Sri G Koteshwar Rao v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2025WP/31493/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus to consider representation; release of certified/admitted contract payments; agreement dated 23.02.2023; running bills certified but unpaid; Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited; Department of Irrigation, Government of Karnataka; Article 226 Constitution of India; duty to consider representation within reasonable time; reasoned order on rejection; 30-day direction; entitlement to amounts left open; WP (GM-RES) 31493 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure-A) strictly in terms of the agreement between the parties and pass necessary orders within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order, any rejection to be by a reasoned order; the Court expressed no opinion on the petitioner's entitlement to the amounts sought. ¶¶36

Sri G Koteshwar Rao Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are bound to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure-A) seeking release of the admitted payment due under the subject contract and pass necessary orders within a reasonable period. +1 more

¶¶31

Court's answer

The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.06.2025 at Annexure-A strictly in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties and pass necessary orders within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶¶39

Ratio / Principle

Whenever a representation is submitted, the respondents are required to consider it and pass necessary orders within a reasonable period of time, either accepting or rejecting the request.

¶¶33

Key takeaways

If an order of rejection of the representation is passed, it must be accompanied by reasons.ratio¶¶34
The Court has not expressed any opinion on the petitioner's entitlement to any of the amounts sought in the representation; calculation and adjudication of the amounts is left to the respondents in terms of the agreement.obiter¶¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Suraj Govindaraj, J.), W.P. No. 31493 of 2025 (GM-RES), decided 09.12.2025: Petitioner-contractor claimed that though he had completed work under the agreement dated 23.02.2023 and his running bills were certified for payment, payment was not released, and his representation dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure-A) went unconsidered. Held: respondents (State of Karnataka, Department of Irrigation; Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited) are bound to consider a representation and pass necessary orders within a reasonable time, either accepting or rejecting it, and any rejection must be accompanied by reasons. Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to consider the representation strictly in terms of the agreement and pass necessary orders within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order. The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the petitioner's entitlement to the amounts sought, leaving calculation and adjudication to the respondents in terms of the agreement.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:52172 WP No. 31493 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31493 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. G KOTESHWAR RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O. G.MASTHANAIAH, NO.67, SUBHODAYA NILAYA, MALATHA HALLI, NGEF LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 056.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VASU DEVA NAIDU S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

REP.BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING, NO.1, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LIMITED, SIDDAPURA, RAMAGUNDAM, UDUPI DISTRICT,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52172 WP No. 31493 of 2025

HC-KAR

UDUPI - 576 101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT MORE PARTICULARLY A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 18.06.2025 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDERS DEEMED FIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE ADMITTED PAYMENT DUE UNDER THE SUBJECT CONTRACT AS PER PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION DATED 18.06.2025 AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶27

Sri. B.R.Prashanth, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶28

The petitioner has before this court seeking for the following relief:

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52172 WP No. 31493 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

"WHEREFORE the Petitioner prays that, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or Direction more particularly a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.06.2025 marked as Annexure-A or any other appropriate writ or orders deemed fit directing the respondents to release the admitted payment due under the subject contract as per petitioners representation dated 18.06,2025 and pass such further or other orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity."

¶32

The petitioner claims that he has completed the work in terms of the agreement dated 23.02.2023 and raised his running bills in respect thereto, which though has been certified for payment has not been paid and as such, the petitioner has submitted his representation on 18.06.2025 for payment, which has not been considered.

¶33

Whenever, any representation is required for the respondents to consider the same and pass necessary orders within a reasonable period of time either accepting or rejecting the request made in the present matter.

¶34

Needless to say, if an order of rejection is passed, the same would have to be accompanied by reasons. Neither having been done, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52172 WP No. 31493 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ii) The respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.06.2025 at Annexure-A strictly in terms of agreement entered into between the parties and pass necessary orders within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner for any of the amounts sought for in this representation. The same would have to be calculated and adjudicated by the respondents in terms of the agreement.

¶41

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶42

GJM

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sri G Koteshwar Rao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G Koteshwar Rao v. 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

Dr. a. a. Muralidharswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Vinod Nair, Vs the State of Karnataka

Iffco Tokio Gic Ltd., Vs Smt. Mangalamma

Mohammed Irfan Vs the Union of India

R. S. Ravikumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Kanagasabai Vs the State of Karnataka