Allowed

D.S.Mallaplur S/O. Singadeppa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2024WP/106221/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging orders forfeiting a contractor's security deposit. The court quashed the orders, holding they were unsustainable as they ignored technical reports confirming the petitioner had rectified work defects.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 25.04.2014, 02.06.2014 and 26.05.2014 were quashed. The authority was directed to re-examine the matter within three months considering the annexed reports.

D.S.Mallaplur S/O. Singadeppa Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490 WP No. 106221 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 106221 OF 2014 (GM-TEN)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

D.S. MALLAPLUR S/O. SINGADEPPA, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: CLASS-I CONTRACTOR R/O. SHAHAWAKAR, NEAR KMP ROAD, BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587201.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION, VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.

¶11

Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.06.13 12:18:48 +0530

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JALA SAMVARDHANE YOJANA SANGHA, (DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AND MINOR IRRIGATION) NO.42, 5^TH CROSS, RMS LAYOUT, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560080.

¶13

THE DISTRICT PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR, JSYS, DISTRICT PROJECT UNIT (R), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, SECTOR 32, PLOT NO.51, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587102.

¶14

SHRI RANGASAMUDRA KERE BALAKEDARARA SANGHA (R), RANGASAMUDRA, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587201, BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490 WP No. 106221 of 2014

¶17

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER-I, JSYS, NO.42, 5^TH CROSS RMS LAYOUT, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560080.

¶18

THE UPPER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587102.

¶19

THE TAHASILDAR, BADAMI TALUKA, BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587201.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R3 & R5-R7; SRI. S.C. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2014 BEARING NO.JA.SAM.YO.SAM/BHAG/TANTRIK/14-15/2185 PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-T AND THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2014 BEARING NO. JA.SAM.YO.SAM/JI.YO.GHA/BHAG/TANTRIK/2014-15/2215 PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-X AND ALSO ORDER DATED 26.05.2014 PASSED BY THE 6^TH RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN RRC/CR-5/2014-15 AT ANNEXURE-Y.

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490 WP No. 106221 of 2014

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner filed the captioned petition assailing the impugned order dated 25.04.2014 passed by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-T, consequent order dated 02.05.2014 passed by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-X and also order dated 26.05.2014 passed by respondent No.6-Deputy Commissioner as per

¶27

Annexure-Y.

¶28

Respondent No.3 floated tender notification to

¶29

implement a project relating to canal concrete lining of Rangasamudra Tank Development Work. Petitioner was the successful bidder and a tender agreement came to be executed between the petitioner and respondent No.4 on 20.11.2010. The petitioner completed the contract work and on inspection of the project implemented by the petitioner, respondent No.5 in his report indicated that the work done by the petitioner is found to be satisfactory. Similar opinion was expressed by respondent No.3.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490 WP No. 106221 of 2014

¶31

De hors these two opinions expressed as per

¶32

Annexures-C, D and E, respondent No.2 issued a notice indicating that respondent No.3 has not taken note of the defects as per report dated 30.06.2011. The respondents indicated certain shortcomings in respect of one of the canal work.

¶33

Petitioner contends that, in terms of the defects notified by the respondents, he has carried out the repairs and the same is examined by the respondents and satisfactory reports are issued as per Annexures-H and L. Petitioner’s grievances is that without taking cognizance of the reports at Annexures-H and L, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned order as per Annexure-T, thereby ordering for forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs.15,17,910/- and the retention of money to the tune of Rs.1,86,395/- was also sought to be forfeited. Pursuant to order passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-T, respondent No.3 issued a communication addressed to the Tahasildar on 02.06.2014 requesting to create a

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490 WP No. 106221 of 2014

¶35

charge/encumbrance on the properties of the petitioner as per Annexure-X. Respondent No.6-Deputy Commissioner directed respondent No.3 to recover the amount from the petitioner as per the impugned endorsement vide Annexure-Y.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶37

learned HCGP and perused the material on record.

