Disposed

Sri. v. Shivaji Rao v the Commissioner

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2023WP/36812/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ ordering BBMP to pay final bill of Rs.4,05,610/- for completed bench installation work. Court noted work completion and directed BBMP to consider pending representation within three months, disposing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed BBMP to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.04.2016 within three months and communicate the decision.

Sri. v. Shivaji Rao Vs the Commissioner — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 36812 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.36812 OF 2017 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. V. SHIVAJI RAO S/O B. VENKOBA RAO AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O NO.49, 4^TH MAIN, SANJAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SUMANTH L BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BBMP NEAR HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 01

¶13

Digitally signed by GAYATHRI N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER YESHWANTHAPURA DIVISION, BBMP, BENGALURU - 10

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. PAVANKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR

¶17

SRI. H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶18

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION, ORDER, THEREBY BY DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE FINAL BILL WHICH IS PETITIONER AS SUBMITTED THE COMPLETION OF CONTRACT PROVIDING AND FIXING OF PRECAST RCC BENCH AT AYYAPPA NAGARA PIPELINE ROAD IN JALAHALLI IN WARD NO.16, (WORK CODE NO.016-11-000013)

¶19

¶20

WP No. 36812 of 2017

¶21

FOR Rs.4,05,610/- BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 25.04.2016. THE COPIES OF THE SAID REPATRIATION IS HEREWITH PRODUCED FOR THE KIND PERUSAL OF THE HON'BLE COURT AND SAME IS SUBMITTED AS ANNEXURE-A; b) ANY OTHER RELIEF WHICH IS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Sri.Sumanth L. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

Sri.Pavankumar, learned counsel for

¶26

Sri.H.Devendrappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶27

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking prayer to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-BBMP to release the final bill and further direct them to pay a sum of Rs.4,05,610/- by considering the representation dated 25.04.2016 submitted by the petitioner.

¶28

The brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the BBMP has invited the tender for

¶29

¶30

WP No. 36812 of 2017

¶31

providing and fixing of Pre-Cast, RCC Bench at Ayyappa Nagara, Pipeline Road, Jalahalli in Ward No.16, vide tender notification dated 10.02.2011. The petitioner, being the successful bidder has completed the said work. However, BBMP has failed to pay the bill submitted by the petitioner.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that BBMP has invited the tender for providing and fixing of Pre-Cast RCC Bench at Ayyappa Nagara Pipeline Road in Jalahalli in Ward No.16 vide tender notification dated 10.02.2011. The petitioner being the successful bidder, pursuant to the said tender notification, the BBMP has entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 11.04.2011 and they have issued work order. It is submitted that the petitioner has completed the work as per the terms of the Contract and submitted the final bill claiming Rs.4,05,610/- to the respondent-BBMP. Despite the same, the Authorities have failed to clear the final bill and failed to pay the amount. Hence, the petitioner seeks to issue writ of mandamus to the respondent-BBMP.

¶33

¶34

WP No. 36812 of 2017

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that if reasonable time is granted, the respondent-Authorities, would consider the same in accordance with law.

¶36

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

¶37

It is admitted that the petitioner was the successful bidder, pursuant to the tender notification dated 10.02.2011 and the respondent-BBMP has entered into an agreement dated 11.04.2011 with the petitioner and also issued work order. It is also not disputed that respondentBBMP has issued the Completion Certificate at Annexure-D for having successfully completed the work by the petitioner.

¶38

The respondent-BBMP being the instrumentality of the State is required to act fairly and reasonably. It is evident that the petitioner has submitted his representation as long back as on 28.04.2016 and

¶39

¶40

WP No. 36812 of 2017

¶41

admittedly, the work is completed as is evident from completion report at Annexure-D. The respondent-BBMP is

¶42

not justified in not considering the request of the petitioner to release the final bill.

¶43

In view of the same, the respondent-BBMP is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.04.2016 in accordance with law, if not already considered. Consideration of the said representation shall be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The decision shall be communicated to the petitioner.

¶44

With the aforesaid directions, petition is disposed of.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

MDS

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Sri. v. Shivaji Rao v the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. v. Shivaji Rao v the Commissioner

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

Sri.M.Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Y.N. Jayanna Vs the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

M/S Lava Kusha Transport Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike