Partly allowed

Shri M Venkatarama Reddy, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2024WP/7438/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a fresh tender notification regarding overdue road improvement work. Court held the contract expired due to lack of extension. Writ petition dismissed but court directed respondents to consider petitioner's bills for completed work within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the bills submitted by the petitioner for payment towards work completed under the contract and notify the decision within three months.

Shri M Venkatarama Reddy, Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:32012 WP No. 7438 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 7438 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRI M VENKATARAMA REDDY, S/O MESTRAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A NO.36, 80 FEET, HENNUR ROAD, H B R LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 084.

¶7

… PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

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

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

THE CHIEF PROJECT OFFICER STATE HIGHWAYS IMPROVEMENT, AND DEVELOMENT PROJECT, PWD ANNEX BUILDING, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32012 WP No. 7438 of 2024

¶14

THE CHIEF ENGINEER STAE HIGHWAYS IMPROVEMENT, AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU DIVISION, K R CIRCLE, BENGALRUU - 560 001.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. HARISH K.S., GA FOR R1 & R4; SRI SHIVAYOGI HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶18

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE SHORT-TERM TENDER NOTIFICATION DTD 21.02.2024 BEARING NO. CPO/PO/SHDP/2023-24/2364 (SHORT TERM TENDER NOTIFICATION NO. 03/2023-24) (ANNEXURE-F) PASSED BY THE R-3 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT DTD 02.03.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner was entrusted with the work of improving the Nelamangala-Chikkaballapura Road, SH-74, with a contract tenure of 11 months commencing from 02.03.2020.

¶23

The petitioner’s grievance is that despite completing the work as per the schedule, respondents 2 and 3 issued a fresh tender notification inviting bids for completing the remaining work, which

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:32012 WP No. 7438 of 2024

¶26

was allegedly not completed by the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition is filed challenging the fresh tender notification.

¶27

Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submits that multiple notices were issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to come forward for a joint measurement to verify the extent of work carried out. By notice dated 30.07.2022, respondents communicated to the petitioner that, in the interest of the public, the remaining work would be entrusted through fresh bids. Notices dated 19.12.2023 and 29.05.2024 were also issued, calling upon the petitioner to come forward for a joint measurement.

¶28

Admittedly, the contract entrusted to the petitioner was for a period of 11 months, and no extension of time was granted for completing the work under the contract. In the absence of any clause extending the contract beyond the initial 11-month period until completion of the work, the contract awarded to the petitioner stands terminated by efflux of time.

¶29

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged wrongful termination of the contract, the appropriate remedy lies before the jurisdictional civil court for damages. However, the petitioner is entitled to receive payment for the work already completed under the contract.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:32012 WP No. 7438 of 2024

¶32

The petitioner also requests a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to clear the bills submitted for the work completed under the contract.

¶33

Therefore, it is incumbent upon respondents 2 to 4 to consider the bills raised by the petitioner.

¶34

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, directing respondents 2 to 4 to consider the bills submitted by the petitioner for payment towards work completed under the contract agreement dated 02.03.2020, as detailed in Annexure-A, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. Respondents 2 to 4 are required to notify the petitioner of their decision within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶37

Shri M Venkatarama Reddy, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri M Venkatarama Reddy, 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

Shakeela Bi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Hitesh Soni Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Savithramma , Vs State of Karnataka

Abhishek Trivedi Vs M/S. Sorting Hat Solutions Private Limited

Mr Narayana Moolya Vs Bharath Co-Operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd.

Sri S E Sundaresh Vs the State of Karnataka