCL,
SEDAM ROAD,
KALABURGI - 585 105.
5. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELECL)
TRANSMISSION(W AND M) CIRCLE KPTCL
IST FLOOR, PRASARANA BHAVANA,
FTS COMPOUND,
N.R. MOHALLA,
MYSURU - 570 007.
6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
TRANSMISSION(M W) DVN.KPTCL,
IST FLOOR, PRASARANA BHAVANA,
FTS COMPOUND, N.R. CIRCLE,
MYSURU - 570 007.
7. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
POWER TRANSMISSION(MW) DVN. KPTCL
9584 AND 9485 3RD CROSS(EAST)
JCR CIRCLE,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:17785
WP No. 28810 of 2023
8. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
SHANTHA MANSION,
GANDHI NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
9. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
TRANSMISSION (M,W) DVN. KPTCL
NEHARU NAGAR,
BELAGAVI - 590 010.
10. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
TRANSMISSION (MW) DVN. KPTCL
DIVISION OFFICE COMPLEX
BAGALKOT ROAD
VIJAYAPURA - 586 109.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7, R9, R10;
V/O DATED 08.01.2024 AND VOKALATH FILED FOR R8)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS NOT TO IMPOSE AND NOT TO DEDUCT FIVE
TIMES OF PENALTY ON THE ROYALTY AMOUNT, FROM THE BILLS
OF THE PETITIONERS. AS PER ANNEXURE-H AS PER ORDER
PASSED IN WP NO. 10331/20 DATED:12.11.2023 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:17785
WP No. 28810 of 2023
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioners seek the following
reliefs:
i) "To issue the writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents not to impose and not to
deduct five times of the penalty on the royalty
amount, from the bills of the petitioners. As per
Annexure-H as per order passed in W.P. No.10331/20,
dated 12.11.2020.
ii) To direct the respondents to refund the penalty
amount which was already deducted from the bills of
the petitioners with 18% of interest.
iii) To issue any other writ orders or directions as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of this
case in the interest of justice.
iv) To grant the cost of these petitions in the interest of
justice."
2. Heard.
3. In addition to reiterating various contentions urged
in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned
NC: 2024:KHC:17785
counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the order
dated 12.11.2020, passed in W.P.No.10331/2020 in the case
of G.O.Raju vs. State of Karnataka and Others in order to
contend that the issue involved in the present petition is
directly and squarely covered by the aforesaid order. It is
submitted that the present petition may be disposed off in
terms of the aforesaid order. It is also submitted that
necessary directions may be issued to the respondents to
refund the penalty amount already deducted from the bills of
the petitioners together with the interest.
4. Per contra learned AGA appearing for respondent
No.1, as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 10
submits that while there is no dispute as regards applicability
of the order passed by this Court in G.O.Raju's case supra to
the facts of the present case, the respondents are entitled to
collect the royalty from the petitioners based on the terms and
conditions of the tender document. It is also submitted that the
is penalty already deducted from the bills of the petitioners
and in the event the petitioners submit a fresh representation,
NC: 2024:KHC:17785
seeking refund of the penalty amount, the concerned
respondents would consider the same in accordance with law.
It is also submitted that prayer No.2 for refund of the penalty
amount cannot be granted in favour of the petitioners and the
same is liable to be rejected.
5. A perusal of the material on record would clearly
indicate the issue in controversy between the parties insofar
as prayer No.1 is concerned is directly and squarely covered
by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
G.O.Raju's case supra wherein it is held as under:
"9. In the circumstances, this writ petition merits
consideration. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(a) PWD Department is granted liberty to
deduct the royalty amount as agreed in
Clause 20 of the Agreement vide
Annexure-A.
(b) It is made clear that any deduction in
excess is impermissible in law.
Petition is accordingly disposed off."
NC: 2024:KHC:17785
6. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and
appropriate to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 10 to deduct the
royalty amount from the bills of the petitioners only in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender
documents and in terms of the order passed in G.O. Raju's
case supra. It is needless to state that except deduction of
royalty from the bills of the petitioners, the respondents would
not be entitled to deduct / collect the penalty from the bills of
the petitioners.
7. Insofar as prayer No.2 of the petitioners for refund
of the penalty deducted from the bills is concerned, liberty is
reserved in favour of the petitioners to submit a fresh
representation along with relevant documents within a period
of two weeks from today. If such a representation is submitted,
the concerned respondents shall consider the same and take
appropriate steps / decision and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law within a period of three months from the
date of submission of the said representations.
NC: 2024:KHC:17785
8. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the writ petition
stands disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JJ
