Karnataka High Court
Sri. Rajasaheb S/O Husensab Shaikh vs Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Niyamit on 29 October, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14661
WP No. 105902 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 105902 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAJASAHEB S/O HUSENSAB SHAIKH,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. CLASS-I CONTRACTOR,
R/O: SUNAGAR GALLI, TUMMINKATTI,
DIST. HAVERI- 581119.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAURABH A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM NIYAMIT,
HEAD OFFICE COFFEE BOARD BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU- 560001,
R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
THE KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM NIYAMIT,
PROJECT DIVISION, SHIVAMOGA
TQ. SHIVAMOGA- 577201.
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
Location: High THE KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM NIYAMIT,
Court of Karnataka, U.T.P. CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGA,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad TQ. SHIVAMOGA, DIST. SHIVAMOGA- 577201.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
THE KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM NIYAMIT,
U.T.P. DIVISION, MAGOD ROAD,
RANEBENNUR, AT RANEBENNUR- 581115,
TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI.
5. THE CHIEF ACCOUNTANT,
THE KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM NIYAMIT,
SHREENAGAR CROSS, DHARWAD,
TQ. DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14661
WP No. 105902 of 2024
HC-KAR
6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
THE KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM NIYAMIT,
U.T.P. SUB-DIVISION, RATTIHALLI,
AT: RATTIHALLI, TQ. HIREKERUR,
DIST. HAVERI- 581116.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.M. TONNE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CORRIGENDUM
BEARING NO. KNNL/EE/UTPD./RTL/PB-1/TENDER/2010-11/308
DATED. 04/06/2010 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 6 VIDE ANNEXURE-
E AS THE SAME IS REPUGNANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA
IRRIGATION (LEVY OF BETTERMENT CONTRIBUTION AND WATER
RATE) ACT, 1957 AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND
ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following prayer:
1. Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned corrigendum bearing no. KNNL/ EE/
UTPD./ RTL/ PB-1/ TENDER/ 2010-11/308 dated.
04/06/2010 issued by respondent no. 6 vide
Annexure-E as the same is repugnant to the
provisions of Karnataka Irrigation (Levy Of
Betterment Contribution And Water Rate) Act,
1957.
2. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned endorsement dated. no. KaImRa/
Tu.Me.Yo/ NyaPra/2023-24/291 dated. 29/05/2023
issued by respondent no.4 vide Annexure-G.
3. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned endorsement dated. no. KaImRa/
Tu.Me.Yo/ NyaPr/ 2023-24/1576 dated.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14661
HC-KAR
04/11/2023 issued by respondent no.4 vide
Annexure-H.
4. Issue appropriate writ or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents no.1 to 6 to
release a sum of Rs. 2,00,134/- with interest at the
rate of 18% from the date of withheld till the date
of realization, in the interest of justice and equity.
5. To issue and other order, directions as deems fit in
the circumstances of the case.
2. Heard Shri Sourabh A.Sondur appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel Shri S.M. Tonne appearing for
respondents.
3. The facts in brief are germane are as follows.
The petitioner and others are participants in a tender
notified by the Karnataka Neeravari Nigam (for short "Nigam"). A
tender notification is issued on 15.02.2010. The petitioner
emerges in the tender as successful tenderers and the work
orders are issued to them. The work is executed and at the time
when amount had to be paid to the petitioner, 10% is withheld
on account of the condition of tender. The petitioner aggrieved
by the withholding of 10% of the amount by the respondent are
before this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel Shri Sourabh A.Sondur appearing for
the petitioner would vehemently contend that the condition in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14661
HC-KAR
tender which imposes recovery of 10% from the beneficiaries of
the project and to be remitted to the Nigam cannot but be
construed to be a betterment charge. If it is construed to be a
betterment charge, the recovery of amount should be only under
the Act. The learned counsel would further submit that the
petitioner though has accepted the conditions of tender and have
participated in the tender. The recovery is not the mode, one of
the mode that is recovery by withholding of 10% is not one of
the mode by which the amount could be recovered from the
hands of the petitioner. He would submit that if it is construed to
be a betterment charge, it shall be only in terms of the Act which
is to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. He would seek to
place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of U.P. Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. v. CG Power &
Industrial Solutions Ltd.,1 to buttress his submission that the
amount should be recovered only by the method prescribed
under the statute i.e., the Act and not withholding of the amount
that is payable to the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would
submit that the condition of tender was made known to the
(2021) 6 SCC 15
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14661
HC-KAR
petitioner even in the pre-bid meeting knowing full well the
petitioner accepts the contract, performs the contract and after
the performance of the contract is now before the Court
challenging the said clause on the score that there is no method
of recovery in the tender document and therefore the recovery
cannot be made. The learned counsel submits that the condition
was that even before the commencement of work, 10% ought to
have been deposited to the Nigam. That had not been done even
after completion of work. Therefore, there is no choice but to
withhold the amount of 10% in the bills that are to be paid for
the petitioner.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions of the learned counsel for parties and have perused
the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
petitioner is successful tenderer, who have secured work order at
the hands of the respondents. The issue is not with regard to the
quality of work or otherwise, which is that tender condition. The
tender so invited by the respondent to which the petitioner
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14661
HC-KAR
applied and secured the work order, had a condition. The
condition was a post script by way of a note.
