A contractor sought payment from BBMP for works executed under tenders, challenging an endorsement withholding bills based on a Commission report recommending civil and criminal action. The court held that as liability was not admitted, no discretionary relief under Article 226 could be granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:52066 WP No. 8263 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8263 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI VYSHNAVI CONSTRUCTION PROPRIETARY FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.6, 7TH CROSS ROAD, 15TH MAIN, J.C. NAGAR, MLP, BENGALURU – 560 086.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. JAGADEESH .N, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1353, 5TH MAIN ROAD, ‘E’ BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SIDDAVEER CHAKKI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
N.R. CHOWK, BENGALURU – 560 002.
NC: 2024:KHC:52066 WP No. 8263 of 2024
(BY SMT. CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS; QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. DATED 02/09/2023 PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-A; DIRECTING THE R2 TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF RS.15,73,352/- (RUPEES FIFTEEN LAKH SEVENTY THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY TWO ONLY) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, who asserts that it has executed certain work based on the tenders invited by the BBMP, has filed this petition for directions to make payments for the works executed while calling in
NC: 2024:KHC:52066 WP No. 8263 of 2024
question the Endorsement dated 02.09.2023 [ Annexure - A ] issued by the third respondent [ the jurisdictional Executive Engineer with the BBMP ]. The third respondent has issued this Endorsement referring to a final report filed by the Commission headed by His Lordship Justice Nagamohana Das and informing the petitioner that its request for payment for the work executed cannot be considered because the decision is to initiate both civil and criminal proceedings.
NC: 2024:KHC:52066 WP No. 8263 of 2024
“The Committee’s Report is perused in the light of these circumstances, and this Court must observe that the Report only reads that Committee suffered a huge setback in carrying out its Herculean task of verification of huge number of files because of the circumstances such as the officers are being repeatedly changed, failure to follow up the decision of the joint meeting and even withdrawal of the vehicles made available for inspection. Insofar as the petitioner, the only material reference would be mentioning that the petitioner’s name in the list of contractors whose works are offered for scrutiny but without material for conclusion. It could be successfully argued that the Report does not bring the petitioner’s work under any cloud of doubt .”
3. In compliance with this direction, the
incumbent third respondent has filed an affidavit, and on the respondents’ stand, the incumbent third respondent has stated as follows:
NC: 2024:KHC:52066 WP No. 8263 of 2024
"I further submit that after the report of the Hon’ble Commission, the Chief Commissioner by order dated 07.09.2022 has constituted a committee to examine the report submitted by the Hon’ble Commission as regarding the work executed by the petitioner and the said committee has examined the report and has come to the conclusion as per the final report necessary Civil and Criminal action has to be initiated and in that view of the matter the bills payable to the petitioner has been held up and in that regard Annexure A came to be issued to the petitioner which is under challenge .
I further submit that subsequent to the above it is learnt that action has been taken against the concerned officials and the same is pending consideration and when this being position the question of releasing the amount payable to the petitioner does not arise ."
aforesaid, must opine that the respondents did not
NC: 2024:KHC:52066 WP No. 8263 of 2024
admit the liability and rely on varied circumstances to justify that stand. If the liability is not admitted, this Court is not inclined to grant any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and hence, leaving open all questions to be decided properly in the instituted proceedings, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ court should direct BBMP to pay the contractor for executed works when liability is not admitted and proceedings are pending
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Vyshnavi Construction
State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department
Chief Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP)
Executive Engineer, Malleshwaram Division, BBMP
B M Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
