Giriraj and Anr. Vs the Principal Secretary and Ors.

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 200583 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GIRIRAJ S/O LAXMAN NAYAK AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR R/O H.NO.10-5-48, MATKI ROAD, AYYA JANGAL, ALAND TQ: ALAND, DIST: KALABURAGI-585302.

¶9

VENKATARAMANA S/O NINGAPPA KAWALDAR AGE: 42 YEARS R/O KODACHI, POST: SATHKED, TQ: JEWARGI DIST: KALABURAGI-585310

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. SHIVASHARANA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, 3^RD GATE, III FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

CHIEF ENGINEER PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT GRAMEENABHIVRUDDHI BHAVAN, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560009.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶17

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION KALABURAGI RAJAPUR ROAD OPPOSITE TO KGB HEAD OFFICE, KALABURAGI-585101.

¶18

EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT KALAGI TQ: KALAGI, DIST: KALABURAGI-585105.

¶19

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION KALAGI, TQ: KALAGI, DIST: KALABURAGI-585105.

¶20

NEELKANT GUTTEDAR S/O JAGADEV GUTTEDAR AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O NO.10-406, BRAHMPUR, KALABURAGI, TQ. AND DIST: KALABURAGI-585105

¶21

ABHISHEK RATHOD S/O CHANDULAL RATHOD AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR R/O 2^ND FLOOR, SHOP NO.S-12, ASIAN BUSINESS CENTRE CHURCH ROAD, VANITY SALON LOUNGE, KUVEMPU NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585105.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 AND 5;

¶24

SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4; SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.6 AND 7)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ALLOTMENT OF WORKS IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NOS.6 AND 7 EXECUTED BY RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ON DATED 06.02.2024 AS

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶27

PER ¸ÀASÉå: ¥ÀAgÁEA/«PÀ/vÁ±Á- /2023-24/3456-3495 AS PER ANNEXURE-E TO E39 TO THIS PETITION AND ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 28.02.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶30

CAV ORDER

¶31

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the public works allotted to the respondent Nos.6 and 7, by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 as per their order bearing Nos.¥ÀAgÁEA/«PÀ/vÁ±Á-/2023-24/3456-3495, dated

¶32

06.02.2024. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representations of the petitioner No.1 dated 14.02.2024 and to cancel the works allotted to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and take necessary action against the respondent Nos.3 to 5.

¶33

(i) The petitioners contend that they are contractors qualified to execute works in the department of Panchayat Raj and they belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and possess the requisite licence issued by the

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶35

Public Works Department (henceforth referred to as 'PWD'). They contend that they are aggrieved by the allotment of many contract works to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 without following any guidelines or the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (henceforth referred to as 'KTPP Act, 1999').

¶36

(ii) The petitioners contend that the State Government had issued a Circular dated 02.09.2021 informing the concerned that public works should be allotted by the Zilla Panchayat to only those contractors, who possess a licence issued by PWD and that even those contractors, who have a licence from the Panchayat Raj Engineering Department should obtain a licence from PWD. They contend that all licences issued by the Panchayat Raj Department were cancelled and therefore, it was incumbent upon every contractor to obtain a licence from PWD before undertaking any work in the department of Panchayat Raj. They contend that though the Government Circular mandated that the works have to be allotted as per the category mentioned in the randomization list, but the respondent No.6, who possessed a licence from the Panchayat Raj Engineering Department and not a licence from

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶38

PWD, was allotted 19 works out of which, many works were reserved for contractors belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Likewise, respondent No.7 was allotted 21 works including works that were to be allotted to Scheduled Tribe category. They contend that these works were allotted to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 under political influence. They contend that even the licence issued by department of Panchayat Raj to the respondent No.6 had expired by the time he was allotted with the work.

¶39

(iii) The petitioners contend that as per the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal, 92 works in Kalagi Taluk as per the randomization method were less than Rs.5,00,000/- and were meant to be allotted to different reserved categories of contractors as mentioned in the randomization list, which was based on a Government Order. As per this randomization list, 17.15% of works was reserved for Scheduled Caste category and 6.95% for Scheduled Tribe category. This was to ensure that contractors of different categories possessing PWD licence are given opportunity to execute the works.

