Karnataka High Court

M/S N D Waddar And Co vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on : 13.08.2025
Pronounced on : 25.10.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.2767 OF 2024 (GM - RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S. N.D.WADDAR AND CO.,
PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT
P.W.D.CLASS-I CONTRACTOR
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
H.NO.2-11-971/1
KALABURGI MAIN ROAD
NEAR BASAVASAGAR CROSS
LINGASAGURU
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 115
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI NAGAPPA DEVAPPA WADDAR.
... PETITIONER

(BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI PRASANNA B. R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2

WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM NIYAMITHA
OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR
P.W.D.ANNEXE BUILDING
K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W.,
SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI M.R.C.RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W.,
SRI PRASHANTH B. R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
GOVERNMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 IN NO.ME/98/¦¹E/2023,

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.08.2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DIRECTION IN THE

NATURE OF THE MANDAMUS TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21/11/2023,
VIDE ANNEXURE-N, AND N1 AND TO PAY THE AMOUNT IN DUE TO
THE PETITIONER.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 13.08.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

Government Order dated 25-08-2023 and seeks a consequent

direction to consider its representations all dated 21-11-2023 for

release of funds.

2. Heard Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, Sri K.Shashikiran Shetty, learned Advocate General

appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M.R.C. Ravi, learned senior

counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts, in brief, germane, are as follows: -

3.1. The petitioner is said to be a registered partnership firm,

registered as PWD Class-I Contractor and empanelled as Category-I

contractor under the Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Niyamitha

(hereinafter referred as 'the Corporation' for short) and is claiming

to be having expertise in execution of irrigation works like

construction of canals, extension, renovation and modernization of
4

canal works and all works incidental thereto. The 2nd respondent

notifies a tender for the work of extension, renovation and

modernization of distributaries from 1 to 15 and its laterals

including structures of Narayanpur right bank canal system

(Package-I). Pursuant to the process of assessment of tender, a

letter of acceptance was issued in favour of the petitioner on

23-07-2021 and an agreement thereon comes to be executed

between the petitioner firm and the Corporation. Therefore, comes

the award of contract for the purpose of extension, renovation and

modernization of distributaries from 1 to 18 and its laterals

including structures of Narayanpur right bank canal system. The

petitioner, in terms of the work order so issued, undertook the work

and completed it by investing from its own funds. What remained

was 2% of the work. In terms of contract, bills in the interregnum,

on immediate basis, were submitted by the petitioner. Upon

satisfaction of completion of work, the work completion certificate

was issued by the Quality Controllers in respect of 7 bills pertaining

to Package-I and . On completion of work and submission of bills,

no amount was paid to the petitioner. To that effect, the petitioner
5

submitted several representations which began on 28-06-2022 up

to 21-11-2023.

3.2. In the interregnum, certain complaints were registered

before the Lokayukta and Estimates Committee of the Karnataka

Legislature. A Government Order then comes to be issued on

10-06-2022 appointing an Expert Committee to quantify the defects

in the estimates and works undertaken in respect of distributaries.

The Committee which was headed by a Secretary as its Chairman,

was directed to submit a report to the Estimates Committee of the

Karnataka Legislature. The order is said to have been withdrawn by

Government on 4-01-2024. In the interregnum, it appears the

petitioner completed remaining works. On such completion, several

complaints again sprang with regard to non-completion of work and

complaints before the Estimates Committee yet again. The bills, in

the interregnum, were sent to the 2nd respondent for their

clearance, all of which did not result in clearance. When things

stood thus, on the score that none of the bills of the petitioner were

being cleared deliberately, the petitioner knocks at the doors of this

Court in the subject petition.
6

4. This Court owing to the submissions made from time to

time had directed release of certain funds on completion certificate

so issued. This Court on 21-06-2024 had passed the following

order:

"Learned counsel for respondent submits that 69% of
amount so claimed is already paid.

Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court
through the statement of objections filed by the respondents
to contend that the amount in due even according to the
respondents is totalling to Rs.536.43 crores.

Learned counsel submits that for non-payment of
these bills are for wanting the submission of a quality control
certificate.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
quality control certificate as on today has not been
submitted, except the bill in R.A.No.7, which pertains to
Rs.47/- crores.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
all the quality control certificates are already in place and
respondents are dodging the issue.

To resolve the issue at least for the present, learned
counsel for respondents is directed to secure instructions
with regard to the release of 40% or 50% of the amount that
is in due, pending submission of everything till the end.

List this matter on 26.06.2024, at 4.00 p.m.

Interim order granted earlier, is extended till the next
date of hearing."
7

Again on 26-06-2024 the following order:

"The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following prayer:

"i) ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Certiorari to quash the Government Order passed
by the 1st respondent in No. ಒಇ/98/ ಇ/2023
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಾಂಕ: 25.08.2023 vide ANNEXURE -
A.

ii) ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of
the mandamus to consider the representations
made by the petitioner dated 21.11.2023, vide
ANNEXURE-N & N1 and to pay the amount in
due to the petitioner.

iii) ISSUE any writ order or direction, which deemed
fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest
of justice and equity".

Learned Senior counsel Sri.M.R.C.Ravi appearing for
the respondent - KBJNN would take this Court through the
statement of objections to contend that most of the bills of
the petitioner are cleared and what remains is Rs.536/-
crores.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all
identical matters, where the matters have been referred to
the one-man committee of Justice H N Nagamohan Das, the
bills are cleared upto 75%, which the learned Advocate
General in identical matters has accepted such submissions.

Learned Senior counsel for the respondent submits
that 75% bill clearance would amount to another Rs.156/- or
Rs.160/- crores to be paid to the petitioner. What is wanting
in the case in favour of the petitioner is, a quality control
certificate.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that quality control certificate is already issued by them,
8

which is also appended to the petition at Annexure- M dated
25.08.2023.

Learned Senior counsel would clarify that this quality
control certificate was issued only on RA-7, the running
account 7, which pertains to Rs.47/- Crores and not the
entire Rs.536/- Crores.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would seek to
clarify that this is the last bill that was pending and it is the
quality control issued to this. All the bills are now quality
control complaint, and therefore, would submit that the
entire amount cannot be withheld and the amount will have
to be released.

The learned Senior counsel would submit that the bills
to the tune of 69% is paid and for package one, there is still
quality control certificate to be issued.

Therefore, to strike a balance between the right of the
petitioner to get the amount, and the right of the respondent
to withhold the amount, I deem it appropriate to direct the
respondent - KBJNN to release an amount of Rs.160/-
Crores, for now.

Pending further orders, the same shall be released,
within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of
this order, if not earlier.

List this matter on 26.07.2024, for further hearing."

The 2nd respondent/Corporation did not comply with these orders of

release of funds, but sought to file an application seeking recall of

the interim order so passed. It is at that stage, the matter is

heard.
9

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

vehemently contend, by taking this Court through the documents

appended to the petition, that completion certificate is issued by the

Competent Authority after being satisfied with the work done.

Notwithstanding the same, only on the ground that bills have to be

cleared, all kinds of objections are cropping up. It is not only of this

case, but in every case, objections have cropped up. The

Government deliberately to get over the work entrusted by the

earlier Government, appointed a Committee headed by Justice H.N.

Nagamohan Das to go into the veracity of claims. By going into the

veracity, Sri Bipin Hedge, learned counsel submits, the Committee

has found nothing wrong with petitioner's work is his information

and, therefore, the amount cannot be withheld on any ground

whatsoever. The petitioner has invested huge sums by borrowing

funds from various Banks and now the Banks are frowning upon the

petitioner. The learned counsel would submit that the Corporation

being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot

be seen to behave in the manner in which it is wanting to take

away the money of the citizen.
10

6. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri M.R.C.Ravi appearing

for the Corporation seeks to distinguish completion certificates

holding that they concern only Package-I and not Package-II.

Insofar as it concerns Package-I, certain amounts are released.

Package-II is yet to be assessed in its appropriate form and,

therefore, the amount cannot be immediately cleared. Insofar as

direction issued by this Court as an interim measure, the

Corporation has preferred an application seeking modification of the

said order and admits that it has not released the amount as

accepted or directed, as the case may be. He would, in all, submit

that the petitioner will have to approach the civil Court, as the issue

is with regard to clearance of bills or recovery of money, even if it is

at the hands of the State.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.
11

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner

was a participant in the tender. The tender was notified on

18-05-2021 for the purpose of extension, renovation and

modernization of distributaries from 1 to 15 and its laterals

including structures of Narayanpur Right Bank Canal System

(Package-I). The tender was for ₹828.40 crores. The petitioner

participates in the tender. Pursuant to which, the petitioner is

communicated letter of acceptance. The letter of acceptance reads

as follows:

"Ref.No.KBJNL/EE/NRBC/DIV-5/PB/LOA/2021-22/299

Date:23-07-2021
To:
M/s N.D Waddar and Co,
PWD Class I Contractors,
H.O.#2-12-32A/54, Friends Colony,
Kalaburagi Road, Lingasugur-584 122.

