IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.No.30033 OF 2017(LB-RES) BETWEEN:
Mahaveera Kalyana Organisation, No.63, 1st Main, 1st Cross, Model House, Gayatripuram, Mysore – 570 008, Rep. by its Secretary, Sri Shambu Kumar Singh, Son of Durga Prasad Singh, Aged about 46 years. … Petitioner (By Sri S.Rajashekar, Advocate) AND:
1. The Panchayath Development Officer, Village Panchayath, Ujire, Belthangady Taluk, D.K.District – 574 233.
2. The President, Village Panchayath, Ujire, Belthangady Taluk, D.K.District – 574 233.
3. The President (CEO) Taluk Panchayath, Belthangady Taluk, D.K.District – 574 233.
4. The President (CEO) Zilla Panchayath, Kottara, Dakshina Kannada District – 574 230. ... Respondents (By Sri Abhinav R., Advocate for R1 to R3: R4 served) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to consider the representations dated 11.02.2017 and 16.02.2017 as per Annexures A, B and C and etc.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER In this writ petition the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:
(i) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 11.02.2017 and 16.02.2017 as per Annexures A, B and C.
(ii) Issue any other writ or order or direction that deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has entered into a memorandum of understanding with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to collect the garbage from the houses and shops within the jurisdiction of Ujire Village Panchayath for the period from 01.09.2015 to 31.08.2018 vide Annexure-D. Subsequently, in terms of the understanding the petitioner was collecting the garbage. The respondent has issued a notice to the petitioner making allegation that the petitioner is not performing his duty as per the memorandum of understanding and by Annexure R4 dated 31.10.2017 the tender executed in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Panchayath. In the meantime, the petitioner has performed his part of the contract and he has submitted representations to the Panchayath for payment of amounts due from the Panchayath vide Annexures A, B and C. Since he has not received any reply, he has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus to consider the representations at Annexures A, B and C.
3. Sri Abhinav R., learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that pursuant to representations at Annexures A, B and C Annexure-M endorsement has been issued by the respondent Panchayath on 13.02.2017. Hence, the writ petition does not survive for consideration. He further submitted that vide Annexure R4 dated 31.10.2017 the tender itself has been cancelled. Therefore, he is not entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition.
4. In reply, Sri S.Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no grievance about the cancellation of the tender. His only grievance is, in the meantime he has made some works and he has not received any amounts for the work done. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondents have entered into a memorandum of understanding on 01.09.2015 for collection of garbage from the houses and shops within the jurisdiction of Ujire Village Panchayath for the period 01.09.2015 to 31.10.12018. Subsequently, the respondent Panchayath, not satisfied with the work of the petitioner cancelled the tender executed in favour of the petitioner by order dated 31.10.2017. The relief sought for by the petitioner is that before cancellation of the tender he has executed some work in terms of the memorandum of understanding and for that the respondents have not paid any amounts. In the endorsement issued as at Annexure-M it is not stated whether the petitioner is entitled to any amounts for the work he has done before cancellation of the tender. Under these circumstances, the only direction that can be issued to the respondents is to consider the representations of the petitioner vide Annexures A, B and C and to take a decision as to whether the petitioner is entitled for any amounts due for the work he has done before the cancellation of the tender.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to consider the representations vide Annexures A, B and C, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-