Disposed

Sri. N H Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jan 2024WP/12868/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner sought mandamus to act on his representation alleging the contractor laid a water pipeline deviating from the sanctioned plan. As the project was completed and pipeline already laid, the court declined to direct undoing it but left petitioner free to challenge implementation under law.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; liberty reserved to petitioner to challenge the manner of project implementation under law.

Sri. N H Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:3611 WP No. 12868 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12868 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. N.H. MANJUNATH S/O. HALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT. BILICHUR ROAD, BHARAMASAGARA, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577519.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MAJOR AND MEDIUM IRRIGATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NO.310, 3^RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISES, 4^TH FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING, NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER UPPER TUNGA PROJECT ZONE, SAGAR ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:3611 WP No. 12868 of 2020

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.5, BHADRA CANAL DIVISION KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD. BEHIND DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE STATION HADADI ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577525

¶18

SHANKARANARAYANA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., SNC HOUSE, 4^TH FLOOR, NO.7, RESIDENCY ROAD, (OLD NO.9, RAJARAM MOHANRAY ROAD) BENGALURU-560025. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. KIRANKUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. B.R.PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5;

¶21

SRI. VARUN KASTHURI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION PURSUANT TO THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

¶26

"1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 to 5 to take suitable action pursuant to the

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:3611 WP No. 12868 of 2020

¶28

representation dated 05.10.2020 submitted by the Petitioner vide Annexure-A.

¶29

2) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶30

The petitioner claimed that he is the owner of the land bearing re-survey No.80/1, situated at Bharmasagara village and Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk and District measuring 01 acre 34 guntas, which was converted for non-agricultural purpose on 21.11.2013. The petitioner claimed that he obtained a sanction of a layout plan from the competent authority and had conveyed the sites formed therein to various purchasers who had developed their sites. He claimed that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 had proposed to lay a water pipeline to drain water to fill 42 tanks in Bharamasagara from the Tungabadra river. He further claimed that the respondent No.6 had proposed to lay the water pipeline by deviating from the existing plan, which was brought to the notice of the respondent Nos.3 to 5. However, they did not take any action against the respondent No.6 who was the contractor engaged

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:3611 WP No. 12868 of 2020

¶33

for implementing the project. The petitioner claimed that he submitted a representation to the respondents on 05.10.2020, bringing to the notice of the concerned about the illegalities committed in deviating from the original plan of laying the pipeline. He submits that this representation was not considered, but in the meanwhile the respondents were proceeding with the work and therefore, the petitioner filed this petition seeking for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to take suitable action pursuant to the representation dated 05.10.2020.

¶34

The learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that the execution of the contract is completed and that pipeline is drawn and therefore, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition.

¶35

The official respondents also submits that the project is completed and petitioner is not affected in any manner whatsoever. The learned counsel for the petitioner after securing instructions submits that though the project is completed, yet, there is a deviation from the original plan and

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:3611 WP No. 12868 of 2020

¶38

he is entitled to challenge the action of the respondents in deviating from the plan.

¶39

Since the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the project is completed and the pipeline is already laid, the respondents cannot be directed to undo the project at this point of time. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the manner in which the project is implemented and take up all such grounds that are available to him under law.

¶40

With the above said observations, writ petition

stands disposed off.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri. N H Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. N H Manjunath 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

Sri Kewalchand Nahar Vs Sri S B Kavesh

Shri Jayaram Jayasurya Vs Sri Sagheer Ahmed

Madhusudhan Jayaramu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Nagaveni Vs the State of Karnataka

S. Nanjappa, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ashok Kumar Karanji, Vs Sri. Shivananda Tagadooru