Dear Sir,

Letter of acceptance

Sub:- Issue of Letter of acceptance in respect of the
work of Extension, Renovation and
Modernization of Distributaries from 1 to 15 &
its Laterals including Structures of Narayanpur
Right Bank Canal System.(Package-I) (Indent
No.:21211).

Ref: 1. This office Short term Tender Notification
letter No. 114 dated 18-05-2021.
12

2. M.D. KBJNL, Bangalore letter No.MD/
KBJNL/BOARD-130/TA-4/2021-22/926
Dated 23-07-2021.
3. Chief Engineer, KBJNL, O & M Zone,
Narayanpur letter No.933 dated
23-07-2021.
----
With reference to the above subject, this is to notify
you that your Tender dated 18-05-2021 for execution of the
work of Extension, Renovation and Modernization of
Distributaries from 1 to 15 & its Laterals including
Structures of Narayanpur Right Bank Canal System.
(Package-I) (Indent No.21211) for the contract price of
Rupees Rs.828.40 crores (Eight Twenty Eight Crores
and Forty Lakhs only) (amount in words and figures), as
corrected and negotiated is hereby accepted as per the
directions of the Managing Director, KBJNL, PWD Annexure
Building, K.R. Circle, Bangalore vide letter at reference (2)
above.

You are hereby requested to attend this office with
details of monthwise physical and financial programme for
completion of the above work for concluding the
arrangement with the undersigned on or before within 20
days as per the terms and conditions of the bid document.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Executive Engineer,
KBJNL NRBC Division-05,
Rodalabanda."

Pursuant to letter of acceptance, an agreement is entered into

between the petitioner and the Corporation. The terms of

agreement insofar as it is germane are as follows:

"KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAMA LIMITED
(A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDER TAKING)
13

FORM OF AGREEMENT

Agreement No. 02/2021-22 Date: 23-07-2021

1 Name of Work Extension, Renovation and
Modernization of Distributaries from
1 to 15 & Its Laterals Including
Structures of Narayanpur Right Bank
Canal System.(Package-I) (Indent
No. : 21211)
2 Name of Sri. M/S N D Waddar and Co, Class I
Agency Contractor, H.O.#2-12-32A/54,
Friends Colony, Kalaburagi Road,
Lingasugur-584122
3 Sanctioned CER No:328/2021-22 for Rs 851.22
Estimate No. Crores.
Date &
Amount
4 Tender No. KBJNL/NRBC/D-5/PB/2021-
Notification No 22/114Dated 18.05.2021
& Date
5 Amount put to Rs.760,00,00,017.85/-(Excluding
Tender GST)
6 Contract Rs.828,40,00,019.30/-(Excluding
Amount GST) (Rs. Eight twenty eight crores
fourty lakhs Ninteen rupees and
thirty paisa only exclusive of GST) @
9.00% Above the estimated cost put
to tender of Rs 760,00,00,017.85/-
(Excluding GST)
7 Stipulated 18 months (including watering
period of period)
Completion
work
8 Authority 1) GO No.WRD 223 KBN 2020
Bengalore, Dated-22-04-2021
2) This office Short tern Tender
Notification letter No:114
Dated:18-05-2021.
3) M.D. KBJNL, Bangalore letter
No:MD/KBJNL/BOARD-130/TA-
14

4/2021-22/926 Dated: 23-07-2021.
4) Chief Engineer, KBJNL, O & M
Zone, Narayanpur letter No:933
Dated:23-07-2021.

This agreement is made on the 23rd day of July
2021 between Executive Engineer, KBJNL, NRBC Div-5.
Rodalabanda Tq.Lingasugur, Dist.Raichur, State.Karnataka
(hereinafter called "the employer") of the one part and Sri.
M/S N D Waddar and Co, Class I Contractor H.O.#2-
12-32A/54, Friends Colony, Kalaburagi Road,
Lingasugur-584122 (herein after called "the contactor") of
the other part.

Where as the employer is desirous that certain works
should be executed viz Extension, Renovation and
Modernization of Distributaries from 1 to 15 & Its
Laterals Including Structures of Narayanpur Right
Bank Canal System. (Package-1) (Indent No.: 21211)
and letter of acceptance by the Chief Engineer, KBJNL, O & M
Zone, Narayanpur vide letter No.933/2021-22 Date:
23.07.2021 has accepted a tender by the contractor for the
execution, completion and maintenance of such works and
the remedying of any defects therein, at a contract price of
Rs.828,40,00,019.30/- (Rs. Eight twenty-eight crores fourty
lakhs Ninteen rupees and thirty paisa only). Now this
agreement witnesses as follows."

The description of work is also appended to the agreement. This

concerns Package-I. The tender that was notified was for two

Packages - Package-I and Package-II. Insofar as Package-II is

concerned, on the same date another letter of acceptance was

issued with the same terms. It reads as follows:
15

"No.KBJNL/NRBC/D-4/ERM-D-16 TO D-18-PKG-II/PB-
1/LOA/2021-22/476
Date:23-07-2021
To:
M/s N.D.Waddar and Co,
PWD Class-I Contractors,
H.O.#2-12-32A/54, Friends Colony,
Kalaburagi Road, Lingasugur-584 122.

Dear Sir,

Letter of acceptance

Sub:- Issue of Letter of acceptance in respect of the
work of Extension, Renovation and
Modernization of Distributaries from 16 to 18 &
its Laterals including Structures of Narayanpur
Right Bank Canal System. (Package-II) (Indent
No.:21212).

Ref: 1. This office Short term Tender Notification
letter No. 259 dated 18-05-2021.
2. M.D. KBJNL, Bangalore letter No.MD/
KBJNL/BOARD-130/TA-4/2021-22/927
Dated 23-07-2021.
3. Chief Engineer, KBJNL, Canal Zone No.1,
Bheemarayanagudi letter No.540 dated
23-07-2021.
****
With reference to above subject, this is to notify you
that your Tender dated 05-06-2021 for execution of the work
of Extension, Renovation and Modernization of
Distributaries from 16 to 18 & its Laterals including
Structures of Narayanpur Right Bank Canal System.
(Package-II) (Indent No.21212) for the contract price of
Rupees Rs.770.53 crores (Seven Seventy Crores and
Fiftythree lakhs only) (Excluding GST), as corrected and
negotiated is hereby accepted as per the directions of the
Managing Director, KBJNL, PWD Annexure Building, K.R.
Circle, Bangalore vide letter at reference (2) above.

You are hereby requested to attend this office with
details of monthwise physical and financial programme for
16

completion of the above work for concluding the
arrangement with the undersigned on or before within 20
days as per the terms and conditions of the bid document.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Executive Engineer,
KBJNL NRBC Division-04,
Chikkahonnakuni"

The only difference was, the first one was package-I and the second

was package-II, as also the amount. A notice was issued to the

petitioner to proceed with the commencement of work. The said

notice issued reads as follows:

"No.KBJNL/NRBC/D-4/ERM-D-16 TO D-18-PKG-II/PB-
1/ WORKORDER/2021-22/477
Date:23-07-2021

To
M/s N.D.Waddar and Co,
PWD Class-I Contractors,
H.O.#2-12-32A/54, Friends Colony,
Kalaburagi Road, Lingasugur-584 122.

Issue of Notice to proceed with the work

Gentleman,

Ref: 1. This office Short term Tender Notification
letter No. 114 dated 18-05-2021.
2. M.D. KBJNL, Bangalore letter No.MD/
KBJNL/BOARD-130/TA-4/2021-22/927
Dated 23-07-2021.
3. Chief Engineer, KBJNL, Canal Zone No.1,
Bheemarayanagudi letter No.540 dated
23-07-2021.
4. This office Agreement No.06/2021-22
dated 23-07-2021.
----
With reference to the above subject, this is to notify
you that your Tender dated 05-06-2021 for execution of the
work of Extension, Renovation and Modernization of
Distributaries from 16 to 18 & its Laterals including
Structures of Narayanpur Right Bank Canal System.
(Package-II) (Indent No.21212) for the contract price of
Rupees Rs.770,53,62,985.48/- (Rs.Seven Seventy
Crores and Fifty-three lakhs Sixty-two Thousand Nine
Hundred Eight-five rupees and Forty-Eight paisa only
excluding GST), as corrected and negotiated is hereby
accepted as per the directions of the Managing Director,
KBJNL, PWD Annexure Building, K.R. Circle, Bangalore vide
letter at reference (2) above. And in this regard an
agreement has also been concluded vide reference No.4
above.

