IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.No.35528 OF 2014(GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
Bangalore Construction Company(R) No.1 Nisha Complex Bangalore-560004 Represented by its Managing Partner Sri B. Abdul Razak. … Petitioner (By Sri.K.Sreedhar, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary Revenue Department (Muzarai) M.S. Building, Bangalore-560001.
2. The Religious and Charitable Endowment Commissioner Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560018 3. The Deputy Commissioner & Chairman Sri. Chamundeshwari Temple Mysore-570001.
4. The Executive Officer Sri. Chamundeshwari Temple Mysore-570001.
5. The Executive Engineer PWD, Mysore Division Mysore-570001. ... Respondents (By Smt. Niloufer Akbar, AGA. For R1,R2,R3 & R5.
R4 is served.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the R3 to get the assessment of the work done by the petitioner through R5 tendered and non-tendered in respect of all 4 works completed by the petitioner after giving an opportunity to the petitioner before making such assessment by the R5 and thereafter make payment as per such assessment after verifying the claim of the petitioner for payment to the tune of more than Rs.5,86,17,878/- for having completed the work and also direct the R3 and R4 to refund EMD amount and also recovery of the amount from the petitioners bill which has not been paid to any authorities.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ group this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to get assessment of the work done by him to the fifth respondent for non tendered work and therefore make payment as per such assessment.
2. This Court in W.P.No.37734/2010 disposed of on 19.07.2011 has directed in para 7 as under:
“7. Therefore, limited to the said extent of the non-tendered works which are claimed to have been performed by the petitioner, the petitioner is granted liberty to furnish details of the same to the third respondent. The third respondent shall thereafter treat the Public Works Department as the competent authority to assess the claim as putforth by the petitioner. At the instruction of the third respondent a competent Engineer be assigned by the public works Department to assess the work done and claim made. The competent authority viz., the PWD authorities shall thereafter assess the work and if according to them, the amount is payable, it is needless to mention that the said amount shall thereafter be paid by respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the petitioner. However, if the claim as made by the petitioner is not acceptable after verification by the competent authority as indicated above, the reasons may be assigned and the petitioner may be intimated in this regard. In order to complete the process, the petitioner shall make a fresh representation along with the details to the third respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the third respondent shall take effective steps for determination by the public works department Engineer in the manner as stated above, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date on which the representation is made.”
3. Pursuant to that, the petitioner has given a representation along with necessary documents. By endorsement dated 04.11.2011 (Annexure-F) the respondent has stated that there are no sufficient documents to assess the rates prevailing as on 2008-2009; there are no documents to assess the quality of the work which has been done by the petitioner; there are no documents produced for identifying the work done by the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not produced the relevant documents as per the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.37734/2010, the respondent has issued Annexure-F.
4. The only ground which is given in the endorsement dated 04.11.2011 is that documents which are produced by the petitioner are insufficient to take any decision by the authority. Under these circumstances, to give one more opportunity to the petitioner, it is suffice for this Court to direct the petitioner to furnish the relevant documents which are required and mentioned in Annexure-F along with a fresh representation. The same shall be done within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter the authorities shall consider the representation along with the documents furnished by the petitioner. If they want any further clarification from the petitioner they can issue notice to the petitioner, get the clarification and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the submission of the representation by the petitioner.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-