Allowed

Rajanna v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2021WP/8972/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to release final bills submitted by the petitioner for RCC drain work. Citing a coordinate bench order in an identical matter directing bill settlement, the court allowed the petition and directed the BBMP to release payment or pass appropriate orders within four months.

What did the court decide?

PETITIONER. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents - BBMP are directed to consider the submission and release the payment / pass appropriate orders within four months.

Rajanna Vs the Commissioner — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.8972 OF 2021 (LB- BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

RAJANNA S/O. SRI. LATE SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O.NO.189/2, 6^TH CROSS KURUBARAHALLI NEAR RAVI SCHOOL BANGALORE - 560 086

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SUMANTH L.BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER BBMP, NEAR HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GANDHINAGAR DIVISION BHASHYAM PARK SOUTH CENRTAL STREET B.B.M.P, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ECONOMIC OFFENCE ENQUIRY CELL COD DEPARTMENT, CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD

¶14

¶15

BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶16

THE SECRETARY / CHAIRMAN JUSTICE NAG MOHAN DAS COMMITTEE R/O JOINT COMMISSIONER OFFICE (SOUTH) BBMP, BASEMENT JAYANGARA, 2^ND BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE FINAL BILLS WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS SUBMITTED AFTER COMPLETION OF PROVIDING RCC DRAIN TO SWD AT SULTANPET FROM A.S. CHAR STREET UPTO AKKIPET MAIN ROAD INWARD NO.120, BANGALORE,C.H.420 TO 490.00 MTR, FOR RS.54,94,084/- BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATEAD 01/08/2015. A COPY OF THE SAID REPRESENTATION IS HEREWITH SUBMITTED AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents - Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short 'the BBMP'), to release the

¶23

amount against the final bills submitted for the contract work completed by him by providing RCC drain to SWD

¶24

¶25

at Sultanpet from A.S. Char Street upto Akkipet Main Road in Ward No.120, Bangalore.

¶26

Heard Sri Sumanth L. Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is that, after the completion of contract work entrusted to him for improving the aforesaid work, submitted the final bills for release of payment. He has also submitted a representation on 01.08.2015, in this regard. It is his contention that though more than ten years have elapsed, the respondents-BBMP have neither considered the final bills nor the representation submitted by the petitioner.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that this Court in an identical

¶29

¶30

matter in W.P.No.7915/2016, disposed on 18.08.2016,

¶31

had directed to consider the case of the petitioner therein. The respondents - authority therein having failed to comply with the directions in the aforesaid writ

¶32

petition, the petitioner therein filed contempt in CCC.No.189/2017, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 18.06.2018, as the respondents - authority complied with the directions during the pendency of the contempt. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner is also similarly placed as that of the petitioner in writ petition No.7915/2016 and the issue stands covered by the order in the aforesaid writ petition.

¶33

The order dated 18.08.2016, passed by the

¶34

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in writ petition No.7915/2016, which reads as follows:

¶35

"2. Now an endorsement has been issued in compliance of the order vide Annexure-D stating therein that file pursuant to order in

¶36

¶37

Writ Petition No.4989/2015 is forwarded to CID for investigation in respect of the different works and now it is not possible to make the payment of the bills.

¶38

3. The learned counsel for the respondent COD filed the statement of objections and stated therein that the petitioner’s case is not the subject matter in the case referred to CID.

¶39

4. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties.

¶40

5. In view of the submission made by both the learned counsels, this petition is disposed of directing the respondentCorporation to withdraw the case/file of the petitioner from the case which were referred to CID in B.R.No.-843/dated 31.01.2011 and to settle the bills of the petitioner. This action is to be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

¶41

Therefore, in the light of the afore-extracted order and the fact that the petitioner is similarly situated as that of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition, the BBMP cannot discriminate the case of the petitioner in the

¶42

¶43

subject writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to succeed.

¶44

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶47

ii. The respondents - BBMP is directed to consider the representation dated 01.08.2015, submitted by the petitioner and release the payment / pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

SJK

Rajanna v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajanna v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shanthamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K N Shankaranarayana Vs State of Karnataka

Smt S Gayathri Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. v. Sudindranath Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt.Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka

L C Masthan Reddy Vs Davanagere Municipal Corporation