You are hereby instructed to proceed with the
execution of the said works in accordance with the contract
documents.

Encl: As above.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Executive Engineer,
KBJNL NRBC Division-04,
Chikkahonnakuni"
18

9. In terms of the contract, the petitioner submitted bills in

the prescribed format, as and when the work would get completed.

But, no payment was made to bills which were all in place. Work

completion certificate insofar as package-I and package-II both

sprang from the hands of the Competent Authority. The completion

certificate insofar as package-I is concerned issued by the

Competent Authority, after inspection, reads as follows:

"ಸಂ ೆ : ಕೃ ಾಜ :ಗು - ೕಗು : -2.: 22-23 ಾಂಕ: 07-02-2023

ಇವ"#ೆ,
$ಾಯ&'ಾಲಕ ಅ ಯಂತರರು,
PÀÈ¨sÁd¤¤, J£ï.Dgï.©.¹ «¨sÁUÀ ¸ÀA.5,
+ೋಡಲಬಂಡ.

/ಾನ +ೇ,

ಷಯ: Extension, Renovation, and Modernization of
Distributaries from 1 to 15 & it's Laterals
including Structues of Narayanapura Right Bank
Canal System For Dy 9 to 15 of NRBC. (Package-
1) (Indent No 21211.)ರ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯ . . ಕೂ §ìಗಳ
ಪ"ೕ4ಾ ಫ67ಾಂಶಗಳ ವರ ಕು"ತು..

