Quashed

Mr v. Shivamanju v the Chairman

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2023WP/9633/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an order terminating a ten-year operation and maintenance contract for wastewater treatment plants. The Court held that terminating the contract without issuing a prior notice violated principles of natural justice and directed respondents to issue notice and pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 31.03.2023 terminating the contract is quashed; respondents directed to issue notice and pass appropriate orders.

Mr v Shivamanju Vs the Chairman — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:45117 WP No. 9633 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 9633 OF 2023 (GM-BWSSB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. V. SHIVAMANJU, S/O V. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S MANJUNATHA ENTERPRISES, OFFICE AT 174/17/1, N.T.R LAYOUT, BEHIND CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE, MARATHAHALLI, MARATHAHALLI COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 037, (REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT NO. 29HELPS6310LJZW)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. PUNEETHA KUMARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVINDRA B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE CHAIRMAN, BWSSB, 5TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶13

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT (WWM) WEST, 6TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BWSSB, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BWSSB, OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:45117 WP No. 9633 of 2023

¶17

(WWM STP HEBBAL AND ARKAVATHI VALLEY) DIVISION, OPP: NAGAVAR LAKE, BDA RING ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 024.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-F ORDER NO.BWSSB/EE/(WWM-STP-H AND A) PB/904/2022-23 DATED 31.03.2023 PASSED BY THE R-3 IE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BWSSB, OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (WWMSTP-HEBBAL AND ARKAVATHI VALLEY) BANGALORE AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 31.03.2023 by which the contract that was subsisting in favour of the petitioner is terminated.

¶24

Heard Smt. Puneetha Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for trespondents No.1 to 3.

¶25

The respondent - BWSSB enters into a contract with the petitioner on 20.08.2016 to maintain the wastewater treatment plaint, pursuant to a tender process initiated. The

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45117 WP No. 9633 of 2023

¶27

petitioner emerged as successful bidder and therefore, the contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent for a period of ten years, which would be up to 19.08.2026. The petitioner continues to function under the contract and during the subsistence of the contract, an order comes to be passed on 31.03.2023 by the respondent - BWSSB terminating the contract of the petitioner, which was subsisting. The termination of the contract is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner had a subsisting contract in his favour, which was for a period of ten years for it having been executed in the year 2016 and without issuance of a notice even, the respondent could not have terminated the contract.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents though would put up vehement defence for the action of termination of contract, he would submit that it is because the National Green Tribunal has directed upgrading of all the sewage treatment plaints in all the organizations i.e. STP and the petitioner is not qualified for the said upgrading.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:45117 WP No. 9633 of 2023

¶32

Be that submission as it is. The fact remains that

¶33

the contract between the petitioner and the respondent - BWSSB was entered into on 20.08.2016 for a period of ten years and the petitioner continues to function under the contract for maintenance of the wastewater treatment plaint. During the subsistence of the said contract, an order comes to be passed on 31.03.2023, terminating the contract. The order reads as follows:

¶34

"Sub: Tender for the Work of Design and UpGradation of existing 20 MLD Capacity STP extended Aeration based on A20 process at Nagasandra Phase-1. Bangalore and 15 MLD ISPS at Medarahalli, 30MLD ISPS at Bagalgunte, 25MLD ISPS at NK Halli along with Pumping Mains and with Operation and Maintenance for a period of Seven Years (2 years during Work contract & 5 years after Work contract) on Turnkey Basis Regarding Short Closure of O&M of Nagasandra Phase-1 STP for Upgradation and handing over to EE(WWM-ProjectH&A.V).

¶35

Ref: 1. Existing O&M W.O.No.BWSSB/CE(WWM) /ACE(WWM)-1/TA-1/923/2016-17 Dt: 20.08.2016. 2. W.O.No.BWSSB/EIC/ACE(WWM-P-W)/DCE (WWM-E&W)/TA/9607/2022-23 Dt:24/3/2023. 3. No.BWSSB/EE(WWM-Project-H&A)/AE/537 /2022-23 Dt:28/03/2023.

¶36

With reference to the above, Competent Authority have issued Work Order vide ref(1) to M/s. Sri Manjunatha Enterprises for the work of O&M of 20 MLD STP at Nagasandra Phase-1 along with ISPS at Nelakaderenal halli, Bagalgunte and Medarahalli for a period of 10 Years at Tender price of Rs. 18,10,97,694/-. The date of start of the O&M will be reckoned from 01-

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45117 WP No. 9633 of 2023

¶38

09-2016. Presently above said STP is operating in 7th Year of O&M out of 10 Years of Tendered work.

¶39

Presently, Competent Authority have issued Work Order vide ref(2) to M/s KBR-AIPPL JV for the subject work for a period of 7 Years (2 Years during work contract and Five(5) Years after work contract) on Turnkey basis at a tender price Rs.41,29,65,882/- with date of commencement and date of completion on 24.03.2023 and 23.03.2025 respectively.

¶40

In this regard, EE(WWM-Project-H&A.V) has informed this office vide ref(3) to hand over 20 MLD STP at Nagasandra Phase-I along with appropriate documents related to the STP, after short closure of existing O&M contract with immediate effect to carry out the upgradation work of existing 20 MLD STP at Nagasandra Phase-I.

¶41

Hence, this office requests your kind self to provide necessary directions in this matter."

¶42

The order terminates the contract in its entirety on the score that there needs up gradation and petitioner is not qualified for such up gradation. What is discernable from the order and an admitted fact is that the petitioner was not issued any notice prior to the order of termination dated 31.03.2023. The order dated 31.03.2023, undoubtedly entails civil and economic consequences, as the right of the petitioner under the contract is taken away by a stroke of pen without even issuing a notice to the petitioner. Therefore, the order is in blatant violation of principles of natural justice. On this score alone the petition deserves to be succeed albeit partially.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:45117 WP No. 9633 of 2023

¶45

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the following

¶46

ORDER

¶47

I. The order dated 31.03.2023 stands quashed.

¶48

II. The respondents are at liberty to issue notice to the petitioner and the petitioner shall reply in the event such notice is issued, within the time stipulated in the notice. The respondents shall there on pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶49

III. It is made clear that the petition is entertained only qua the maintenance contract that was awarded to the petitioner and nothing else.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13 CT: BHK

Mr v. Shivamanju v the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr v. Shivamanju v the Chairman

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

Mr Raghavan Srinivasan Vs M/S Deutsche Bank Ag

State Bank of India Vs M/S. Sai Ganapath Hotel Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Fayaz Baig Vs the State of Karnataka

Radha Goyal Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Niranjan Gupta Vs Ministry of Home Affairs

Msgp Infra Tech Private Limited Vs Union of India