Dismissed

M/S Harsha Associates v. the Principal Secretary to the

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2021WP/6603/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a contractor, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking settlement of bills for tender work. The court dismissed the petition on the ground that it involved a money decree but directed respondents to consider the representation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the petitioner's representation within eight weeks.

M/S Harsha Associates Vs the Principal Secretary to… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, 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.6603 OF 2021(GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S HARSHA ASSOCIATES, SUPPLIER OF CATTLE FEEDS, DRY FOODER GREEN FOODER SILAGE, SHOP NO.31, 2^ND FLOOR, EUREKA JUNCTION, NEAR ICICI BANK, COURT CIRCLE, TB ROAD, HUBLI - 580 029. REP BY ITS PROPRITER. G.M. SURESH, S/O G MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.M.T.NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VENKATESHWARAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, CHIKBALLAPUR - 582 101.

¶14

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, CHIKBALLAPUR - 582 101.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICES, NEAR GOVERNMENT BUS STAND, CHICKBALLAPUR 582 101.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICES, CHIKKABALLAPUR - 582 101.

¶17

¶18

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICES, SIDLAGHATTA - 562 105.

¶19

THE ASSISTNAT DIRECTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICES, CHINTAMANI - 563 125.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICES, GOWRIBIDANUR - 561 208.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICES, BAGEPALLI - 561 207.

¶22

THE TAHSILDAR/TALUKA MAGISTRATE, CHIKKABALLAPUR - 582 101.

¶23

THE TAHSILDAR TALUKA MAGISTRATE, SIDDLAGHATTA - 562 105.

¶24

THE TASILDAR/TALUKA MAGISTRATE, CHINTAMANI - 563 125.

¶25

THE THASILDAR/TALUKA MAGISTRATE, GOWRIBIDANUR - 561 208.

¶26

THE THASILDAR/TALUKA MAGISTRATE, BAGEPALLI - 561 207.

¶27

… RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, AGA)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS, PERTAINING TO THE SUPPLY OF GREEN FODDER AND CONVERSION ORDER DATED 10.12.2020 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT R-2 VIDE ANNX-D AND ETC.,

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petitioner who claims to be the contractor under

¶34

a tender has made a representation to the respondents herein as per Annexure-E seeking settlement of certain bills relating to the alleged accomplishment of the tender work.

¶35

Learned AGA having accepted notice for the

¶36

respondents opposes the writ petition contending that the claim of the petitioner is in the nature of money decree and therefore, he has to go before the civil court; therefore, invocation of the writ jurisdiction is ill advised; having so contended, he fairly submits that he would instruct his clients to look into the grievance of the petitioner in a time bound way and in accordance with law. This is a fair stand.

¶37

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off directing respondent Nos. 2 & 4 to consider or cause to be considered petitioner’s subject representation in accordance with law.

¶38

¶39

Time for compliance is eight weeks.

¶40

All contentions are kept open.

¶41

No costs.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Bsv

M/S Harsha Associates v. the Principal Secretary to the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Harsha Associates v. the Principal Secretary to the

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 K E Hiyiyanna Vs the Chief Engineer

Sri. C.Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Madhukar Ranganath Vs State of Karnataka