[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Maruteshwara Traders vs Chief Executive Officer on 18 March, 2026
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2596
WP No. 201020 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 201020 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI MARUTESHWARA TRADERS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SIDDALINGAPPA BADIGER,
O/A NAGARAGUNDA ROAD,
DEVADURGA,
RAICHUR - 584111.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V LAKSHMINARAYANA SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH
Digitally signed SRI. SPARSHA SHETTY, AND
by SACHIN SMT. ANUSHA L, ADVOCATES THROUGH (VC))
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
RAICHUR - 584101.
2. EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYAT,
DEVADURGA - 584111.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
DEVELOPMENT,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2596
WP No. 201020 of 2025
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-01.
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ECONOMIC
OFFENCES DIVISION CID CARLTON
HOUSE PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR M., AGA FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO PASS
THE FOLLOWING.1) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION
QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. f¥ÀAgÁ/GSÁAiÉÆÃ-
4/zÀÆgÀÄ/2024-25 DATED 21.09.2024 (ANNEXURE-K) ISSUED BY
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, RAICHUR,
WHEREBY THE PAYMENT OF THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN
ILLEGALLY WITHHELD ON THE GROUND OF AN ALLEGED CID
INVESTIGATION DESPITE THERE BEING NO FORMAT INQUIRY
OR ALLEGATION AGAINST THE PETITIONER. 2) ISSUE A WRIT
OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS,
PARTICULARLY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE TALUK
PANCHAYAT, DEVADURGA, RAICHUR DISTRICT TO SETTLE THE
PENDING BILLS AS PER ANNEXURE-B A SUM OF Rs.4,75,17,
569 ALONG WITH 18% INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF THE
DUE. 3) DECLARE THAT THE WITHHOLDING OF THE
PETITIONERS LEGITIMATE DUES DESPITE THE SUPPLY OF
MATERIALS BEING DULY RECORDED, UTILIZED AND
APPROVED, IS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLES 14 AND 19(1)(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
4) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO IMMEDIATELY RELEASE THE
PENDING PAYMENT OF Rs.4,75, 17,569/- DUE TO THE
PETITIONER ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18 %
PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF SUPPLY TILL THE DATE OF
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2596
WP No. 201020 of 2025
HC-KAR
ACTUAL PAYMENT. 5) ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India is filed seeking for the following reliefs:-
"1) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the
endorsement bearing No. f¥ÀAgÁ/GSÁAiÉÆÃ-4/zÀÆgÀÄ/2024-25
dated 21.09.2024 (Annexure-K) issued by the Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Raichur, whereby the
payment of the petitioner has been illegally withheld on
the ground of an alleged cid investigation despite there
being no format inquiry or allegation against the
petitioner.
2) issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents, particularly the Executive Officer of the
Taluk Panchayat, Devadurga, Raichur District to settle the
pending bills as per Annexure-B a sum of rs.4,75,17, 569
along with 18% interest from the date of the due.
3) Declare that the withholding of the petitioners
legitimate dues despite the supply of materials being duly
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2596
HC-KAR
recorded, utilized and approved, is arbitrary illegal and
violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India.
4) Direct the respondents to immediately release
the pending payment of rs.4,75, 17,569/- due to the
petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18 % per
annum from the date of supply till the date of actual
payment.
5) issue any other appropriate directions or orders
as deemed fit by this Honourable High Court".
