IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.42270 OF 2017 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN:
M/S BALAJI ENTERPRISES, NO.7, 80 FT.ROAD, CHANDRA LAYOUT, (ADJACENT TO CANARA BANK), BENGALURU – 560040.
REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI V.VENKATESHAIAH.
(BY MR.H.RAMACHANDRA, ADV.) …PETITIONER AND:
1. THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST, AND CLIMATE CHANGE VIGILANCE, DIVISION, ROOM NO.402, LEVEL-IV, INDIRA PARYAVARNBHAWAN, JOR BAGH ROAD, ALIGANJ, NEW DELHI – 110003.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION, INDIAN COUNCIL FORESTRY RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, (AN AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CC GOVT. OF INDIA PO NEW FOREST, DEHADUM – 248006.
3. THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF WOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, (INDIAN COUNCIL OF FORESTRY RESEARCH AND EDUCATION) (AN AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL OF MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST AND GOVT. OF INDIA) PO MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU – 560003.
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER(C), SHRAMSADAN, IIIRD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU – 560022.
5. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF FOREST (RT) MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, NEW DELHI.
… RESPONDENTS (BY MR.ADITYA SINGH, CGC FPR R1 TO R5) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF FOREST (RT) MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE NEW DELHI THE R-5 TO INVESTIGATE AND ENQUIRE ABOUT THE DISPUTE IN NOT MAKING PAYMENTS FOR THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 2015 TO MAY 2016, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.H.Ramachandra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Aditya Singh, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Inspector General of Forest (RT), Ministry of Environment Forest and climate change, New Delhi to investigate and enquire about the dispute in not making payments to the petitioner in respect of the contract awarded to him for the period from September 2015 to May 2016. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to cooperate with the investigation and enquiry and to submit its version to the enquiry to be conducted.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that the proprietor of the petitioner Company obtained a license to start a business from the Additional Director General of Police Internal Security Division, Bengaluru. The petitioner – Company obtained a registration certificate from the Labour Department and registered with the Employees State Insurance Corporation and Employees Provident Fund Organisation. The respondent No.3 directed the petitioner to supply man power of 1 driver, 2 gardeners and 2 sweepers. However, order was issued in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner entered into unregistered agreement on 01.05.2014. It is averred in the writ petition that respondent No.3 by a communication dated 11.12.2015 had submitted a letter seeking extension of manpower from 01.12.2015 to 31.05.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that the amount which was due to the petitioner under the agreement was not paid to him. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the relief as stated supra.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting the attention of this Court to the communications of minutes of the meeting dated 09.12.2016 and 28.02.2017, submitted that the payment of the amount to the tune of `8,00,000/- was withheld to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.3 has not produced any evidence for direction from Employees Provident Fund or service tax authorities to withheld any specific amount. It is further submitted that a direction be issued to the Deputy Inspector General of Forest (RT), Ministry of Environment Forest and climate change, New Delhi, to conduct an enquiry with regard to the dispute of not making payment to the petitioner for a period from September 2015 to May 2016.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that two Committees were constituted which have already held an enquiry.
7. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the dispute in this writ petition pertains to payment of amount due to the petitioner under the contract. From the communication of minutes of meeting dated 09.12.2016, it is evident that an amount of `8,00,000/- which was due to the petitioner was withheld and the management was advised to furnish the details or directions, if any, from the authorities for withhelding the amount in question. In other words, in the minutes of the discussion held on 09.12.2016 it has not been conclusively established that an amount of `8,00,000/- which was payable to the petitioner was withheld without ascertaining any reasons to the petitioner. Similarly, from the communication of minutes of meeting dated 28.02.2017, it is evident that the petitioner has been advised to approach the appropriate authorities to recover the dues, if any, as the dispute with regard to the contractor and the principal employer. There is no material on record to infer that respondent No.3 without any reason has withheld the amount due and payable to the petitioner. Besides that, the petitioner neither impleaded respondent No.3 in his personal capacity nor has attributed any malafides to him. Therefore, the question of directing an enquiry with regard to non-payment of amount which is allegedly due and payable to the petitioner does not arise in the fact situation of the case. The petitioner has not been able to make out any legal right and corresponding legal due to be payable from the respondent. In the result, I do not find any merit in the petition. Therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RV