Disposed

Sri K E Hiyiyanna v. the Chief Engineer

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2021WP/18167/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed by a contractor seeking a direction to authorities to consider his representation dated 16.09.2021 regarding the handover of a work site. The court directed the respondents to consider the representation in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of hearing.

Sri K E Hiyiyanna Vs the Chief Engineer — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.18167 OF 2021 (GM-TEN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.K.E.HIYIYANNA, S/O LATE SRI.ERULAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, CLASS I CONTRACTOR, R/O NO.57, VIDHYA NAGARA, KADUR – 577 548. CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ONKARA K B, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GRAMEENABHIVRUDDHI BHAVANA, K.R.CIRCLE,

¶13

BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, KADUR – 577 548.

¶16

CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER, BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DEVARAJ URS BHAVANA, VASANTHA NAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶18

¶19

THE DISTRICT OFFICER, BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE DEPARTMENT, ZILLA PANCHAYAT BUILDING, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.09.2021 REQUESTING THE R3 TO HAND OVER THE WORK SITE FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE TENDER AGREEMENT AS PER ANNEXURE-W AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to non-

¶27

consideration of his representation dated 16.9.2021, a copy

¶28

whereof is at Annexure-X wherein the request reads as under:

¶29

“mÉAqÀgï PÀgÉzÀÄ ªÀPïð DqÀðgï PÉÆlÖ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁ£Àå ±Á¸ÀPÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ 2 PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¥Á®PÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ.

¶30

zÀAiÀÄªÀiÁr E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÁzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ C¯ÉªÀiÁj/CgÉC¯ÉªÀiÁj d£ÁAUÀªÁzÀ zÉÆA©zÁ¸ÀgÀºÀnÖUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀqÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèQ£À°è 4 PÀÄUÁæªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢ÞAiÀiÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. F UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ªÀiÁ£Àå ±Á¸ÀPÀgÀÄ UÉÆ®ègÀºÀnÖUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄUÁð¬Ä¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä E¯ÁSÉUÉ §zÀ° PÁªÀÄUÁj ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀÝjAzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ zÀAiÀÄªÀiÁr zÉÆA©zÁ¸ÀgÀºÀnÖ PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ mÉAqÀgï PÀgÉzÀÄ J¯Áè ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÄV¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ mÉAqÀgï §zÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀzÀAvÉ DzÉÃ²¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ zÉÆA©zÁ¸ÀgÀºÀnÖ UÁæªÀÄ¸ÀÜgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÁzÀ £ÁªÀÅ vÀªÀÄä UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀ§AiÀÄ¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ.”

¶31

¶32

Learned AGA on request having accepted notice for

¶33

the respondents, opposes the Writ Petition contending that in the matter of award of tenders, contracts a greater latitude lies with the authorities and therefore, ordinarily the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked; having so argued, now he fairly submits that he would instruct his client to look into the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law; this is fair enough, indeed.

¶34

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off requesting the answering respondents to consider petitioner’s representation, in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of hearing.

¶35

All contentions are kept open.

¶36

No costs.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

cbc

Sri K E Hiyiyanna v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K E Hiyiyanna v. the Chief Engineer

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

Jone Lawrence Lewis Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Nitin Shambhukumar Kasliwal Vs Idbi Bank Limited

Jeetendra Kumar Rajan S/O S R Mahato, Vs the High Court of Karnataka

Sri. C.Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Harsha Associates Vs the Principal Secretary to the

Sri Madhukar Ranganath Vs State of Karnataka