IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN Writ Petition No.32321/2016 & Writ Petition Nos.33607-33608/2016 (LB-BMP) Between :
1. M/s. Abhimaani Publications Ltd., Dr. Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru, Represented by its Managing Director, Sri T. Venkatesh.
2. M/s. Abhimaani Prakashana (Colour Printing), No.2/4, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, By its Managing Partner, Sri T. Venkatesh.
3. M/s. Abhimaani Prakashana No.2/4, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, Represented by its Proprietor, Sri T. Venkatesh. …Petitioners (By Sri Vijaya Kumar C., Advocate) And :
1. The State of Karnataka Represented by the Secretary to Urban Development Department, M. S. Building, Bangalore.
2. The Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, J. C. Road, Bengaluru. …Respondents (By Sri S. Chandrashekaraiah, HCGP for R-1; Sri V. Sreenidhi, Advocate for R-2) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for release of payments as per representations dated 9.11.2015, 11.11.2015,20.1.2016 & 10.3.2016 and legal notice dated 20.3.2016 produced at Annexure-G,H,J,K,L and release the amount Rs.22,40,878/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Forty Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Eight Only) to the petitioners with 24% interest as per the invoices conditions from the invoice date of invoice within the time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions ostensibly on the ground that their representations dated 9.11.2015, 11.11.2015, 20.1.2016 & 10.3.2016, and the legal notice dated 20.3.2016, have not convinced the respondents to release an amount of Rs.22,40,878/-, which is owed by the respondents to the petitioner.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that by letter dated 25.7.2015, the BBMP had placed an order with the petitioner for supply of text books to thirteen Pre-University Colleges for the academic year 2015-16. On 19.9.2015, the petitioners had raised a bill for an amount of Rs.19,31,792/-. According to the petitioners, once the books were supplied, the respondents were duty bound to make the payment. However, the BBMP has failed to do so. Therefore, the petitioners submitted series of representations, namely the letters dated 9.11.2015, 11.11.2015, 20.1.2016 & 10.3.2016, requesting the BBMP to make the necessary payment. Since all these representations had fallen on deaf ears, on 20.3.2016, even a legal notice was served upon the BBMP. However, despite the service of notice, the BBMP did not react to the same. Hence, the present writ petitions before this Court.
3. Mr. Sreenidhi V., the learned counsel for the BBMP, submits that out of Rs.19,31,792/-, already the BBMP has paid Rs.18,42,196/-. However, there is some dispute between the parties with regard to sum of Rs.52,000/-. According to the respondents, the petitioners were required to supply the books within a period of three months. However, the petitioners failed to do so. Thus, the respondents are not liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.52,000/-.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Vijaya Kumar C., the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in fact there is no dispute with regard to the supply of books. Moreover, the respondents are duty bound to pay the interest on the delayed payment. Therefore, he prays that these petitions should be allowed, and the respondents be directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.52,000/-, along with interest.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. This writ petition involves a series of disputed questions of facts: whether time was of essence of contract entered between the parties or not? Whether the petitioners had supplied the books within a period of three months or not? Whether the respondents are entitled to forfeit a sum of Rs.52,000/- from the amount allegedly owe by them to the petitioner or not? Since disputed question of facts are involved, this Court is of the opinion that the writ jurisdiction of the Court should not be invoked. After all, a disputed question of fact, requiring oral and documentary evidence, is best suit to be decided by Civil Court, and not by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.
7. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this Court should not invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case the petitioners have any further grievance for recovery of the amount due to the petitioners, they are free to exercise any other alternative remedy which is available to them under the law.
The Writ Petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE *bk/-