8. The condition reads as follows:
"Note:
1) As per revised of Government of India Ltr
No.F-11-1/2008 CADWM, Dated: 12.1.2009,
the beneficiaries of the project have to born
10% of total cost of work. Therefore, the
successful contractors have arrange the
collection of 10% of work cost from the
beneficial and to remit the same to Nigam
before commencement of work.
2) The contractors who have already requested for
blank tender documents in response to the Tender
notification No.02/2009-10, Dated: 19.05.2009
need not apply once again and blank tender
documents as per revised nomenclature will be
issued to them."
9. The condition is indicative of the fact that as per the
order of the Government of India, the beneficiaries of the project
have to bear 10% of the total cost. Therefore, successful
contractors will have to arrange the collection of 10% of the
work cost from the beneficiary and remit the same to the Nigam
before commencement of work. The work in terms of the work
order issued to the petitioner commenced on 21.12.2010 and the
work gets completed and the deduction has happened on the
score that it is a tender condition which the petitioner has
accepted and participated in the tender executed the work. In
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14661
HC-KAR
fact, as a tender condition the before commencement of work
10% ought to have been deposited before the Nigam, which was
to be recovery by the beneficiaries of the project. The amount is
not recovered from the beneficiaries of the project before
commencement of work. Therefore, the gap is 10% as 40% is
funded by the Government of India, 50% by the State and 10%
comes in the manner that is depicted hereinabove.
10. The petitioner participates in the pre-bid meeting is
not in dispute. The petitioner accepts the offer not in dispute.
The petitioner executes the work not in dispute. But does not
remit 10% of the total cost of the work by recovering the same
from the beneficiaries of the project. This failure on the part of
the petitioner or the successful tenderer has resulted withholding
of 10% in the bills that are to be paid to the petitioner.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner tries to bring in
the provisions of the Act to contend that except this there cannot
be any name rendered to the withholding of 10% of the amount.
The said submission is unacceptable. As issue between the two is
a matter of contract. The petitioner with eyes wide open,
participates in the pre-bid meeting, does not point a finger at the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14661
HC-KAR
10% amount that was a condition in the tender. He accepts the
tender, in the teeth of the said condition, secures a work order,
completes the work, all 15 years ago and today points a finger at
the respondent that the 10% that they have indicated in the
tender document as a tender condition is a betterment tax and
that betterment tax has to be recovered in terms of the aforesaid
act. The submission of the learned counsel to the petitioner as
observed herein above does not merit any acceptance.
12. In the light of the issue being contract between the
parties, if the contracting parties have agreed to certain terms
and conditions, though the contracting party is a State under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not step
in and interpret the contract or telescope its imagination to the
fact that the 10% levy can only be a betterment tax and nothing
else. If the charge was emanating from any statute, it would
have been altogether different circumstance.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to place
reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P.
Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. (supra). The said judgment
is distinguishable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14661
HC-KAR
without much ado, as the facts before the Apex Court was the
indication of a cess in the tender documents. Cess admittedly
was regulated under the Cess Act, of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Therefore, the indication of cess was clearly relatable to the Cess
Act, the Apex Court therefore holds, cess cannot be recovered by
withholding the amount from the hands of the tenderer therein.
14. In the case at hand, there is no statutory payment
that is sought to be recovered from the hands of the petitioner.
The amount that is indicated was in the contract and on account
of default of the petitioner of not making good the payment
before the commencement of work, the respondent has withheld
the amounts after the completion of the work. In the matters of
contract, this Court would not step in and annul the action of the
respondent. Leaving open the all the remedies available in law to
the petitioner, without interfering with the impugned order or the
impugned action, petition stands disposed.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP & RHR / CT-GTB