ಉ:ೆ;ೕಖ: ಅ=ೕ>ಕ ಅ ಯಂತರರು, (ಗು ) ವ ವ?ಾ@ಪಕ Aೇ&ಶಕರವರ ಕBೇ",
ಕೃ ಾಜ , $ಾ ಂC: ೕ'ಗು ರವರ ಕBೇ" ಪತD ಸಂ.772
: 07.02.2023.
~~~~*~~~~
ªÉÄÃ°£À «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ, Extension, Renovation, and
Modernization of Distributaries from 1 to 15 & it's Laterals including
Structues of Narayanapura Right Bank Canal System For Dy 9 to
15 of NRBC. (Package-1) (Indent No 21211.) PÁªÀÄUÁjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ
19

¹.¹. ಕೂ §ìಗಳ ವರ #ೆ ಅ=ೕ>ಕ ಅ ಯಂತರರು (ಗು. . ),ವ ವ?ಾ@ಪಕ Aೇ&ಶಕರವರ ಕBೇ",
ಕೃ ಾಜ , $ಾ ಂC: ೕಮ+ಾಯನಗು ರವರು Eೕಲು ರುಜು /ಾ , ಉ:ೆ;ೕFತ ಪತDದ6; ಈ
ಕBೇ"#ೆ ಕಳIJ ರು7ಾK+ೆ, ಸದ" ಫ67ಾಂಶಗಳನುL ಮೂಲ ಪDMಯ6; ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮN ಮುಂ ನ
ಕDಮ$ಾOP ಕಳIJಸ:ಾPAೆ
ತಮN QಾR ,
¸À»/-
$ಾಯ&'ಾಲಕ ಅ ಯಂತರರು,
ಕೃ. ಾ.ಜ. ( ), ಗುಣ ಯಂತDಣ ಾಗ,
ೕಮ+ಾಯನಗು ."

A detailed bill was also submitted qua package-I. Same goes with

package-II. The work completion certificate issued by the

Executive Engineer i.e., the Competent Authority is as follows:

"ಸಂ ೆ : ಕೃ ಾಜ :ಗು - ೕಗು : -2.23-24: 334 ಾಂಕ: 25/08/2023

ಇವ"#ೆ,
$ಾಯ&'ಾಲಕ ಅ ಯಂತರರು,
ಕೃ ಾಜ , ಎW.ಆY. . ಾಗ ಸಂ.4
ZಕO[ೊನಕು\

/ಾನ +ೇ,

ಷಯ: Extension, Renovation, and Modernization of
Distributaries from 16 to 18 & it's Laterals
including Structues of Narayanapura Right Bank
Canal System (Package-II) (Indent No 21212.)gÀ
PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ ¹.¹. ಕೂ §ìಗಳ ಪ"ೕ4ಾ ಫ67ಾಂಶಗಳ ವರ ಕು"ತು.

ಉ:ೆ;ೕಖ: ಅ=ೕ>ಕ ಅ ಯಂತರರು, (ಗು ) ವ ವ?ಾ@ಪಕ Aೇ&ಶಕರವರ ಕBೇ",
ಕೃ ಾಜ , $ಾ ಂC: ೕ'ಗು ರವರ ಕBೇ" ಪತD ಸಂ. 248
¢£ÁAPÀ:07.08.2023
20

ªÉÄÃ°£À «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ, Extension, Renovation, and
Modernization of Distributaries from 16 to 18 & it's Laterals
including Structues of Narayanapura Right Bank Canal System
(Package-II) (Indent No 21212.)gÀ, PÁªÀÄUÁjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¹.¹.
ಕೂ §ìಗಳ ªÀgÀ¢UÉ C¢üÃPÀëPÀ ಅ ಯಂತರರು (ಗು. . ), ವ ವ?ಾ@ಪಕ Aೇ&ಶಕರವರ ಕBೇ",
ಕೃ ಾಜ , $ಾ ಂC: ೕಮ+ಾಯನಗು ರವರು Eೕಲು ರುಜು /ಾ , ಉ:ೆ;ೕFತ ಪತDದ6; ಈ
ಕBೇ"#ೆ ಕಳIJ ರು7ಾK+ೆ, ಸದ" ಫ67ಾಂಶಗಳನುL ಮೂಲ ಪDMಯ6; ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮN ಮುಂ ನ
ಕDಮ$ಾOP ಕಳIJಸ:ಾPAೆ.

ತಮN QಾR ,
¸À»/-
$ಾಯ&'ಾಲಕ ಅ ಯಂತರರು,
ಕೃ. ಾ.ಜ. ( ), ಗುಣ ಯಂತDಣ ಾಗ,
ೕಮ+ಾಯನಗು ."

Therefore, both package-I and package-II did result in the

Competent Authority issuing work completion certificate. But, no

payment is made. Therefore, the petitioner begins to represent on

the score that it has availed loan from various places and has

executed the work close to ₹800/- crores and no amount is paid to

the petitioner. Last of the representations is on 21-11-2023 which

refers to earlier representations. The representation dated

21-11-2023 reads as follows:

"Ref: NDW/NRBC/Pkg-II/2023-24/29 Date: 21-11-2023

ಇವ"#ೆ,
ಇವ"#ೆ
/ಾನ ವ ವ?ಾ@ಪಕ Aೇ&ಶಕರು,
Aೇ&ಶಕರು
21

ಕೃ.
ಕೃ ಾ.ಜ
ಾ ಜ. . , 3 ೇ ಮಹ :ೋ$ೋಪ^ೕP ಕBೇ"
ಪ_ರಕ ಕಟaಡ $ೆ.ಆY
$ೆ ಆY.ವೃತK
ಆY ವೃತK ೆಂಗಳ ರು.
ರು.

/ಾನ +ೆ,
+ೆ

«µÀAiÀÄ: Extension, Renovation & Modemization of
Distributaries from 16 to 18 & Its laterals
including Structures of Narayanpur Right Bank
Canal System (Package-II) (Indent No. 21212)
PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ ©®è£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. M¥ÀàAzÀ ¸ÀA.6/2021-22 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23-07-2021.
2. ªÀPïð DqÀðgÀ ¸ÀA.477 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23-07-2021
3. £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå. NDW/NRBC/Pkg-II/2022-23/36
¢£ÁAPÀ: 28-06-2022.
4. £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå. NDW/NRBC/Pkg-II/2022-23/43
¢£ÁAPÀ: 18-07-2022.
5. £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå. NDW/NRBC/Pkg-II/2022-23/57
¢£ÁAPÀ: 14-09-2022.
6. £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå. NDW/NRBC/Pkg-II/2022-23/68
¢£ÁAPÀ:14-11-2022.

EೕಲOಂಡ ಉ:ೆ;ೕಖ (1) ರನRಯ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯ ಒಡಂಬ $ೆಯನುL ಾಂಕ:
23-07-2021 bತK: ರೂ.770,53,62,985=00
ರೂ c.ಎd
(c ಎd.e
ಎd e [ೊರತುಪ ) ರೂಗf#ೆ ಕ+ಾರು
ಒಪgಂದವನುL $ಾಯ& hಾ&ಹಕ ಇಂc ಯY ಕೃiಾj ಾಗ ಜಲ ಗಮದ ಾರkಾಣಪlರ
ಬಲದಂmೆ $ಾಲುhೆ ಾಗ ಸಂ.4 ZಕO[ೊನLಕು\ ಇವ+ೊಂ #ೆ /ಾ $ೊಳn:ಾPದುo, ಉ:ೆ;ೕಖ (2)
ರನRಯ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯನುL 'ಾDರಂ ಸ:ಾPತುK. $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯು ಪDಗMಯ6;ದು ಮು$ಾKಯದ ಹಂತ
ತಲು ರುತKAೆ.

$ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯ ಪDಗMಯ ಅನು?ಾರhಾP ಆY.ಎ. ಲು; ಸಂ.7ರವ+ೆ#ೆ
ರೂ.771,66,88,329.00
ರೂ bತKhಾPದುo, ಇದರ6; ಇನೂL ರೂ.451,96,66,055.00
ರೂ ಾp 6;ನ
bತK 'ಾವMkಾಗ ೇ$ಾPರುತKAೆ.ೆ

ಇದಲ;Aೆ ವ&J ದ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯ ಅಳ7ೆಗಳನುL ತ#ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಲ;ನುL
ತkಾ"ಸುವlದು ಕೂಡ ಾp ಇರುತKAೆ.
22

ಉ:ೆ;ೕಖ (3), (4) ಮತುK (5) ರನRಯ ಾp ಲು;ಗಳನುL 'ಾವM/ಾಡಲು
$ಾಯ& hಾ&ಹಕ EAf¤ÃAiÀÄgÀgÀÄ, PÀÈµÁÚ ¨sÁUÀå d® ¤UÀªÀÄ ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ £Á.§.zÀA.PÁ®ÄªÉ
«¨sÁUÀ ¸ÀA.4 aPÀÌºÉÆ£ÀßPÀÄtÂ ಇವ"#ೆ $ೋರ:ಾPತುK ಅದ+ೆ ¸ÀzÀjgÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ
ಕDಮವನುL ಜರುP ರುವl ಲ;.
ಈ#ಾಗ:ೇ $ಾಮ#ಾ" c6;ನ ಪD/ಾಣಗಳI Qೇ 95% ಪ_ಣ&#ೊಂ ದುo, ಇನೂL Qೇ 5%
/ಾತD ಪD/ಾಣಗಳI $ಾಮ#ಾ" ಾp ಇರುತKAೆ, ಒಡಂಬ $ೆಯ Schedule-B ಪD$ಾರ Bill of
quantities [ೆqಾrPರುವl ಲ;. ಸ$ಾಲ$ೆO ಲು; 'ಾವMkಾಗAೆ $ಾರಣ Qೇ 5% $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯ
/ಾತD ಾp ಉf Aೆ.

PÁªÀiUÁjAiÀÄ Dgï.J ©®ÄèUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgÁgÀÄ ಒಪgಂದದ $ಾ;d-7 ಪD$ಾರ ಲು;ಗಳನುL
ಒ g$ೊಳn:ಾPರುತKAೆ. ಇಂತಹ ಸಂಧಬ&ದ6; ಾp ಇರುವ ಲು;ಗಳನುL ತmೆJ ದು
$ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯನುL ಮು$ಾKಯ#ೊfಸುವlದ$ೆO ಆt&ಕ ಅಡಚvೆಯುಂwಾದ ಸಂಧಬ&ದ6;, ಾನು
ಕ+ಾರು ಒಪgಂದ Additional conditions of contract clause No.29 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ
¤UÀªÀÄzÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ ಇಂc ಯರರು, ಸ[ಾಯಕ $ಾಯ& hಾ&ಹಕ ಇಂc ಯರರು ಮತುK
Qಾ ಾ=$ಾ"ಗಳI ಇವರ ಸೂಕK ಪ" ೕ>vೆಯ6; (ಸೂಪರhೈಜW) ಅ ಯ6; ಅನುbೕ ತ
drawings and specifications ಮತುK ಸದ"ಯವರ $ಾಲ$ಾಲ$ೆO ೕಡುವ
/ಾಗ&ದಶ&ನAೊಂ #ೆ, $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯನುL ವ&Jಸ:ಾPರುತKAೆ.

ತರvಾ $ಾಲುವ ಸಂ ೆ 16 [ಾಗೂ ಇದರ ಅ ಯ6; ಬರುವ ಉಪ ತರಣ $ಾಲುhೆ
ಮತುK ¯ÁålgÀ¯ïUÀ¼À PÁªÀÄUÁj ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä Working L Section, Cross Section
reach wise hydraulic particularನುL $ಾಯ& hಾ&ಹಕ ಇಂc ೕಯರರು
ಕೃ. ಾ.ಜ. . ಾಗ ಸಂ.6 ZಕO[ೊನLಕು\ ಅನುbೕ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯನುL ವ&Jಸಲು
ೕ ದಂ7ೆ ಈ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯನುL ¤ªÀð»¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

ತರvಾ $ಾಲುವ ಸಂ ೆ 17 ಮತುK 18 [ಾಗೂ ಇದರ ಅ ಯ6; ಬರುವ ಉಪ ತರಣ
$ಾಲುhೆ ¯ÁålgÀ¯ïUÀ¼À PÁªÀÄUÁj ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä Working L Section, Cross Section
reach wise hydraulic particularsನುL $ಾಯ& hಾ&ಹಕ ಇಂc ೕಯರರು
ಕೃ. ಾ.ಜ. . ಾಗ ಸಂ.4 ZಕO[ೊನLಕು\ ಅನುbೕ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯನುL ವ&Jಸಲು
ೕ ದಂ7ೆ ಈ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯನುL ವ&Jಸ:ಾPರುತKAೆ.

ಇದಲ;Aೆ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯ ಪDಗM ಸಂಧಬ&ದ6; ಕ+ಾರು ಒಪgಂದದ Additional
conditions of contract clause No.39 ರನRಯ ಕೃಷj ಾಗ ಜಲ ಮಗದ QC
Authorities ಅವರ ಪ" ೕ>vೆ [ಾಗೂ ಗುಣ ಮಟaದ ಬ#ೆy ಪD/ಾಣ ಪತDಗಳನುL ಪmೆಯುವlದಲ;Aೆ
23

ಗಮದ ವMzಂದ ೇಮಕ#ೊಂಡ ಮೂರ ೇ ತಂಡದ ವMzಂದಸಹ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯ ಗುಣ ಮಟaದ
ಬ#ೆy ವ"ದಯನುL ಪmೆದು$ೊಂ ರುತKAೆ.

ನಮ#ೆ ಆt&ಕ ಅಡಚvೆ ಉಂwಾPರುವlದ"ಂದ /ಾನ ಕ ಒತKಡ$ೆO ಒಳಪಟುa
ಆ+ೋಗ ದ6; Kರು'ೇ+ಾP ಹೃದ+ೋಗ ಂದ ಬಳಲುMKAೆoೕ ೆ.ೆ ನಮ#ೆ $ಾ{&ಕರ hೇತನ,
hೇತನ
Eೕ|ನ"ಗಳ ವ&ಹvಾ 'ಾವMಗಳI
'ಾವMಗಳI ಮತುK ಾ ಂpನ6; ಪmೆ ರುವ ?ಾಲ ಮತುK ಆದರ ಬ }
ಇ7ಾ ಗಳI ಎಲ;ವl ಕೂ $ೊಂಡು ನನL Eೕ:ೆ ಆt&ಕ [ೊ+ೆ [ೆqಾrPರುತKAೆ.ೆ ಇದ"ಂದ ಮುಂ ನ
kಾವlAೇ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯನುL ವ&Jಸಲು ಸಹ ಆಗುMKಲ.; ಈ ಎ:ಾ; ಅಂಶಗfಂದ ನನL ಆ+ೋಗ ವl
ಇನಷುa ~ೕ\ಸುMKAೆ.ೆ ಆದುದo"ಂದ ಅ=$ಾ"ಗಳ ಸಮುNಖದ6; ಾನು ವ&J ದ ಗುಣಮಟaದ
$ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯ ಪ"/ಾಣಗಳ ಅನು?ಾರhಾP ಾp ಇರುವ ರೂ.451,96,66,055.00
ರೂ ಲು;ಗಳ
'ಾವM#ೆ ಕDಮ ಜರುPಸಲು $ಾಯ& hಾ&ಹಕ ಇಂc ಯರವ"#ೆ ಸೂಕK Aೇ&ಶನ ೕಡಲು ಈ
ಮೂಲಕ ತಮN6; ಕಳಕfಂದ $ೈ ಮುPದು ನಂMಸು7ೆKೕ ೆ.ೆ

¸À»/-
E|| ಎW. .ವಡ}Y & ಕಂ

ಪDMಗಳI :

1. /ಾನ ಮುಖ ಅ ಯಂತರರು, ಕೃ. ಾ.ಜ. . , $ಾಲುhೆ ವಲಯ ಸಂ.1
ೕಮ+ಾಯನಗು ಇವರ /ಾJM#ಾP ಸ6;ಸ:ಾPAೆ.

2. /ಾನ ಅ=ೕ>ಕ ಅ ಯಂತರರು, $ೈ. ಾ.ಜ. . ಾ.ಬ.ದಂ.$ಾ. ವೃತK ಸಂ.2
ಕೃiಾjಪ_ರ ಇವರ /ಾJM#ಾP ಸ6;ಸ:ಾPAೆ.

3. /ಾನ ಮುಖ :ೇ$ಾO=$ಾ"ಗಳI ಕೃ. ಾ.ಜ. . . ೕಮ+ಾಯನಗು ಇವರ
/ಾJM#ಾP ಸ6;ಸ:ಾPAೆ.

4. /ಾನ $ಾಯ& hಾ&ಹಕ ಅ ಯಂತರರು, ಕೃiಾj ಾಗ ಜಲ ಗಮ
ಯ{ತ ಾ.ಬ.ದಂ.$ಾಲುhೆ ಾಗ ಸಂ.4 ZಕO[ೊನLಕು\ ಇವರ
/ಾJM#ಾP ಸ6;ಸ:ಾPAೆ.

ತಮN QಾR ,
¸À»/-
E|| ಎW. .ವಡ}Y & ಕಂ
..... ...... ....
24

Ref: NDW/NRBC/Pkg-1/2023-24/28 Date: 21-11-2023

ಇವ"#ೆ,
/ಾನ ವ ವ?ಾ@ಪಕ Aೇ&ಶಕರು,
ಕೃ. ಾ.ಜ. . ., 3 ೇ ಮಹ :ೋ$ೋಪ^ೕP ಕBೇ"
ಪ_ರಕ ಕಟaಡ $ೆ.ಆY.ವೃತK ೆಂಗಳ ರು

/ಾನ +ೆ,

«µÀAiÀÄ: Extension, Renovation & Modernization of
Distributaries from 1 to 15 & Its laterals
including Structures of Narayanpur Right Bank
Canal System (Package-1) (Indent No. 21211)
PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ ©®è£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. M¥ÀàAzÀ ¸ÀA.2/2021-22 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23-07-2021.
2. ªÀPïð DqÀðgÀ ¸ÀA.304 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23-07-2021
3. £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå. NDW/NRBC/Pkg-I/2022-23/35
¢£ÁAPÀ:28-06-2022.
4. £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå. NDW/NRBC/Pkg-I/2022-23/42
¢£ÁAPÀ:18-07-2022.
