Allowed¶37

Shri. Kumar Hattikal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2025WP/103133/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

writ petition; mandamus; Articles 226 and 227; work done certificate; tender amount payment; road construction contractor; successful bidder; representation dated 26/03/2025 Annexure-F; Executive Engineer RDPR Haveri; State of Karnataka Rural Development and Panchayatraj Engineering Department; consideration within reasonable time; eight weeks; GM-TEN; Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench; Pradeep Singh Yerur

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus issued directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.03.2025 and pass suitable orders in accordance with law within a time period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. ¶37

Shri. Kumar Hattikal Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26/03/2025 (Annexure-F) and thereby issue the work done certificate and make payment of the tender amount. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

When a representation is made, the same must be considered by the authorities within a reasonable time; since that was not done in the present case, the representation had to be considered, warranting the writ of mandamus issued.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Where the petitioner has performed the work as per the terms in the agreement, it is for the authorities to consider and pass suitable orders, including issuance of the work done certificate and making of payment.

¶32

Key takeaways

There is no dispute that the petitioner is the successful bidder and that the contract was issued for performance of construction of road.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench), single judge (Pradeep Singh Yerur J), WP No. 103133 of 2025 (GM-TEN), order dated 10 June 2025: A contractor-petitioner who secured a tender as successful bidder for construction of a road and claims to have performed the work as per the agreement sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 (Executive Engineer, RDPR Engineering Division, Haveri) to consider his representation dated 26/03/2025 (Annexure-F) for issuance of a 'work done certificate' and payment of the tender amount, the representation having gone unanswered. The court held that where the contractor has performed the work as per the terms of the agreement, and there is no dispute as to his being the successful bidder, it is for the authorities to consider and pass suitable orders including issuance of the work done certificate and payment; further, a representation made must be considered within a reasonable time, which had not been done. Petition allowed; mandamus issued to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 26.03.2025 and pass suitable orders in accordance with law within eight weeks of receipt of the order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7492 WP No. 103133 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103133 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI. KUMAR HATTIKAL, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O. KUMARESHWAR NAGAR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581104.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. HARSHAWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY THE SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

CHANABASAPPA K KALLUR

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION, HAVERI, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI-581110.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶16

(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-F DATED 26/03/2025 AND THEREBY ISSUE WORK DONE CERTIFICATE AND MAKE PAYMENT OF THE TENDER AMOUNT.

¶18

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

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7492 WP No. 103133 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶23

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Harshawardhan

¶24

M. Patil for the petitioner. Learned AGA takes notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioner, a contractor who secured tender as a successful bidder and has undertaken the work of construction of road as per the terms of agreement. It is contention of the petitioner that as per the terms of agreement, he has produced relevant copies of the photographs, but he was not paid for the work done, so also the “work done certificate” was not issued for the tender work. The respondents kept postponing the payment and issuance of work done certificate. Therefore left with no other alternative, petitioner filed representation to the respondentauthorities to consider the representation, make payment for the work done and to issue work done certificate. The same was not adhered to or replied or answered. Hence,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7492 WP No. 103133 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

left with no other alternative, the petitioner is before this

¶29

Court.

¶30

Learned AGA contends that the representation

¶31

so made by the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law if the petitioner fulfills the terms and conditions as per the agreement of the tender work contract.

¶32

Be that as it may. The representation so made is to consider the issuance of “work done certificate” and for making payment of the tender amount for the work already done and completed by the petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to the petitioner being successful bidder and contract having been issued for performance of construction of road. Where the petitioner has performed the work as per the terms in the agreement, it is for the authorities to consider and pass suitable orders, so also for issuance of work done certificate and payment to be made. When a representation is made, the same would have to be considered within a reasonable time by the

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7492 WP No. 103133 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

authorities, which has not been done in the present case. Hence the representation would have to be considered. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. Petition is allowed.

¶38

ii. Writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26.03.2025 and pass suitable orders in accordance with law within a time period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶39

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶40

KGK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Shri. Kumar Hattikal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Kumar Hattikal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pundalik Vs Ganapati S/O. Shivaputrayya Hiremath

Pundalik Vs Mahadev S/O. Shankrayya Pujari

Pundalik Vs Shankrayya S/O. Mahadev Pujari

Sri. Gururaj Kulkarni, Vs the Managing Director

Laxmi Nilesh Pawar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Prakash Dinakar Desai, Vs the Deputy Commissioner