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Petitioner - firm claims to be a registered Class-I
contractor with certified GST, engaged in supplying various
construction materials such as cement, steel, plumbing items,
bricks etc. According to the petitioner, quotations were invited
through MGNREGA Website for supply of materials to 33 Grama
Panchayaths in Raichur District. The process of selecting the
vendor is conducted by Panchayath Development Officer and
Junior Engineer of each Grama Panchayath. The petitioner
allegedly has supplied materials to 33 Grama Panchayaths and
out of the same only 9 Grama Panchayaths have released
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2596
HC-KAR
payment while the remaining 24 Grama Panchayaths are yet to
clear the bills for the last 2 years. It is under these
circumstances, after submitting representations to the
concerned authorities and also issuing legal notice to them,
calling upon to clear the bills submitted by the petitioner for
having supplied materials to the Grama Panchayaths, the
petitioner is before this Court seeking aforesaid reliefs.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that, the invoices raised by the petitioner for
having supplied materials to the Grama Panchayath is uploaded
in the website of MGNREGA. Since the petitioner has proved
supply of the materials, the respondents, who are
instrumentalities of the State are required to pay the amount
towards supply of the materials made by the petitioner. He
submits that, the first respondent has issued the impugned
endorsement at Annexure-K withholding the payment on the
ground that CID investigation is pending with regard to alleged
transaction regarding supply of goods. He submits that,
petitioner is only required to prove supply of the materials to
the respondents and nothing more and documents produced
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2596
HC-KAR
along with the rejoinder of the petitioner demonstrates supply
of the goods. There is no justification on the part of the
respondents to withhold the payment. He submits that, in
similar circumstances, this Court in WP No.26881 of 2023 has
issued a writ of mandamus directing the concerned authority to
release the payments due and the said order passed in WP
No.26881 of 2023 was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.971 of
2024 by the Division Bench of this Court. He submits that the
existence of an alternative remedy by itself is not sufficient to
relegate the parties to civil remedy. In support of his
arguments, he has also placed reliance on the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUBODH KUMAR
SINGH RATHOUR VS. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
OTHERS - (2024) 15 SCC 461 and in the case of GAS
AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS INDIAN
PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
- (2023) 3 SCC 629.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos.1
and 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2596
HC-KAR
respondent nos.3 and 4 - State have strongly opposed the
prayer made in this writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 placing
reliance on the statement of objections filed by him submits
that, no tender was called for supply of any materials to 33
Grama Panchayaths in Raichur District. The petitioner has not
produced any contract or agreement, under which he allegedly
has supplied materials to the Grama Panchayath. The erring
Panchayat Development Officers who have colluded with the
petitioner have been all suspended and disciplinary action is
proposed against them. There is a misappropriation to the tune
of Rs.120 crores and it is under these circumstances, an
investigation is ordered by a Special Investigating Agency and
the FIR registered by Devadurga Police Station in Crime No.422
of 2023 is now investigated by CID Police. He submits that, on
the direction of the State, the Directorate of Social Audit,
Bengaluru has constituted Special teams for conducting Special
Social Audit and in the first round of audit it was found that,
fraud was played and huge amount has been misappropriated.
He submits that, in the preliminary audit report at Annexure-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2596
HC-KAR
R1, it is also mentioned that petitioner firm was closed long
back. He submits that, the invoices, which are produced as
additional documents do not bear any acknowledgment for
having received the same. He submits that, disputed question
of facts are involved in the present case and therefore, the writ
petition is not maintainable. He also submits that, petitioner
has a alternative efficacious remedy before the Ombudsman for
MGNREGA scheme. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the writ
petition.
7. The undisputed facts of the case are, the competent
authority has not called for any tender for the purpose of
supply of any materials to 33 Grama Panchayaths of Raichur
District. The petitioner has not entered into any contract or
agreement with the competent authority for supply of any
materials, much less, the building materials to the aforesaid 33
Grama Panchayaths of Raichur District. According to the
petitioner, by mutual negotiation and on oral request, he had
supplied materials to the 33 Grama panchayaths in Raichur
District. He has not produced even a scrap of paper to show
that he was asked to supply materials to the Grama
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2596
HC-KAR
Panchayaths in Raichur District. The legal notice at Annexure-F
dated 17.09.2024 which was issued on behalf of the petitioner
was duly replied. However, the copy of the reply notice is not
produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition.
