Dismissed

Mr.Gopidesi Mastanaiah S/O Venkatanarasayya v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2019WA/100023/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed writ appeals challenging the dismissal of petitions alleging premature demand notice. The court held that the cited communications were not demands and wiping out of amounts was merely imaginative, thus holding them premature.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals and the application are dismissed as the writ petitions were prematurely filed.

Mr.Gopidesi Mastanaiah S/O Venkatanarasayya Vs… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.

¶8

WRIT APPEAL Nos.100023-100024/2019 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

MR.GOPIDESI MASTANAIAH S/O VENKATANARASAYYA, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: CLASS-I GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, R/O: MUKUND NAGAR, KAVI PLOT, VIJAYAPURA-586101.

¶11

..... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI PRASHANT F GOUDAR, ADV.)

¶13

AND

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND GROUND WATERS DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATNAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGLAURU-560001.

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, M.I. (NORTH) ZONE DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND GROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT, VIJAYAPURA-58101

¶16

¶17

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, M.I. CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND GROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION (DIVISION), DEPARTMENT OF MINIOR IRRIGATION AND GROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT, BELAGAVI-590002.

¶19

..... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT VEENA HEGDE, AGA)

¶21

THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:07.01.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NOs.108858-108859/2018 DISMISSING THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT, AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITONS AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The legality and correctness of order dated

¶25

07.01.2019 passed in W.P.Nos.108858-

¶26

108859/2018 is assailed by the writ petitioner in this intra Court appeal.

¶27

¶28

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 on advance notice and perused the material on record.

¶29

Appellant’s counsel submitted that on

¶30

the basis of the impugned communications dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure-L) and 29.06.2018 (Annexure-M), the State and its respondentdepartment would take steps to recover a sum of Rs.54,96,000/- alleged to be excess payment made to the appellant by withholding amounts payable to the appellant in respect of the other works which are being carried out by the appellant. He submits that on the basis of the C.A.G. report, the respondents cannot take steps to recover the amounts on the premise that excess payment has been made to the appellant in the absence of there being any proof to that effect.

¶31

¶32

Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge was not right in holding that the writ petitions are premature as per Annexures-L and M communications. There is a demand made for recovering the alleged excess payment made to the appellant.

¶33

Government Advocate supporting the impugned order contended that the writ petitions filed by the appellant were premature and the learned Single Judge has rightly said so and disposed of the matter and that there is no merit in the appeal.

¶34

On hearing learned counsel for respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, we note that on the impugned communications, learned Single Judge has categorically stated that they cannot be construed as demand by any stretch of imagination. They are only communications made to the appellant on

¶35

¶36

the basis of the C.A.G. report. Whether any action would be taken on the basis of the C.A.G. report or not is left to the wisdom of the State Government and at this stage, the communications cannot be construed to be a demand. On the basis of the said communications, it cannot be also imagined that there will be withholding of any amounts payable to the appellant in respect of any other works that are being or have been performed or carried out by the appellant. In the circumstances, we find that the writ petitions were premature and they have been rightly held so and disposed off and that there is no merit in the appeals. Appeals are hence dismissed.

¶37

It is needless to observe that in the

¶38

event any excess payment has to be recovered from the appellant, the respondent would do so in accordance with law.

¶39

¶40

In view of the dismissal of the writ

¶41

appeals, application also stands dismissed.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Naa

Mr.Gopidesi Mastanaiah S/O Venkatanarasayya v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Gopidesi Mastanaiah S/O Venkatanarasayya v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidhya W/O Dattatraya Desai, Vs Rajendra Tukaram Chavan

Parvati Vs Mahadev Maruti Patil

Kumar Kausar D/O. Saifuddin Shaikh @ Jatkar, Vs M/S. Cargo Motors (Rajasthan) Pvt. Ltd.

Sri.Mukundhan S/O Sambamoorthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Shamanna S/O Hanamanthappa Naik Vs P.S. Vastrad

Sri.Imran S/O Rafiq Ahmed Momin Vs the State of Karnataka