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶41

(iv) The petitioners contend that the respondent No.6, who did not possess a licence from either the Panchayat Raj Department or PWD department, was allotted 19 works, which included 5 works reserved for Scheduled Caste and 1 work reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The respondent No.6 belonged to general category and had no licence in his favour but yet, was allotted the works in view of his political affiliation and thereby deprived legitimate opportunity to the petitioners. Similarly, respondent No.7, who held a PWD licence and belonged to Scheduled Caste was allotted 21 works of which, 1 work related to Scheduled Tribe category.

¶42

(v) They contend that after such illegal allotment of works, respondent Nos.3 to 5 had entered into an agreement with the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and sent an official correspondence to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat informing him about the allotment of works to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and sought approval of the agreement on 09.02.2024. The petitioners contend that the Chief Executive Officer had addressed a communication dated 11.01.2024 to the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 informing them that the work has to be allotted by complying the provisions of the KTPP Act,

¶43

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶44

1999 and that any violation would result in appropriate action against the concerned official. Despite the above, the respondent Nos.3 to 5, throwing caution to the wind had allotted 40 works to the respondent Nos.6 and 7. They contend that a member of the legislative assembly on receipt of complaints, submitted a representation dated 07.02.2024 to the Chief Executive Officer and brought the illegalities to his notice and called upon him to rectify them.

¶45

(vi) They further contend that an Assistant Executive Engineer named, Mr. Saibanna, who resisted such illegal allotment of works to respondent Nos.6 and 7 was relieved from his post and a benevolent Mr. Nagamurthy Sheelvant was brought in his place. The petitioner No.1 therefore, submitted representations dated 14.02.2024 to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, bringing to their notice the illegality in allotment of works. They contend that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not taken any action and hence, the petitioners are before this Court challenging the allotment of public works to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and to initiate suitable action against the respondent Nos.3 to 5 for violation of the provisions of KTPP

¶46

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶47

Act, 1999 and also the directions issued by the State Government from time to time.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per the randomization list, public works were to be allotted to all categories of contractors. However, the respondent No.6, who belongs to general category was allotted several works including the works that were reserved for Scheduled Caste and respondent No.7, who belonged to Scheduled Caste was allotted works including work reserved for Scheduled Tribe. He contends that no process or guideline or procedure as contemplated under the KTPP Act, 1999 was followed while allotting the works to the respondent Nos.6 and 7. Therefore, he contends that the allotment of works to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 be set at naught and suitable action be initiated against the respondent Nos.3 to 5.

¶49

(i) The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.5 contending that the petitioners have not applied for allotment of works in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories in the department of Panchayat Raj. Therefore, it is contended that they have no locus standi to file

¶50

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶51

the writ petition. It is contended that out of 36 works, 21 works were allotted to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories and only 15 works were allotted to general category. However, due to oversight, the work in respect of Arejambaga Primary School, which was reserved for Scheduled Caste was allotted to respondent No.6 in the general category and that the same is now allotted to respondent No.7, who belongs to Scheduled Caste. Likewise, it is contended that the repair work at Mangalagi Urdu school, which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category was allotted to respondent No.6 and that the same is now corrected by allotting it to Bandeppa Anwar, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe. It is also contended that the repair work at Primary School Hulgera reserved for Scheduled Tribe category was allotted to respondent No.7 and now it is rectified by allotting it to Bandeppa Anwar. Similarly, the repair work at Anganwadi Centre, Sugur (K) village reserved for Scheduled Caste category was allotted to respondent No.6 and is now rectified by allotting it to respondent No.7. It is also claimed that the repair work at Primary School Chitapalli village reserved for Scheduled Tribe is pending for change of work.

¶52

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶53

(ii) It is contended that for purchase of materials less than Rs.1,00,000/-, calling for a tender is not required under the KTPP Act, 1999. Likewise, for civil work less than Rs.5,00,000/-, there is no need to call for a tender. It is contended that regarding the allotment and execution of 36 works, the same are less than Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/for purchase of materials and civil works respectively and therefore, no tender was required to be floated. Therefore, it is contended that respondent Nos.3 and 5 have not violated the provisions of the KTPP Act, 1999.

