IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.54469 OF 2015 (LB-BMP) Between:
M/s. Rajeshwari Enterprises No.18, 12th Main, Shivanagar Bangalore-560 010.
Represented by its Proprietor Sri K. Kumar S/o A. Krishnamurthy Aged about 46 years Occ: Contractor, Residing at No.146 8th (A) Main, 4th Block,4th Stage, Basaveswara Nagar, Bangalore-560 079. …Petitioner (By Sri. Prakash.M. Patil, Advocate) And:
1. The Commissioner Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike N.R. Square, Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Special Commissioner (Project) Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike N.R. Square, Bangalore-560 001.
3. The Chief Engineer Storm Water Drain Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike N.R. Square, Bangalore-560 001. …Respondents (By Sri. Amit.M. Hegde, Advocate for R1 to R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari, or any other order, or direction in the nature of writ directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 16.09.2015 vide Annexure-E and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:
a) Issue writ of certiorari, or any other Order, or direction in the nature of writ directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 16.09.2015, vide Annexure-E, b) Any other order/orders as deem fit in the circumstances of this case, including the cost of writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. It is the case of the petitioner is that K. Kumar is a proprietor of M/s. Rajeswari Enterprises and he is a licenced Civil and Electrical Contractor and undertakes the work of BBMP under various tenders called for. As per the tender notification, the petitioner has applied for the tender for construction of 18 works for the year 2009-10. The Corporation has awarded six works to the petitioner. The petitioner being successful bidder has completed all works. As per the agreement, the respondents have not paid the amount. Hence, the petitioner has given representations to the respondent No.1- Commissioner and to the Mayor, BBMP vide Annexures –‘E’ and ‘F’ dated 16.09.2015. Since the respondents have not considered the same, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court.
4. Sri Prakash.M. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the petitioner completing six works, which is allotted to him and also as per Annexure-‘D’- the resolution of the Tax and Financial Standing Committee, has approved the bill, inspite of that, the respondents have not paid the amount. Hence, he seeks for allowing the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents-Corporation submits that if this Court grants a reasonable time, representations of the petitioner vide Annexures-‘E’ and ‘F’ dated 16.09.2015 will be considered in accordance with law and the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner.
6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for respondents, the above writ petition is disposed off directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner vide Annexures-‘E’ and ‘F’ dated 16.09.2015 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed off.
SD/-
JUDGE SSD