5. £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå. NDW/NRBC/Pkg-I/2022-23/67
¢£ÁAPÀ:14-11-2022.
***
EೕಲOಂಡ ಉ:ೆ;ೕಖ (1) ರನRಯ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯ ಒಡಂಬ $ೆಯನುL ಾಂಕ:
23-07-2021 bತK: ರೂ.828,40,00,019=00
ರೂ c.ಎd
(c ಎd.e
ಎd e [ೊರತುಪ ) ರೂಗf#ೆ ಕ+ಾರು
ಒಪgಂದವನುL $ಾಯ& hಾ&ಹಕ ಇಂc ಯY ಕೃiಾj ಾಗ ಜಲ ಗಮದ ಾರkಾಣಪlರ
ಬಲದಂmೆ $ಾಲುhೆ ಾಗ ಸಂ.5 +ೋಡಲಬಂಡ ಇವ+ೊಂ #ೆ /ಾ $ೊಳn:ಾPದುo, ಉ:ೆ;ೕಖ (2)
ರನRಯ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯನುL 'ಾDರಂ ಸ:ಾPತುK. $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯು ಪDಗMಯ6;ದು ಮು$ಾKಯದ ಹಂತ
ತಲು ರುತKAೆ.

$ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯ ಪDಗMಯ ಅನು?ಾರhಾP ಆY.ಎ. € ಸಂ.7ರವ+ೆ#ೆ
ರೂ.875,69,18,422.00
ರೂ bತKhಾPದುo ಇದರ6; ಇನೂL ರೂ.360,27,04,480.00
ರೂ ಾp 6;ನ
bತK 'ಾವMkಾಗ ೇ$ಾPರುತKAೆ.ೆ

ಇದಲ;Aೆ ವ&J ದ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯ ಅಳ7ೆಗಳನುL ತ#ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಲ;ನುL
ತkಾ"ಸುವlದು ಕೂಡ ಾp ಇರುತKAೆ.
25

ಉ:ೆ;ೕಖ (3) ಮತುK (4) ರನRಯ ಾp ಲು;ಗಳನುL 'ಾವM/ಾಡಲು $ಾಯ& hಾ&ಹಕ
ಇಂc ೕಯರರು, ಕೃiಾj ಾಗ d® ಗಮ ¤AiÀÄ{ತ ಾ.ಬ.ದಂ.$ಾಲುhೆ ಾಗ ಸಂ.5
+ೋಡಲಬಂmಾ ಇವ"#ೆ $ೋರ:ಾPತುK. ಆದ+ೆ ಸದ"ರವರು kಾವlzÉÃ ಕDಮವನುL
ಜರುP ರುವl ಲ;.

ಈ#ಾಗ:ೇ $ಾಮ#ಾ" c6;ನ ಪD/ಾಣಗಳI Qೇ 95% ಪ_ಣ&#ೊಂ ದುo, ಇನೂL Qೇ 5%
/ಾತD ಪD/ಾಣಗಳI $ಾಮ#ಾ" ಾp ಇರುತKAೆ. ಒಡಂಬ $ೆಯ Schedule-B ಪD$ಾರ Bill of
quantities [ೆqಾrPರುವl ಲ;. ಸ$ಾಲ$ೆO ಲು; 'ಾವMkಾಗAೆ $ಾರಣ Qೇ 5% $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯ
/ಾತD ಾp ಉf Aೆ.

PÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ Dgï.J ಲು;ಗಳನುL ಕ+ಾರು ಒಪgಂದದ $ಾ;d-7 ಪD$ಾರ ಲು;ಗಳನುL
ಒ g$ೊಳn:ಾPರುತKAೆ. ಇಂತಹ ಸಂಧಬ&ದ6; ಾp ಇರುವ ಲು;ಗಳನುL ತmೆJ ದು
$ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯನುL ಮು$ಾKಯ#ೊfಸುವlದ$ೆO ಆt&ಕ ಅಡಚvೆಯುಂwಾದ ಸಂಧಬ&ದ6;, ಾನು
ಕ+ಾರು ಒಪgಂದ Additional conditions of contract clause No.29gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ
ಗಮದ $ಾಯ& hಾ&ಹಕ ಇಂc ಯರರು, ಸ[ಾಯಕ $ಾಯ& hಾ&ಹಕ ಇಂc ಯರರು ಮತುK
Qಾ ಾ=$ಾ"ಗಳI ಇವರ ಸೂಕK ಪ" ೕ>vೆಯ6; (ಸೂಪರhೈಜW) ಅ ಯ6; ಅನುbೕ ತ
drawings and specifications ಮತುK ಸದ"ಯವರ $ಾಲ$ಾಲ$ೆO ೕಡುವ
/ಾಗ&ದಶ&ನAೊಂ #ೆ, $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯನುL ವ&Jಸ:ಾPರುತKAೆ.

ತರvಾ $ಾಲುವ ಸಂ ೆ 1 "ಂದ 14ರವ+ೆ#ೆ [ಾಗೂ ಇದರ ಅ ಯ6; ಬರುವ
ಉಪ ತರಣ PÁ®ÄªÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¯ÁålgÀ¯ïUÀ¼À PÁªÀÄUÁj ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä Working L Section,
Cross Section reach wise hydraulic particularನುL $ಾಯ& hಾ&ಹಕ
ಇಂc ೕಯರರು ಕೃ. ಾ.ಜ. . ಾಗ ಸಂ.5 +ೋಡಲಬಂmಾ ಅನುbೕ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯನುL
ವ&Jಸಲು ೕ ದಂ7ೆ ಈ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯನುL ¤ªÀð»¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

ತರvಾ $ಾಲುhೆ ಸಂ ೆ 15 [ಾಗೂ ಇದರ ಅ ಯ6; ಬರುವ ಉಪ ತರಣ $ಾಲುhೆ
ಮತುK ¯ÁålgÀ¯ïUÀ¼À (Working L Section), (Cross Section) reach wise
hydraulic particulars£ÀÄß ಅನುbೕ ದ $ಾಯ& hಾ&ಹಕ ಇಂc ೕಯರರು
ಕೃ. ಾ.ಜ. . ಾಗ ಸಂ.6 ZಕO[ೊನLಕು\ ಅನುbೕ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯನುL ವ&Jಸಲು
ೕ ದಂ7ೆ ಈ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯನುL ವ&Jಸ:ಾPರುತKAೆ.

ಗಮದ ವMzಂದ ೇಮಕ#ೊಂಡ ಮೂರ ೇ ತಂಡದ ವMzಂದಸಹ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯ ಗುಣ ಮಟaದ
ಬ#ೆy ವ"ದಯನುL ಪmೆದು$ೊಂ ರುತKAೆ.

ನಮ#ೆ ಆt&ಕ ಅಡಚvೆ ಉಂwಾPರುವlದ"ಂದ /ಾನ ಕ ಒತKಡ$ೆO ಒಳಪಟುa
ಆ+ೋಗ ದ6; ಏರು'ೇ+ಾP ಹೃದ+ೋಗ ಂದ ಬಳಲುMKAೆoೕ ೆ.ೆ ನಮ#ೆ $ಾ{&ಕರ hೇತನ,
hೇತನ
Eೕ|ನ"ಗಳ ವ&ಹvಾ 'ಾವMಗಳI ಮತುK ಾ ಂpನ6; ಪmೆ ರುವ ?ಾಲ ಮತುK ಅದರ ಬ }
ಇ7ಾ ಗಳI ಎಲ;ವl ಕೂ $ೊಂಡು ನನL Eೕ:ೆ ಆt&ಕ [ೊ+ೆ
[ೊ +ೆ [ೆqಾrPರುತKAೆ.ೆ ಇದ"ಂದ ಮುಂ ನ
kಾವlAೇ $ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯನುL ವ&Jಸಲು ಸಹ ಆಗುMKಲ.; ಈ ಎ:ಾ; ಅಂಶಗfಂದ ನನL ಆ+ೋಗ ವl
ಇನಷುa ~ೕ\ಸುMKAೆ.ೆ ಆದುದo"ಂದ ಅ=$ಾ"ಗಳ ಸಮುNಖದ6; ಾನು ವ&J ದ ಗುಣಮಟaದ
$ಾಮ#ಾ"ಯ ಪ"/ಾಣಗಳ ಅನು?ಾರhಾP ಾp ಇರುವ ರೂ.360,27,04,480.00
ರೂ ಲು;ಗಳ
ಗಳ
'ಾವM#ೆ ಕDಮ ಜರುPಸಲು $ಾಯ& hಾ&ಹಕ ಇಂc ಯರವ"#ೆ ಸೂಕK Aೇ&ಶನ ೕಡಲು ಈ
ಮೂಲಕ ತಮN6; ಕಳಕfzಂದ $ೈ ಮುPದು ನಂMಸು7ೆKೕ ೆ.ೆ

ಸJ/-
E|| ಎW. .ವಡ}Y & ಕಂ."

The bills are not cleared, but a Committee was appointed to look

into the work completion certificate so issued, on 10-06-2022. The

order appointing the Committee was later withdrawn. Therefore,

reference made to the said Committee is necessary to be noticed.

10. Complaints were registered before the Lokayukta and

before the Estimates Committee of the Karnataka Legislature. In

no proceedings, the petitioner's work has been found fault with, is

the admitted position. With this admitted position, it becomes
27

necessary to consider whether, there could be a direction issued to

the respondents to pay the bills as was undertaken.

11. Statement of objections is filed by the respondents.

Certain paragraphs of the statement of objections would become

necessary to be noticed. They read as follows:

"7. It is submitted that, in respect of package-I the
petitioner submitted total Bills amounting to Rs.867.66
Crores, out of which the Nigam has made payment of
Rs.590.10 Crores till date. The total payments made
works out to 68% as against the bills submitted.

8. Further in respect of package-II the petitioner
submitted total Bills amounting to Rs.636.58 crores,
out of which the Nigam has made payment of
Rs.377.71 Crores till date. The total payments made
works out to 59.33% as against the bills submitted.

9. The Details of bills submitted and paid is given below:

(Amount in crores)

Package Agreement Bill Bill Pending
Cost submitted paid Bill
including GST Amount
Package-I 977.51 867.66 590.10 277.56
Package-II 909.23 636.58 377.71 258.87
Total 1886.74 1504.24 967.81 536.43

It maybe pertinent to note that the petitioner has
achieved physical progress of 79.30% & 59.14% in
package-I & package-2 respectively. The respondent-
2, in the interest of expediting the work, has paid
68.00% and 59.33% in package-1 & package-2
respectively the submitted bills.
28

10. It is submitted that, however, inspite of the above
positive approach by the respondent No.2, the
petitioner has failed to comply to the Chief Engineers
inspection notes dated 17-10-2023, 19-10-2023 &
13.01.2024. The petitioner has also failed to submit all
the relevant appropriate quality certificate test results
for the executed/rectified works for the works
recorded in RA Bills 4, 5, 6 & 7th as committed by the
petitioner himself. Due to the reasons stated in the
above paragraphs the Respondent No.2 has kept the
bills pending for payment. Further, in the other
projects/works which are undertaken up by the
petitioner with Respondent No.2, payments are being
made as per the progress achieved by the petitioner
and it is nowhere stopped/affected due to enquiry of
PKG-1 & PKG-2. Even on 18-04-2024 the Respondent-
No.2 has paid Rs.61.59 crores for other works which
are executed by the petitioner. As on 19-04-2024,
there are no pending bills of the petitioner for any
other works (other than the NRBC ERM works) with
Respondent No.2."

Even according to the 2nd respondent, an amount of ₹536 crores or

even more is pending to be paid. What the respondent would

contend is that entire enquiry proceedings have been handed over

to the committee headed by Justice H.N. Nagamohan Das who on

actively pursuing the inquiry, sought various details and has also

conducted site visits on various dates. Therefore, everything,

according to the 2nd respondent, hinges upon the findings of the

Committee of Justice H.N. Nagamohan Das.
29

12. The findings of the committee of Justice H.N. Nagamohan

Das is placed before this Court in a sealed cover. A perusal at the

findings of the Committee would clearly indicate that there is

nothing blameworthy found against the petitioner. Therefore, there

is no warrant for withholding of any amount by the Corporation to

the petitioner. The amount has been withheld for long now and a

direction is necessary to be issued for release of entire amount in

terms of bills so submitted upon issuance of work completion

certificates by the officers of the Corporation.

13. Generally, for recovery of amounts in the bills or

otherwise, a writ petition would not be entertainable, if it was not

by a State as a contracting party. The Apex Court has, in plethora

of judgments, considered this issue as to whether a writ would be

maintainable for recovery of money.

13.1. The Apex Court in the case of ABL INTERNATIONAL

LIMITED v. EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF

INDIA LIMITED1 has held as follows:

1
(2004) 3 SCC 553
30

".... .... ....

9. In our opinion this question is no more res
integra and is settled by a large number of judicial
pronouncements of this Court. In K.N. Guruswamy v. State
of Mysore [AIR 1954 SC 592: (1955) 1 SCR 305] this Court
held: (AIR pp. 595-96, para 20)

"20. The next question is whether the appellant
can complain of this by way of a writ. In our opinion, he
could have done so in an ordinary case. The appellant is
interested in these contracts and has a right under the
laws of the State to receive the same treatment and be
given the same chance as anybody else. ...

We would therefore in the ordinary course have
given the appellant the writ he seeks. But, owing to the
time which this matter has taken to reach us (a
consequence for which the appellant is in no way to
blame, for he has done all he could to have an early
hearing), there is barely a fortnight of the contract left