¶38

The orders under challenge are found to be cryptic in nature. Strangely, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not taken cognizance of the reports submitted by District Project Coordinator, which is evident from Annexure-H. It is relevant to take cognizance of the report submitted by District Project Coordinator, which reads as under:

¶39

“ Main canal left Bank : The rectification in the main canal and in Chimmalage Branch canal cement concrete lining is taken up 25-2-2011. The surface is demolished and redone. Thickness is maintained and curing is going on. This matter is noted for future guidance.

¶40

This is for favour of kind information.”

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490 WP No. 106221 of 2014

¶42

The report submitted by EGIS India Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd., 14.05.2011 to the District Project Coordinator is also relevant and the same has a bearing on the controversy relating to the deficiencies alleged against the petitioner while implementing the project. The said company has visited the site and on spot inspection, has also submitted a report indicating that petitioner has rectified the deficiencies indicated by the concerned authorities and accordingly, the company has opined that the work done by the petitioner is found to be satisfactory and the bad quality of concrete found at some places has been removed and rectified. The relevant portion of this report prepared by the said company which was addressed to District Project Coordinator is also relevant and the relevant portion is extracted, which reads as under:

¶43

“RANGASAMUDRA TANK (TC: 200042)/RANGASAMDRA VILLAGE/BAGALKOT DFT/BADAMI TO:

¶44

Est.Cost: Rs.44.22 Lakhs.

¶45

This tank is under list of 10% Random Selection of works in tank.

¶46

CC Lining work on LBC Branch canal completed for 600.00m. The section is trapezoldal and concrete

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490 WP No. 106221 of 2014

¶48

is M15 grade with a thickness of 7.50CM at sides and 7.50CM thick at bed. Curing period completed. Concrete cubes have casted and results for 28 days strength is to be obtained from laboratory. Concrete has been checked at several locations and it is found satisfactory. The thickness also found 7.50CM. In some locations, there was a bad quality of concrete was laid and it was removed and rectified.

¶49

In the RBC branch canal 675.00M length of CC lining has been done and the work is found satisfactory.

¶50

We have reported in our letter no Egis India/Bang/Bagalkot/0208/2010-11, dated 14.02.2011, that the concrete was not satisfactory in LBC main canal. The defective portions have been removed and rectified the concrete work. Now the work is found satisfactory.”

¶51

Now let me examine the impugned order

¶52

passed by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-T. The order under challenge does not advert to these two reports and therefore, the consequential orders passed as per Annexures-X and Y are also not sustainable. The company which was assigned to examine the quality of the project implemented by the petitioner after visiting site, has submitted a report indicating that deficiencies notified by the concerned authorities are rectified by the petitioner.

¶53

Therefore, the impugned orders under challenge are not sustainable. The order passed by respondent No.3 as per

¶54

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490 WP No. 106221 of 2014

¶55

Annexures-H and L, has not at all taken cognizance of the reports. Even before this court, the respondent-State to justify the orders passed by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-T has not placed any credible material to doubt the reports placed on record by the surveying company at Annexures-H and L, which are culled out supra.

¶56

For the forgoing reasons, the impugned orders

¶57

are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this court passes the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶60

ii) The impugned orders at Annexures-T, X and Y are hereby quashed.

¶61

iii) It is open for respondent No.3 to re-examine the matter by taking cognizance of Annexures-H and L. Respondent No.3 shall also strictly adhere to the observations made by this court in the course of the judgment rendered.

¶62

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7490 WP No. 106221 of 2014

¶63

iv) This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶64

v) Respondent No.3 shall secure any further explanation from the petitioner and after affording reasonable opportunity shall proceed to pass appropriate order.

¶65

In view disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2016

¶66

does not survive for consideration and the same is

¶67

disposed off.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

MBS Ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

D.S.Mallaplur S/O. Singadeppa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.S.Mallaplur S/O. Singadeppa v. State of Karnataka

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

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

Syed Yakhoob Hussaini Vs Election Officer

Dayanand Vs Belagavi

Savitha Samaja (Kshourikara )Sangha(R) Vs Nijaguna Shree Hadapada Appannanavara