IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.10111/2019 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN ABHYUDAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST (R) A REGISTERED TRUST HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.208, WESTMINSTER, NO.13, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052 RUNNING AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF INDIAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL AND HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE AND CHAIRMAN: M.KRISHNA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED 66 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S GANESH SHENOY, ADV.) AND 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC), BANGALORE MAJOR WORKS (S) DIVISION, KPTCL, A.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H V DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR C/R1.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-J DATED 07.02.2019 AND ANNEXURE-L DATED 11.02.2019 OF THE R-2 AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR “ORDERS”, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.2.2019 at Annexure-L passed by the second respondent as being arbitrary and illegal.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be a Charitable Trust that has established a School, Pre-University and Degree College and an Engineering College in the properties owned by it wherein respondent no.1 proposed to install a overhead line. Since the construction of school building comes under the proposed overhead line, the petitioner sought for its shifting for which, the petitioner has been called to bear the expenses towards the shifting. The petitioner has been allowed to take up shifting work on a Self Execution basis based on fresh survey report providing the re-locating the line within the premises of the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has invested over Rs.31 lakhs towards the said shifting work in terms of the tender called. Pursuant to the direction of the respondents, the shifting work has been allotted to the highest bidder M/s.Supriya Electricals and are executing the said work.
3. Narrating these facts, the petitioner has requested the respondents to provide further six months time to complete the work as the entire project work is estimated at a cost of Rs. 2.7 crores and Rs.31 lakhs has been invested. Such being the position, respondent no.1 KPTCL has directed the petitioner by communication dated 11.02.2019 not to take up the work on `self execution basis’ and shifting work shall be done by the KPTCL at the risk and cost of the petitioner as per the revenue norms.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.S.Ganesh Shenoy would submit that it is at the instance of respondent no.1, huge amount has been now invested accepting the highest bid of M/s.Supriya Electricals by allotting the shifting work to the contractor, bona fide efforts are also made to arrange the huge sum of Rs.2.7 crores the estimated cost of shifting work. The work has been entrusted to M/s.Supriya Electricals on 22.12.2018. In such circumstances, respondent no.2 is putting unnecessary pressure on the petitioner as well as the contractor over executing the work in terms of the contract entered pursuant to the tender called for execution of the shifting work.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that the work has come to a stand still owing to the lethargic attitude of the petitioner in not completing the work since 10 years. The public at large is affected by the lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner. Hence, the direction issued by respondent no.2 is justifiable.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has entrusted the shifting work of the proposed under- construction 220 KV DC line passing over the premises of the petitioner on `self-execution basis’ to M/s.Supriya Electricals and the work is under process/progress. The petitioner has also undertaken to expedite the work and to complete the same within a period of six months.
9. Considering these aspects, the communication of respondent no.2 impugned herein requires to be set aside in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to show his bona fides as undertaken before this Court i.e. shifting work will be completed within six months from today.
10. Hence, the impugned communication at Annexure-L is quashed providing six months’ time to the petitioner to complete the shifting work as assured before this Court.
Petitioner to file an undertaking to the above effect within a period of two weeks from today.
With the aforesaid direction/s, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/- CT-HR