8. Material on record would go to show that, after a
complaint was received by the State Government alleging fraud
and misappropriation during the period 2020-2021 to 2022-023
under the MGNREGA scheme, the Additional Chief Secretary,
Rural Development and Prachayathraj Department had directed
the Directorate of Social Audit (MGNREGA scheme) for holding
an enquiry with regard to the alleged irregularities in
implementing the MGNREGA scheme and in the preliminary
audit report by the Special teams constituted by the Director of
Social Audit Department (MGNREGA scheme), it was stated
that huge irregularity was found in implementation of the
MGNREGA scheme and it was also reported that the petitioner
firm was closed long back. Subsequently, a final report was
also filed stating that huge financial misappropriation was
committed by 33 Gram Panchayaths while implementing
MGNREGA scheme.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2596
HC-KAR
9. During the course of argument, learned counsel for
the respondent no.1 and 2 has submitted that all the erring
Panchayath Development Offices are kept under suspension
and disciplinary proceedings is being initiated against them. He
also has submitted that alleged misappropriation is to the tune
of Rs.120 crores and the same is now being investigated by the
CID Police in Crime No.422 of 2023 registered by Devadurga
Police Station. Under the circumstances, respondent no. 1 was
fully justified in issuing the impugned endorsement at
Annexure-K dated 21.09.2024 informing the petitioner that his
claim for payment of Rs.4.75 crores towards materials supplied
will be considered, after the enquiry initiated by the State
Government and the CID is completed.
10. In the case of M/s DREAMS FOUNTAINS PVT.
LTD., VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER / RETURNING
OFFICER AND OTHERS in. WP No.26881 of 2023
DISPOSED OF on 28.05.2024, supply of goods was made
under a contract and it is under these circumstances, the
respondents therein were directed to release the amount with
applicable bank interest.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2596
HC-KAR
11. The judgments in the case of GAS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA LIMITED (supra) and in the case of SUBODH KUMAR
SINGH RATHOUR (supra) was also rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in cases arising out of contractual obligation
between private parties and the instrumentalities of State and
it is under these circumstances it was held that the writ petition
was maintainable. I am in complete agreement with the
principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments and in a case
where the claim arises out of a contractual obligation with the
State or its instrumentalities and if the liability is admitted, a
writ petition would be definitely maintained. But the same is
not the fact situation in the present case. Under the
circumstances, I am of the opinion that this writ petition cannot
be maintained by the petitioner seeking for the aforesiad
reliefs.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS VS PUNA HINDA - (2021) 10 SCC
690 has observed that although the jurisdiction of the High
Court is wide but in respect of pure contractual matters in the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2596
HC-KAR
field of private law, having no statutory favour, are better
adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by the parties.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P.
POWER MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, JABALPUR
VS. SKY POWER SOUTH EAST SOLAR INDIA PRIVATE
LIMITED AND OTHERS - (2023) 2 SCC 703 has held that if
there is a serious and genuine dispute relating to the liability of
the State to make payment, then writ petition is not
maintainable.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SURJEET
SINGH SAHNI VS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS - 2022(4)
SCALE 280 has held that no writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is maintainable for specific
performance of contract. Similar law has been laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the NOBLE RESOURCES
LTD., VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER - (2006) 10
SCC 236, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL GONDIA VS. DIVI WORKS
AND SUPPLIERS, HUF AND OTHERS VS. ABHAYKUMAR -
(2017) 5 SCC 178.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2596
HC-KAR
15. From the material available on record, it is apparent
that the bills submitted by the petitioner are all disputed and
the audit report would suggest that there is a huge fraud and
misappropriation of crores of rupees. Undisputedly, the
petitioner does not have any contract or agreement with the
respondents for supply of materials and the amount claimed or
any other amount is not admitted by the respondents. Whether
the petitioner is entitled for the amount mentioned in the bills
or not, whether the petitioner has supplied materials to the
respondents or whether he is a party to the alleged fraud and
misappropriation are all disputed questions of fact which cannot
be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under the
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
Ct:pk