¶54

(iii) It is contended that there are repair works in five libraries at (a) Pet Sirur Gram Panchayat, (b) Kandagol Gram Panchayat, (c) Ratakal Gram Panchayat, (d) Rumangud Gram Panchayat, (e) Kodli Gram Panchayat, which are less than Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶55

(iv) It is contended that the respondent Nos.3 and 5 have administrative and technical responsibilities to oversee the execution of the above said 36 works as per Section 157 of the Karnataka (Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj) Act, 1993. It is claimed that the petitioners have collected information and

¶56

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶57

documents even before finalization of the above said works from the concerned Section Officers, Assistant Executive Engineers and Executive Engineers of PRE Sub - Divisions.

¶58

(v) As regards the status of licence of the respondent No.6, it is contended that the licence was renewed on 12.02.2024 and that the agreements were executed on 14.02.2024. It is alleged that the petitioners have suppressed the renewal of the licence and have falsely filed this writ petition. It is contended that the respondent No.6 also possessed a licence from PWD and that the same is renewed on 13.02.2024. Therefore, it is claimed that the respondent No.6 had a valid licence at the time of execution of the agreement.

¶59

(vi) It is further contended that the execution of 36 out of 40 works had to be completed within the time specified in the agreement, failing which, the funds allocated for the said work would lapse and the purpose of undertaking developmental works would be defeated.

¶60

(vii) Further, it is contended that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 have allotted the work in accordance with law and that they have not violated any directions issued by the Chief

¶61

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶62

Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat. It is also contended that respondent Nos.3 to 5 have followed the directions issued by the Government of Karnataka by its Circular dated 08.11.2021. It is contended that the reliance placed by the petitioners on Annexure - D1 is misplaced as that relates to construction work whose value does not exceed Rs.50,00,000/-. It is also contended that the Government Circular dated 17.07.2017 concerns civil works, which are less than Rs.50,00,000/-. However, in the instant case, the works that are allotted are less than Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore, the Circular dated 17.07.2017 is not applicable.

¶63

(viii) It is contended that if the MLA of Chincholi Taluk has received complaints alleging illegalities, it was for him to take action in accordance with law. It is contended that this averment in the writ petition demonstrated that the petition is filed with a political motive. It is contended that no other contractors have approached this Court alleging irregularities in the allotment of work.

¶64

(ix) It is contended that out of 36 works allotted to respondent Nos.6 and 7, 15 works are already completed and

¶65

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶66

the remaining are on the verge of completion. It is alleged that this writ petition is filed with a malafide intention to see that the agreements executed lapsed as the last date for submitting to the treasury is 27.03.2024. Therefore, the respondent No.5 prayed for a direction to the Chief Executive Officer to retain the funds allotted to the above works as the Government may end up paying the interest on delayed payment to the contractors.

¶67

The learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 invited the attention of the Court to the renewal of the licence of the respondent No.6, which is marked as Annexure - R1. He has also relied upon a letter dated 11.01.2024 addressed by the Zilla Panchayat, Kalaburagi to the Chief Executive Officer of Panchayat Raj Engineering Division to entrust the works below Rs.5,00,000/- to registered contractors. He therefore, contends that the allotment of works by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 to registered contractors is just and proper. He has also placed on record an official memorandum dated 17.11.2023 issued by the Zilla Panchayat, Kalaburagi and the particulars of works undertaken in Kalagi Taluk under the unrestricted action plan

¶68

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶69

for the year 2023-24 and an office order dated 22.01.2024 issued by the Taluk Panchayat, Kalagi, calling upon contractors to submit their bids by 29.01.2024. The learned Additional Government Advocate contended that since the works were to be accomplished within a short time, the respondent Nos.3 to 5 had entrusted the works to respondent Nos.6 and 7 and that there was no illegality about it.

¶70

The learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the contract value of the works identified did not exceed Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore, the provisions of the KTPP Act, 1999 was not complied. Besides this, he contends that the works had to be completed within a short time as the budget allocated for the works was to expire in the financial year. He submits that these works were notified in the office of respondent No.4 and the works allotted to respondent No.6 and respondent No.7 are all in accordance with law.

¶71

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7, submitted that the subject works were allotted to respondent Nos.6 and 7, who were contractors eligible to apply. He contends that many of the works are already executed and

¶72

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶73

therefore, no indulgence be shown to the petitioners. He also contends that the nature of works and its value did not warrant compliance of the provisions of KTPP Act, 1999. He invited the attention of the Court to the works allotted to respondent Nos.6 and 7 and contended that the works were in respect of specific locations, which could not be clubbed and there was no attempt to bypass the provisions of KTPP Act, 1999.

