Allowed

Veeranna B. Kubasad v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2024WP/105280/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition's prayer for interest but allowed it in principle, directing the Executive Officer to consider the petitioner's 2016 representation regarding unpaid job card printing bills within eight weeks and imposed costs for the inaction.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to consider the 2016 representation and pass appropriate order within 8 weeks; pay cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Claim for interest was impliedly dismissed as no order was passed thereon.

Veeranna B. Kubasad Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7408 WP No. 105280 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 105280 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

VEERANNA B. KUBASAD S/O. BASAPPA KUBASAD, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PROPRIETOR OF VEERABHADRESHWAR OFFSET PRINTERS, R/O: #117/B, KONDAVADA ONI, KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH K. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶12

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶13

Digitally signed byYASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.06.15 12:15:44 +0530

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. A.S. SHINDHE, SRI. S.A. SONDUR, ADV. FOR R2; SRI. MANJUMANTH A. KARIGANNAVAR, ADV. FOR R3)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED DATED:05.02.2016 BEARING NO.NIL, DATED:21.06.2016 BEARING NO. NIL AND DATED:18.04.2017 BEARING NO.NIL VIDE ANNEXURES-C, D AND M TO THE WRIT PETITION; CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 3^RD RESPONDENT TO

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7408 WP No. 105280 of 2017

¶19

PAY THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18% P.A. ON THE BILL AMOUNT OF RS.4,62,725/- FROM 26.12.2014 TILL REALIZATION VIDE ANNEXURE-"B" TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is seeking direction against respondent No.3 to consider the representation submitted on 05.02.2016 and to pay the pending bill amounting to Rs.4,62,725/- with interest at 18% p.a.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1. There is no representation for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶23

Respondent No.3 entrusted the work of printing

¶24

job card in Form No.4 in MGNREGA scheme to the petitioner. In terms of the direction issued by respondent No.3, petitioner has supplied the job card in Form No.4 to an extent of 10,200. Petitioner’s grievance is that though he supplied 10,200 job cards to enable respondent No.3 to utilize the same while implementing MGNREGA scheme, his claim is not settled by respondent No.3, till this day.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7408 WP No. 105280 of 2017

¶26

This court has noticed that Joint Director of

¶27

Rural Development Commissionerate has issued direction on 19.01.2017 to respondent No.3 to look into the matter and consider the petitioner’s representation and take appropriate action and report compliance to the office. Similar direction is issued by the Chief Accountant, Zilla Panchayat, Dharwad vide communication dated 10.03.2017 as per Annexure-J.

¶28

On examining the records, this court is of the view that there is total inaction on the part of respondent No.3 in not considering the petitioner’s representation submitted on 05.02.2016. Almost 8 years have passed and there is total laxness on the part of respondent No.3.

¶29

Petitioner’s representation is of the year 2016.

¶30

The Joint Director of Rural Development Commissionerate and the Chief Accountant, Zilla Panchayat, Dharwad have also issued reminder to respondent No.3 in 2017 to consider the representation and report compliance. We are in 2024. Respondent No.3 in spite of receipt of the

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7408 WP No. 105280 of 2017

¶32

representation in 2016 and directions from the superiors to pass orders on the representation is found to be conveniently squatted over the representation for almost 8 years. Therefore, suitable cost needs to be imposed on respondent No.3.

¶33

Therefore, this is a fit case where mandamus

¶34

lies. For the forgoing reasons, this court pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶37

ii) Respondent No.3 shall consider the representation dated 05.02.2016 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate order, taking cognizance of the directions issued by the Joint Director and the Chief Accountant, Zilla Panchayat, Dharwad as per Annexures-F and J respectively.

¶38

iii) This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶39

- 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7408 WP No. 105280 of 2017

¶40

iv) Respondent No.3 shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner within a period of two weeks and shall report compliance to the registry.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

MBS Ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Veeranna B. Kubasad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeranna B. Kubasad v. the State of Karnataka

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

Smt.G. Rukminamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Ningawwa Vs the Commissioner

Sri Mruthunjaya S/O Nagappayya Achari Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Irayya Virupaxayya Divate Vs the Panchayat Development Officer

Smt. Rukminibai Udayakumar Pawar Vs the State of Karnataka

The President, Gram Panchayat Yadur Village, Vs the Chief Executive Officer