IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.28429/2019 (GM-RES-PIL) BETWEEN 1 . SUJENDRA K S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2 . ANJINAPPA S/O LATE GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 3 . AJAYA R S/O RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 4 . VISHWANATH K S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 5 . GANGADHAR S/O PATALAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 6 . H N NAJEGOWDA S/O NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 7 . SUBRAMANI M B S/O MUNIBYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 8 . SURESH C S/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 9 . UMESH H R S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 10 . VENU S/O GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT: HUVINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, B K HALLI POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-562149 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT 3RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 2. CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONS & BUILDINGS (S) 1, SESHADRI ROAD, SJP CAMPUS NEAR K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU-560001 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT BENGALURU DIVISION PWD ANNEX BUILDING 2ND FLOOR, K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU-560001 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD, SUB DIVISION, DEVANAHALLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110 5. THE THASHILDAR YELAHANKA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560063 6. M VENKATARAMA REDDY FATHER’S NAME & AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS RESIDING AT NO.36, HENNUR ROAD H.B.R. BADAVANE BANGALORE-560043 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B V KRISHNA, AGA FOR R-1 TO 5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS AGAINST RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 AUTHORITIES SPECIFICALLY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS VIDE ANNEXURES-E TO J DATED 24/06/2019 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER As per the office note, notice is not accepted by the sixth respondent.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the sixth respondent was appointed by the first respondent by granting him a contract for improvement of the road which is more particularly described in paragraph 4 of the petition. The grievance made in the petition is that though it was repeatedly brought to the notice of the second to fifth respondents that the sixth respondent is carrying out the work contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract by changing the direction of the road instead of widening the existing road, no action has been taken. Thus, in substance, the grievance is that the sixth respondent is carrying out the work in breach of the terms and conditions of the contract and no action is being taken against him by the first to fifth respondents.
3. The learned Additional Government Advocate has not received any instructions.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the work commenced by the sixth respondent on the basis of the acceptance letter/work order at Annexure-A is not yet complete.
5. Perusal of the petition will show that there were representations made pointing out that the sixth respondent is diverting the existing road while carrying out the work which is not covered by the scope of the contract. We, therefore, direct the second to fourth respondents to look into the representations made by the petitioners and ascertain by visiting the site whether the sixth respondent has carried out any work in breach or violation of the contract granted to him. If it is found that the sixth respondent has committed any violation, appropriate action shall be initiated against him by the concerned respondents in accordance with law.
With the above directions, we dispose of the petition.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE bkv