Disposed

Sri Sharath Shetty v. the Municipal Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2022WP/23773/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a successful bidder for garbage removal work, filed a writ petition for non-consideration of his representation regarding payment dues. The High Court held the dispute required respondent's consideration and disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to consider the representations within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 07.12.2019, 09.12.2019 and 30.01.2020 and pass appropriate order within six weeks.

Sri Sharath Shetty Vs the Municipal… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.23773 OF 2021 (LB - RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SHARATH SHETTY, S/O LATE UGGAPPA SHETTY, AGED 55 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, S.L.CHAMBERS, KARANGALPADI, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 202.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE MUNCIPAL COMMISSIONER, UDUPI CITY CORPORATION, UDUPI – 576 101.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.T.I.ABDULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT TO THE RESPONDENT CITY CORPORATION, TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 07.12.2019, 09.12.2019, 30.01.2020 VIDE ANNEXURES - A, B AND C.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner was the successful bidder for

¶19

removing Garbage waste material and transporting it to the designated place. Therefore, he was issued with work order and in pursuance of said order, the petitioner claims to have removed waste material and dumped the same in a designated place. The petitioner submitted a representation with the respondent to release a sum of Rs.6,61,714/- towards the work carried by him under the work order. The petitioner grievance is that the said representation has not been considered.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for respondent

¶21

submits that the dispute arises out of a contract and since the respondent disputes the amount payable to the petitioner, the present petition is not maintainable.

¶22

The petitioner was declared as successful bidder in the tender process conducted by respondent under the provision of the Karnataka Transparency In Public Procurements Act, 1999. The contract between the parties is a statutory contract and if any admitted

¶23

¶24

amount is due to the petitioner under the said contract, the respondent is under an obligation to pay the same.

¶25

The dispute as to whether the petitioner is entitled for release of the amount due for having carried out the work, is the matter which requires to be considered by respondent and this Court cannot direct the respondent to pay the amount which is alleged to be due to the petitioner. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondent to consider representation dated 07.12.2019, 09.12.2019 and 30.01.2020 submitted by

¶28

petitioner at Annexures A, B and C and pass appropriate

¶29

order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Sri Sharath Shetty v. the Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sharath Shetty v. the Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Kumar Jain Vs Department of Town and Country Planning

Mr Jaya Moolya Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Laxmi Vs the Mangaluru City Corporation

Savitha S Vs the Commissioner

Ravikiran M Vs State of Karnataka

H Basavarajaiah Vs the Davanagere City Corporation