to go. ... A writ would therefore be ineffective and as it is
not our practice to issue meaningless writs we must
dismiss this appeal and leave the appellant content with
an enunciation of the law."

10. It is clear from the above observations of this
Court in the said case, though a writ was not issued on the
facts of that case, this Court has held that on a given set of
facts if a State acts in an arbitrary manner even in a matter
of contract, an aggrieved party can approach the court by
way of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution and the
court depending on facts of the said case is empowered to
grant the relief. This judgment in K.N. Guruswamy v. State
of Mysore [AIR 1954 SC 592: (1955) 1 SCR 305] was
followed subsequently by this Court in the case
of D.F.O. v. Ram Sanehi Singh [(1971) 3 SCC 864] wherein
this Court held: (SCC p. 865, para 4)

"By that order he has deprived the respondent of
a valuable right. We are unable to hold that merely
because the source of the right which the respondent
claims was initially in a contract, for obtaining relief
against any arbitrary and unlawful action on the part of
a public authority he must resort to a suit and not to a
31

petition by way of a writ. In view of the judgment of this
Court in K.N. Guruswamy case [AIR 1954 SC 592:
(1955) 1 SCR 305] there can be no doubt that the
petition was maintainable, even if the right to relief
arose out of an alleged breach of contract, where the
action challenged was of a public authority invested with
statutory power."
(emphasis supplied)

11. In the case of Gujarat State Financial
Corpn. v. Lotus Hotels (P) Ltd. [(1983) 3 SCC 379] this Court
following an earlier judgment in Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [(1979) 3
SCC 489] held: (SCC pp. 385-86, paras 9 & 11)

The instrumentality of the State which would be
'other authority' under Article 12 cannot commit breach
of a solemn undertaking to the prejudice of the other
party which acted on that undertaking or promise and
put itself in a disadvantageous position. The appellant
Corporation, created under the State Financial
Corporations Act, falls within the expression of 'other
authority' in Article 12 and if it backs out from such a
promise, it cannot be said that the only remedy for the
aggrieved party would be suing for damages for breach
and that it could not compel the Corporation for specific
performance of the contract under Article 226.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent, however, submitted that this Court has taken a
different view in the case of LIC of India v. Escorts
Ltd. [(1986) 1 SCC 264] wherein this Court held: (SCC p.
344, para 102)

"If the action of the State is related to
contractual obligations or obligations arising out of the
tort, the court may not ordinarily examine it unless the
action has some public law character attached to it.
Broadly speaking, the court will examine actions of State
if they pertain to the public law domain and refrain from
examining them if they pertain to the private law field.
The difficulty will lie in demarcating the frontier between
the public law domain and the private law field. It is
impossible to draw the line with precision and we do not
want to attempt it. The question must be decided in
32

each case with reference to the particular action, the
activity in which the State or the instrumentality of the
State is engaged when performing the action, the public
law or private law character of the action and a host of
other relevant circumstances. When the State or an
instrumentality of the State ventures into the corporate
world and purchases the shares of a company, it
assumes to itself the ordinary role of a shareholder, and
dons the robes of a shareholder, with all the rights
available to such a shareholder. There is no reason why
the State as a shareholder should be expected to state
its reasons when it seeks to change the management,
by a resolution of the company, like any other
shareholder."
(emphasis supplied)

13. We do not think this Court in the above case has,
in any manner, departed from the view expressed in the
earlier judgments in the case cited hereinabove. This Court
in the case of LIC of India [(1986) 1 SCC 264] proceeded on
the facts of that case and held that a relief by way of a writ
petition may not ordinarily be an appropriate remedy. This
judgment does not lay down that as a rule in matters of
contract the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is ousted. On the contrary, the use of the words
"court may not ordinarily examine it unless the action has
some public law character attached to it" itself indicates that
in a given case, on the existence of the required factual
matrix a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution will be
available. The learned counsel then relied on another
judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Bridge
& Roof Co. (India) Ltd. [(1996) 6 SCC 22] wherein this Court
held: (SCC p. 31, para 21)

Further, the contract in question contains a clause
providing inter alia for settlement of disputes by reference to
arbitration. The arbitrators can decide both questions of fact
as well as questions of law. When the contract itself provides
for a mode of settlement of disputes arising from the
contract, there is no reason why the parties should not follow
and adopt that remedy and invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The
existence of an effective alternative remedy -- in this case,
provided in the contract itself -- is a good ground for the
33

court to decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226.

14. This judgment again, in our opinion, does not help
the first respondent in the argument advanced on its behalf
that in contractual matters remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution does not lie. It is seen from the above extract
that in that case because of an arbitration clause in the
contract, the Court refused to invoke the remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution. We have specifically inquired
from the parties to the present appeal before us and we have
been told that there is no such arbitration clause in the
contract in question. It is well known that if the parties to a
dispute had agreed to settle their dispute by arbitration and
if there is an agreement in that regard, the courts will not
permit recourse to any other remedy without invoking the
remedy by way of arbitration, unless of course both the
parties to the dispute agree on another mode of dispute
resolution. Since that is not the case in the instant appeal,
the observations of this Court in the said case of Bridge &
Roof Co. [(1996) 6 SCC 22] are of no assistance to the first
respondent in its contention that in contractual matters, writ
petition is not maintainable.

15. The learned counsel then contending that this
Court will not entertain a writ petition involving disputed
questions of fact relied on a judgment of this Court in the
case of State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals
Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 216] wherein this Court held: (SCC p.
218, para 7)

"7. In our view, it is apparent that the order
passed by the High Court is, on the face of it, illegal and
erroneous. It is true that many matters could be decided
after referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits
and counter-affidavits, but that would hardly be a
ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution in case of alleged breach
of contract. Whether the alleged non-supply of road
permits by the appellants would justify breach of
contract by the respondent would depend upon facts and
evidence and is not required to be decided or dealt with
in a writ petition. Such seriously disputed questions or
rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of
34

contract are to be investigated and determined on the
basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in a
properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court
exercising prerogative of issuing writs."

16. A perusal of this judgment though shows that a
writ petition involving serious disputed questions of facts
which requires consideration of evidence which is not on
record, will not normally be entertained by a court in the
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. This decision again, in our opinion,
does not lay down an absolute rule that in all cases involving
disputed questions of fact the parties should be relegated to
a civil suit. In this view of ours, we are supported by a
judgment of this Court in the case of Gunwant
Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda [(1969) 3 SCC 769]
where dealing with such a situation of disputed questions of
fact in a writ petition this Court held: (SCC p. 774, paras 14-
16)

"14. The High Court observed that they will not
determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition.
