IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.37893-895 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. P.R. KULAKARNI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC: P.W.D. CLASS-I CIVIL CONTRACTOR, R/O SHRI CHIDAMBAR NILAYA, PLOT NO.F-72 & 73, BEHIND NEW AYODHYA HOTEL, VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT-587102. … PETITIONER (By Mr. BALAGANGADHAR G S, ADV.) AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., 4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING, NO.1, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD IRRIGATION NORTH ZONE, NEAR RANICHANNAMMA CIRCLE BELGAUM – 590001.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., KNNL GLBC DIVISION, NO.3, BILAGI DISTRICT BAGALKOT-590001. KARNATAKA.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., KNNL GLBC DIVISION, SUB DIVISION NO.8, BILAGI, DISTRICT BAGALKOT - 590001 KARNATAKA. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. PRASHANTH B R ADV. FOR Mr. M R C RAVI ADV., FOR R1-R4) - - -
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dtd:16.7.2015 passed by the R-2 The Chief Engineer, Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd., Irrigation North Zone, Belgum, produced at Annexure-M and also the order Dtd: 30.3.2016 passed by the R-1 The Managing Director, Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd., 4th floor Coffee Board Building No.1 Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-560001 produced at Annexure –R and also the notice forfeiture EMD and remaining amount dtd:29.6.2016 issued by the R-3 produced at Annexure-S as the same are impugned, perverse, capricious, contrary to principles of Natural Justice , and etc.
These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Balagangadhar G.S., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Prashanth B.R., learned counsel for Sri.M.R.C.Ravi, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Managing Director, Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited, Bengaluru.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petitions briefly stated are that on 14.06.2013, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 namely, the Executive Engineer for providing lift irrigation scheme to RS No.45 and others of Mannikeri Village in Bilagi Taluk in SCP scheme (on turnkey basis). The petitioner was declared successful bidder and an agreement was executed in his favour on 14.06.2013. However, thereafter, the petitioner made a request for providing him extension to complete the contract. However, the aforesaid request was not exceeded to by the respondents. On 16.07.2015, the contract awarded to the petitioner was rescinded on the ground that the petitioner has failed to complete the same within the time limit prescribed therein. The petitioner thereafter submitted a memo of reference to the respondent No.1 on 22.09.2015. The respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 by which appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and the order of the Chief Engineer to terminate the contract at the cost of the petitioner has been upheld.
5. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that during the pendency of the contract, the contract in question has been awarded to a third party and the same has been completed by the third party. It is further submitted that in the instant writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioner only survives with regard to the manner in which the order was passed by the Appellate Authority. It is further submitted that notice was issued by the Appellate Authority on 22.02.2016. Thereafter, no further date of the proceeding before the Appellate Authority was fixed and then an order was passed on 30.03.2016 which does not contain any reasons but only the conclusions. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order passed by the Appellate Authority.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that a quasi judicial authority is required to assign reasons for its conclusion in view of the decision laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL vs. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK’, 2010 (3) SCC 732.
7. In view of the well settled legal position, the facts of the case in hand may be seen. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that it does not contain any reasons but conclusions which has been recorded by the Appellate Authority as follows:
i) “It is an admitted fact that the appellant contractor has not obtained the approval of the competent authority for the alignment of rising main before commencement of the work. According to the Chief Engineer, the work entrusted is on turnkey contract basis and there is no change in the scope of work as well and as such the appellant contractor is not eligible for any change in the raising main / pipeline considering the site conditions without prior approval from competent authority.
ii) compensating the appellant contractor for the loss suffered towards purchase and stocking of the PVC pipes in the year 2013 does arise because he has procured the pipes even before the design and drawings was approved. Moreover, there was no stoppage / suspension of work justifying such claim under contractual terms.
iii) The contractor was asked to stop the work for a short duration due to administrative reasons and in consideration of such stoppage time extension was given from 14.3.2014 to 13.08.2014 without penalty and from 14.8.2014 to 31.3.2015 with penalty at Rs.50/- per day. The appellant contractor after obtaining the payment of 70% of the tendered amount in June 2014 has not complete the balance work. As he has refused to complete the balance work at the tender price Chief Engineer has directed the Executive Engineer to take further action to terminate the contract at the risk and cost of the appellant contractor and to call fresh tender or the balance work.”
8. In other words, though reasons have been assigned by the Appellate Authority by passing the impugned order, it is well settled in law that if an order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the doctrine of availability of alternative remedy does not apply to the facts of the case. In view of the aforesaid, reference has been made to the decision of the Hon’ble Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION Vs. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS’ 1998(8) SCC 1.
9. In view of the preceding analysis, impugned order dated 30.03.2016 is hereby quashed and set aside and the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner afresh by affording an opportunity of hearing to him and after assigning reasons. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of. Needless to state that it will be open to the petitioner to raise all contentions before the Appellate Authority as are admissible to him under the law. Since the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 has been quashed, consequently, the order dated 29.06.2016 is also hereby quashed.
10. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV