IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.28008/2016 (GM-TEN) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.22732/2016(GM-TEN) BETWEEN:
UDAYASHIVA KUMAR, S/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.795/567, SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY LAYOUT, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, DAVANAGERE – 577 004. … PETITIONER (COMMON) (BY SMT. SAVITHA H.M., FOR MURALIDHAR H.M., ADVS.) AND:
1. KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED, (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISE), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1, 4TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED, SLIS, DIVISION -2, HUOVINAHADAGALI, BELLARY DISTRICT – 583 219.
… RESPONDENTS (COMMON) (BY SRI.PRASHANTH B.R., ADV., FOR SRI. M.R.C.RAVI, ADV., FOR R1 AND R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR AND PERUSE THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENTS RELATING TO THE TENDER DOCUMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF LEFT BANK MAIN CANAL REACH – III [GADAG BRANCH] COMPRISING EXCAVATION, CEMENT CONCRETE LINING EMBANKMENT WITH C.D.WORK FROM KM 11.00 TO KM 13.49 AND KM 17.82 TO KM 26.00 [TAIL END] ON LEFT BANK OF SLIS [SINGATALUR LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEME] AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Smt. Savitha T.H., learned counsel for Sri Muralidhar H.M., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Prashanth B.R., learned counsel for Sri M.R.C. Ravi, learned counsel for respondents-1 and 2.
2. In these petitions, the petitioner inter-alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
“(a) Call for and peruse the records on the file of the Respondents relating to the tender document of construction of Left Bank Main Canal Reach-III (Gadag Branch) comprising excavation, Cement Concrete lining embankment with C.D. work from KM 11.00 to KM 13.49 and KM 17.82 to KM 26.00 (Tail End) on Left Bank of SLIS (Singatalur Lift Irrigation Scheme);
In W.P.No.28008/2016 (b) Allow the Writ Petition and quash the impugned order/communication bearing No.Ka.Pa.Aa/K.Nee.Ni.Ni/Sim/Ae/Nee/Yo/D-2 /Sa/Im-1/Naduvali/2012-13/HooHa/102 dated 25.04.2016 at Annexure ‘R’ by issue of a Writ in the nature of certiorari;
In W.P.No.22732/2016 (b) Allow the Writ Petition and quash the impugned order/communication bearing No.Ka.Pa.Aa/K.Ni.Ni.Ni/Sim/A/Ni/Yo/V-2/ LBMC-III /PKG/2/Ho.Ha/2015-16/1573 dated 16.03.2016 at Annexure ‘N’ by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari;
(c) Consequently, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Respondents to accord financial approval taking into consideration the extra financial implication submitted by the Respondents in terms of Annexure-C and permit the petitioner to carry out the cut and cover work as per the modified design from Reach Km 12.19 to Km 13.49 and KM 17.83 to Km, 18.43 in terms of Annexure-C.
(d) Or in the alternative, pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to pass on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest of justice and equity.”
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Admittedly, the petitioner was awarded a contract for construction of Left Bank Main Canal Reach-III (Gadag Branch) on 17.12.2014. As per the agreement, the stipulated time for completion of contract was 18 months i.e., the contract was to be completed by 16.06.2016. It appears that the petitioner could not complete the contract work within the stipulated time. Thereupon, by an order dated 25.04.2016, the contract awarded to the petitioner was cancelled.
4. These writ petitions are pending before this Court since 2016 in which no interim orders have been passed. The period of completion of contract has already expired. Therefore, no relief in law at this point of time in favour of the petitioner can be granted. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of such remedy as may be available to the petitioner in law.
With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petitions are disposed of.
5. Since the main petitions are allowed, I.A.No.2/2016 filed for vacating stay in W.P.No.22732/2016 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly I.A.2/2016 is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE TL