But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted
could only be determined after an affidavit-in-reply was
filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded
to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not
deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under
Article 226 merely because in considering the
petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be
determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High
Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law.
Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary,
but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial
principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a
complex nature, which may for their determination
require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account
the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not
appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court
may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in
limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is
of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of
the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be
agitated, or that the petition against the party against
whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the
dispute raised thereby is such that it would be
35

inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for
analogous reasons.

15. From the averments made in the petition
filed by the appellants it is clear that in proof of a large
number of allegations the appellants relied upon
documentary evidence and the only matter in respect of
which conflict of facts may possibly arise related to the
due publication of the notification under Section 4 by the
Collector.

16. In the present case, in our judgment, the
High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition on
the ground that it will not determine disputed question
of fact. The High Court has jurisdiction to determine
questions of fact, even if they are in dispute and the
present, in our judgment, is a case in which in the
interests of both the parties the High Court should have
entertained the petition and called for an affidavit-in-
reply from the respondents, and should have proceeded
to try the petition instead of relegating the appellants to
a separate suit."

17. The above judgment of Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3
SCC 769] finds support from another judgment of this Court
in the case of Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar
Municipal Council [(1970) 1 SCC 582] wherein this Court
held: (SCC p. 587, para 13)

"Merely because a question of fact is raised, the
High Court will not be justified in requiring the party to
seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and
expensive process by a civil suit against a public body.
The questions of fact raised by the petition in this case
are elementary."

18. This observation of the Court was made while
negating a contention advanced on behalf of the respondent
Municipality which contended that the petition filed by the
appellant Company therein apparently raised questions of
fact which argument of the Municipality was accepted by the
High Court holding that such disputed questions of fact
cannot be tried in the exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But this
Court held otherwise.
36

19. Therefore, it is clear from the above
enunciation of law that merely because one of the
parties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to
the facts of the case, the court entertaining such
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not
always bound to relegate the parties to a suit. In the
above case of Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3 SCC 769] this
Court even went to the extent of holding that in a writ
petition, if the facts require, even oral evidence can be
taken. This clearly shows that in an appropriate case,
the writ court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ
petition involving disputed questions of fact and there
is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even
if the same arises out of a contractual obligation
and/or involves some disputed questions of fact.

20. The learned counsel for the respondent then
placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case
of VST Industries Ltd. v. Workers' Union [(2001) 1 SCC 298 :
2001 SCC (L&S) 227] . In the said case, this Court held:
(SCC p. 306, para 8)

"In Andi Mukta case [Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree
MuktajeeVandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav
Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691] this
Court examined the various aspects and the distinction
between an authority and a person and after analysis of
the decisions referred in that regard came to the
conclusion that it is only in the circumstances when the
authority or the person performs a public function or
discharges a public duty that Article 226 of the
Constitution can be invoked. In the present case, the
appellant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes. Manufacture and sale of cigarettes will not
involve any public function."

21. Placing reliance on the observations of this Court
in the said case, the learned counsel contended, unless the
action challenged in the writ petition pertains to the
discharge of a public function or public duty by an authority,
the courts will not entertain a writ petition which does not
involve the performance of the said public function or public
duty. Learned counsel argued in the instant case while
37

repudiating the contract, the first respondent was not
discharging any public function or public duty.

22. We do not think the above judgment in VST
Industries Ltd. [(2001) 1 SCC 298: 2001 SCC (L&S) 227]
supports the argument of the learned counsel on the
question of maintainability of the present writ petition. It is
to be noted that VST Industries Ltd. [(2001) 1 SCC 298:
2001 SCC (L&S) 227] against whom the writ petition was
filed was not a State or an instrumentality of a State as
contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution, hence, in
the normal course, no writ could have been issued against
the said industry. But it was the contention of the writ
petitioner in that case that the said industry was obligated
under the statute concerned to perform certain public
functions; failure to do so would give rise to a complaint
under Article 226 against a private body. While considering
such argument, this Court held that when an authority has to
perform a public function or a public duty, if there is a failure
a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is
maintainable. In the instant case, as to the fact that the
respondent is an instrumentality of a State, there is no
dispute but the question is: was the first respondent
discharging a public duty or a public function while
repudiating the claim of the appellants arising out of a
contract? Answer to this question, in our opinion, is found in
the judgment of this Court in the case of Kumari
ShrilekhaVidyarthi v. State of U.P. [(1991) 1 SCC 212: 1991
SCC (L&S) 742] wherein this Court held: (SCC pp. 236-37,
paras 22 & 24)

"The impact of every State action is also on
public interest. ... It is really the nature of its personality
as State which is significant and must characterize all its
actions, in whatever field, and not the nature of
function, contractual or otherwise, which is decisive of
the nature of scrutiny permitted for examining the
validity of its act. The requirement of Article 14 being
the duty to act fairly, justly and reasonably, there is
nothing which militates against the concept of requiring
the State always to so act, even in contractual matters."
38

23. It is clear from the above observations of
this Court, once the State or an instrumentality of the
State is a party of the contract, it has an obligation in
law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the
requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, if by the impugned repudiation of the claim
of the appellants the first respondent as an
instrumentality of the State has acted in contravention
of the abovesaid requirement of Article 14, then we
have no hesitation in holding that a writ court can
issue suitable directions to set right the arbitrary
actions of the first respondent. In this context, we
may note that though the first respondent is a
company registered under the Companies Act, it is
wholly owned by the Government of India. The total
subscribed share capital of this Company is 2,50,000
shares out of which 2,49,998 shares are held by the
President of India while one share each is held by the
Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry
and Officer on Special Duty, Ministry of Commerce and
Industry respectively. The objects enumerated in the
memorandum of association of the first respondent at para