¶74

This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7, felt that something is wrong in the manner of allotment of public works by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 as it appeared that they had misused their power in selectively conferring largesse in bulk on the respondent Nos.6 and 7, who were not entitled to apply. This Court also noticed that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 had not complied the guidelines issued by respondent No.1 but had bifurcated the works according to their whims and fancies and allotted them in bulk to the respondent Nos.6 and 7. Therefore, in order to examine the issue deeper, this Court appointed a retired District Judge, Mr. Mohammed Khan M. Pathan, to

¶75

16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶76

inspect the records of respondent Nos.3 to 5 and submit a report. The retired District Judge has inspected the records of respondent Nos.3 to 5 and has given a report , which reads as

¶77

follows:-

¶78

"FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE

¶79

Entrustment of the impugned Public works called in question in the Writ Petition is not in accordance with Provisions of KTPP Act 1999 and the relevant rules KTPP Rules 2000 thereto.

¶80

The Eligibility criteria for the reserved category of SC/ST as per the randomization list has been relaxed without any prior permission of the head of the Administration.

¶81

Subject matter of the procurement has been unduly split into number of parts of small value proposals so as to keep the power to accord acceptance of the tenders at lower level.

¶82

The Entrustment of procurement entity in respect of 40 items of the work allocated in favour of Respondent No.6 and Respondent No.7 out of 92 items listed in the randomization dated 06.02.2024. The 6^th Respondent has been allotted 19 works and 7^th Respondent has been allotted 21 works and in total 40 work items are allocated to Respondent Nos.6 and 7 by Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are per se illegal and against the provisions of Karnataka Transparency of Public Procurements Act of 1999 and the

¶83

17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶84

Relevant Rules 2000 are thereto. The reserved category of SC/ST works are not been followed as per the randomization list which violates Article 341 of the Constitution.

¶85

The Respondent Nos.3 to 5 have not considered the pre-tender requirements such as giving wide publicity to the nature of work by publication in the daily newspapers circulated in the said area. The pre-tenders requirements are not fulfilled as required by the rule and the online process is not adopted in respect of the allocated works.

¶86

The allocation of work called in question is not in accordance with the provisions of KTPP Act and the Rules thereto. The bulk allotment in favour of Respondent Nos.6 and 7 is biased and the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 have not followed the proper procedure in publication and calling the tenders of the said work. The Respondent Nos.3 to 5 have not maintained the proper records of tender documents as required by the said Act. The Arbitrary allocation of work relaxing the reserved category work and not following the procedure of procurement will cause loss to the participants having valid license. According to the Respondents, they have fixed on the notice Board of their office. It appears that, the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 have allocated the work only in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 on political pressure.

¶87

Furthermore, the official responsible for allocation of work has not obtained the valid license from Respondent No.6. The license was renewed recently after allocation and as on the date of allocation to Respondent

¶88

18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶89

No.6, his license was expired. The renewal is after the allocation of work, moreover the Respondent No.6 has not placed any material before the Committee to establish that he has valid license to carry out the contract. Both the Respondent Nos.6 and 7, who have received the bulk work nearing about 75,00,000/- exceeds the limit of 5,00,000/- as per Section 4 of the KTPP Act. Therefore, the Committee is of the opinion that the work entrusted to Respondent No.6 and 7 is biased and for the reasons best known to the concerned officials. The Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have committed lapses in accepting the tenders from Respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶90

The Committee has found the flaws and irregularities by the concerned officers in accepting the Tenders from the Respondent Nos.6 and 7. There is no transparency in the acceptance by the Respondent officials. The subject matter of procurement should not be unduly split into number of parts. If, splitting of a procurement case is required for justified reasons, it should be done with the approval of the competent authority. There have been cases, where a procurement case was split in number of small value proposals so as to keep the power to accord Administrative approval as well as acceptance of the tenders at lower level. The Committee do not find any justifiable reason for splitting the piece works by the concerned officials. The procurement entrusted is illegal and it is unfair procedure in allocating the work to the Respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶91

19 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶92

The Committee suggest that, the impugned allocation of procurements in their favour has to be cancelled and re-do list is to be prepared as per the randomization list allocating the works for different categories. The public work has to be entrust by following fair procedure as contemplated in KTPP Act.

¶93

CONCLUSION:

¶94

The Public Procurements in respect of Kalagi Taluka are pertaining to the maintenance of school buildings, library, anganwadi centres of the Panchayath development department. The Committee after hearing the submissions of both the sides, carefully considered written submissions and documents produced during the course of Enquiry/Inspection and found the first flaw that the Tender Invitation is not processed online instead fixed on notice board of the Panchayath office. The Committee proposes that the Panchayath Raj Authority must act swiftly to address the flaws and irregularities that have been committed by the officials. Therefore, the continuous critical review of the procurements is required to reduce the disputes and there shall be no room for complaints therein by adopting the proper procedure as per KTPP Act and Rules thereto, to safeguard the interest of the Public Works."

¶95

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶96

counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and

¶97

20 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶98

the learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7. I have also perused the report of the enquiry officer.

¶99

The Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj had issued a randomization list in respect of works to be undertaken in Kalagi Taluk of Kalaburagi District, during the year 2023-24 and thereby identified the works that were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Circular issued by the State Government dated 02.09.2021 mandated that those contractors, who were registered with PWD shall alone be entitled to undertake works in the department of Panchayat Raj Engineering. It appears that the respondent No.6 was registered as a contractor with the department of Panchayat Raj Engineering and his license was in force from 25.07.2016 to 24.07.2021. He did not possess a licence from PWD yet, he was allotted 19 civil works which included works that were reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The respondent No.5 claimed that the respondent No.6 got the licence renewed on 12.02.2024 and thereafter the agreements were executed on 14.02.2024. However, the agreements placed on record as Exs.E, E1 to E39

¶100

21 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶101

all show that the work orders were issued on 06.02.2024. It is therefore, evident that even though respondent No.6 did not possess a licencee from PWD and even though the licence issued by Panchayat Raj Department had expired, he was allotted 19 works. There is no justification for allotting these many works in bulk, some of which were reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe as per randomization list, to the respondent No.6. The respondent No.7 was also allotted works in bulk ignoring the entitlement of contractors belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. There appears to be no procedure followed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 by publishing it in the local newspapers so that all contractors licenced by PWD could participate. It is also not known whether there was any justification for splitting the works or whether it was done to overcome the provisions of the KTPP Act, 1999? Therefore, it is evident that respondent Nos.6 and 7 had formed a cartel to grab the work with the benevolence of respondent Nos.3 to 5. The contentions urged by the official respondents that the respondent No.6 was eligible and that there was no splitting of works and that the works had to be executed on a war footing to meet the budget timelines etc.,

¶102

22 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶103

are futile attempts to firefight the blazing controversy. It is thus, more than evident that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 have conferred largesse on the respondent Nos.6 and 7 without following the due process of law and without allowing the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and others an opportunity to participate in the process. The respondent Nos.3 to 5 must be mindful that they are dealing with funds of the State and therefore, must conduct themselves with probity and accountability. They are also bound to ensure a transparent process and allow participation of all eligible citizens in the process. Unfortunately, the respondent Nos.3 to 5 have blundered at all stages, thereby establishing that they have done so to favour the respondent Nos.6 and 7. Therefore, the respondent Nos.3 to 5 are bound to account for the lapses and the favouritism shown to the respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶104

In view of the above, the following order is passed;

¶105

ORDER

¶106

(i) This writ petition is allowed in part.

¶107

(ii) The respondent Nos.3 to 5 are directed not to release any payment to the respondent Nos.6 and 7

¶108

23 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2185 WP No. 200583 of 2024

¶109

in respect of any work executed by them in Kalagi Taluk, Kalaburagi District under the unrestricted action plan for the year 2023-24.

¶110

(iii) If any work has remained unexecuted, the respondent Nos.3 to 5 shall take steps to get the same executed by publishing it in the newspapers having wide publicity in Kalaburagi District and ensure that the process of selection is transparent and complies with the randomization list. Any funds reserved for the works under the unrestricted action plan 2023-24 in Kalagi Taluk, Kalaburagi shall not lapse and respondent No.1 shall take necessary steps in this regard.

¶111

(iv) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to conduct an enquiry against the respondent Nos.3 to 5 for the illegalities committed and take necessary action against them in accordance with law.

¶112