10 read:

"To undertake such functions as may be
entrusted to it by the Government from time to time,
including grant of credits and guarantees in foreign
currency for the purpose of facilitating the import of raw
materials and semi-finished goods for manufacture or
processing goods for export."

Para 11 of the said object reads thus:

"To act as agent of the Government, or with the
sanction of the Government on its own account, to give
the guarantees, undertake such responsibilities and
discharge such functions as are considered by the
Government as necessary in national interest."

24. It is clear from the above two objects of the
Company that apart from the fact that the Company is
wholly a Government-owned company, it discharges the
functions of the Government and acts as an agent of the
Government even when it gives guarantees and it has a
39

responsibility to discharge such functions in the national
interest. In this background it will be futile to contend that
the actions of the first respondent impugned in the writ
petition do not have a touch of public function or discharge
of a public duty. Therefore, this argument of the first
respondent must also fail.

25. The learned counsel for the respondent then
contended that though the principal prayer in the writ
petition is for quashing the letters of repudiation by the first
respondent, in fact the writ petition is one for a "money
claim" which cannot be granted in a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, this
argument of the learned counsel also cannot be accepted in
its absolute terms. This Court in the case of U.P. Pollution
Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Ltd. [(2001) 2 SCC 549]
while dealing with the question of refund of money in a writ
petition after discussing the earlier case-law on this subject
held: (SCC pp. 556-58, paras 12 & 16-17)

"12. In the para extracted above, in a similar
situation as arising in the present cases relating to the
very question of refund, while answering the said
question affirmatively, this Court pointed out that the
courts have made distinction between those cases where
a claimant approached a High Court seeking relief of
obtaining refund only and those where refund was
sought as a consequential relief after striking down of
the order of assessment etc. In these cases also the
claims made for refund in the writ petitions were
consequent upon declaration of law made by this Court.
Hence, the High Court committed no error in
entertaining the writ petitions.
***

16. In support of the submission that a writ
petition seeking mandamus for mere refund of money
was not maintainable, the decision in Suganmal v. State
of M.P. [AIR 1965 SC 1740] was cited. In AIR para 6 of
the said judgment, it is stated that

'we are of the opinion that though the High
Courts have power to pass any appropriate order in
the exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226
of the Constitution, such a petition solely praying for
40

the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to
refund the money is not ordinarily maintainable for the
simple reason that a claim for such a refund can
always be made in a suit against the authority which
had illegally collected the money as a tax'.

17. Again in AIR para 9, the Court held:

'We, therefore, hold that normally petitions
solely praying for the refund of money against the
State by a writ of mandamus are not to be
entertained. The aggrieved party has the right of going
to the civil court for claiming the amount and it is open
to the State to raise all possible defences to the claim,
defences which cannot, in most cases, be appropriately
raised and considered in the exercise of writ
jurisdiction.'

This judgment cannot be read as laying down the law that
no writ petition at all can be entertained where claim is
made for only refund of money consequent upon declaration
of law that levy and collection of tax/cess is unconstitutional
or without the authority of law. It is one thing to say that
the High Court has no power under Article 226 of the
Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus for making refund
of the money illegally collected. It is yet another thing to
say that such power can be exercised sparingly depending
on facts and circumstances of each case. For instance, in
the cases on hand where facts are not in dispute, collection
of money as cess was itself without the authority of law; no
case of undue enrichment was made out and the amount of
cess was paid under protest; the writ petitions were filed
within a reasonable time from the date of the declaration
that the law under which tax/cess was collected was
unconstitutional. There is no good reason to deny a relief of
refund to the citizens in such cases on the principles of
public interest and equity in the light of the cases cited
above. However, it must not be understood that in all cases
where collection of cess, levy or tax is held to be
unconstitutional or invalid, the refund should necessarily
follow. We wish to add that even in cases where collection
of cess, levy or tax is held to be unconstitutional or invalid,
refund is not an automatic consequence but may be refused
on several grounds depending on facts and circumstances of
a given case."
41

26. Therefore, this objection must also fail because in
a given case it is open to the writ court to give such
monetary relief also.

27. From the above discussion of ours, the
following legal principles emerge as to the
maintainability of a writ petition:

(a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as
against a State or an instrumentality of a State
arising out of a contractual obligation is
maintainable.

(b) Merely because some disputed questions
of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a
ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all
cases as a matter of rule.

28. However, while entertaining an objection as
to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the court should bear
in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative
writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in
nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the
Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts
of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to
entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon
itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power.
(See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade
Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1].) And this plenary right of the
High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally
be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other
available remedies unless such action of the State or
its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as
to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or
for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the
Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said
jurisdiction."
(Emphasis supplied)
42

The Apex Court holds that in an appropriate case, a writ petition

against the State or its instrumentality arising out of a contractual

obligation is maintainable; a writ petition involving a consequential

relief of monetary claim is also maintainable.

14. There is no dispute with regard to the amount involved in

the case at hand. There is no dispute with regard to quantification

of the amount. In terms of bills submitted by the petitioner, the

petitioner is entitled to receive the amount that is stipulated in the

bills. The 2nd respondent's not adhering to either the interim order

or release of bills on specious pleas has led the fate of the

petitioner to jeopardy. In the light of the judgment of the Apex

Court supra and the fact that no Inquiry Committee has found the

petitioner at fault at any point in time, non-release of funds cannot

be countenanced. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed

with the prayer that is sought for, not in its entirety, but insofar as

bills of the petitioner.

15. The petitioner challenges the Government Order of

constitution of the committee headed by Justice H.N. Nagamohan
43

Das. The Committee is not constituted only to look into the veracity

of claims of the petitioner but several persons. Therefore, since the

Committee has not found anything that is blameworthy against the

petitioner, quashing of Government Order cannot be the relief that

can be granted to the petitioner. Therefore, what the petitioner

becomes entitled to is a mandamus for release of funds as per bills

that are submitted by the petitioner.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) Mandamus issues to the respondents to release the amount that is claimed by the petitioner through the bills so submitted, within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2024 also stands disposed.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

Bkp CT:SS