xaxsm, £§1;.:;GYA JALA NIGAM LTI3
CEHIEF ENGINEER
IN THE HIGH corner on KARIIATAKA AT
DATED '1':-113 THE 513 DAY 09 DECEMBER _
PRESENT _ _ F. A 3 T
min i-IOIPBLE HR. 9.13. Dxnaxmméri; Dngfia
Mn _ . .
mm nomnm naR.JUs'I1'e§.§ x
wan APPEAL Ho". 1607 hi ._
BETWEEN: ' V'
1 BDEVARAJ _
S/0 SR1 BAN{}A?§A1?PA'*--A "
AGED 40 Yf)RRS1'*v.v~~'§*_ ' A
FWD CLASSI s;C;NTRA'.,_ '::'1j::<{_
378/8,_6TH_ *5: ck:-ass D
13TH ;vIA1N;D'E2;e§.JMA.;~1A,L'
SADASHIX-weAG.igi?AA " 1. ' '
BANGA1;.oR--.E~56oG3ja_ "
* " ; APPELLANT
(By Sri: Asgéfioia I-1AI«é;=aN 'r-IAI.;L1,ADv. FOR ASHOK HARANAHALLI
A:SSOACIATESi_}, Av DDDDD
AND V f_
_ REP-. BY'rrs"'MANAG1NG DIRECTOR
FWD Amsmxfi
'D V. _ 'Is:.R.cxR<:LE
BAN'GALORE~56O om
" ..,_E{RISHNA BHAGYA
JALA NIGAMA LTD.
CANAL ZONE-2
KENIBAVI, SHARAPUR TALUK
GULBARGA DISTRICF
3_ EXECUTIVE ENGINEER I
KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAMA I;rI_;).*--_
IEO DIVISION No.3 '
GOLAGERI, GULBARGA DISTRICT»
4 KARNATAKA BANK
REP. BYITS MANAGER _ I I
BIJAPUR DIsrRIcr~536'1I;'I
: VREISPONDENTS
(By Sri : M R (2 F'{3_R_ 142.1 E; 3:33;» Y V PARFHASARFHY,
ADV. FOR R4; R2; $£f«:_._)',_ » '
'1'HiS 'fvJ'VHl§I*'I"'A§PEA§I'VV'IS:'}'iLED Iijs 4 OF THE KARNA'I'AKA
HIGH coumf Acrr PRAY-IN'(3p'I'QIA SET 'ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT EETITIQE N_(}L_1'1-¢3_86j~08 DATE!) 3/ 10103.
THIS. ,WRI'f" CEMING up FOR PRELIMINARY
H.EARING«;.t on *mIspAY_., THE coum' DELIVERED THE
1 .. ..... ..
V V " JUDGMEIIT
_ by P.D.1I)i11akaran, C.J.)
" appeal is by the unsuccessful Writ petitioner
by the order of the learned Single Judge dated
'VIV£3'.:'1i),_2¥§08 made in Writ Petition No.11986/2008.
A
; ('V - -
MP-" flv-"' WWW' M"
..~»=*"""""
-3.
2. L It is not in dispute that the appellant] petitioner is a
Class-I contractor and had undertaken .,
respondents and completed the work! of
Lift Irrigation Supply Canal No.
year 2005. An additional Work of weed
accumulated in the said dngfirixggtnmfiiaaintenance period
was entrusted to Ililllgfifld he {fie maintenance
work for a 31.3.2605). The
third had also issued
completion L’ ‘apmllant/ petitioner . had also
furnished the satisfactory completion
of the that, after the completion of the
the respondents–1 to 3 were required to
guarantee. According to the
_ inspite of his repeated requests seeking
guarantee, in View of the ram: that he has
the maintenance work, the third respondent has
4’ to invoke the bank guarantee. Hence, a Writ
fpetition was filed challenging the action of the respondents.
§¢:3:\._E
2.2. The learned Single Judge by the
dismissed the writ petition holding that it was ”
appellant] petitioner to have recourse ‘:
provided in the very contract and to seeiglihe L.
of his gievance, against is
3. Heard Sri Ashok Counsel
appearing for the VV1_\’é;I__.:f;€.’VC.I2avi, learned
Counsel appearfuwgl 3.
4. contended that
Clause 29(§;u the contract provides for
settlement; of provides that when there is a
0′..;ispz1_te tlle “Executive Engineer/Superintending
then such a dispute will have to
dete1m1.._’::V’ncd. the Chief Engineer. Therefore, he submits
‘ ordeeof the learned Single Judge observing that it is
l appellant] petitioner to proceed as provided under
WW»-“”‘w0
ym
§:?5%
the terms of the contract prejudices his interest,
as, even under the terms of the contract, the Chief
is vested with jurisdicfion to adjudicate’ the
the Executive Engneerf
Contractor. The learned counseigpiliereforew, this it
Court to permit him to invoke of 29 (a)
of the agreement and redress; including his
prayer for return of ..
5. C’ counsel for the
respondentssi contended that when
once the has invoked the provisions of
ag1’eevv”‘tnent, the Chief E11911’ eer who has to
apply his independent mind to the
islets of the and thereafter reach to a conclusion With
htiie dispute that may be raised by the
petitioner.
K ;._ \V
xfiw t
it «M
€WMWMWW.,.
the entire exercise is done, status-quo shall be
and the appellant] petitioner is also reserved liberty _t(_) 1fiove;’~ % T’ 1 V
for interim relief before the Chief Engineer.
8. With the above observations, writ”
disposed of. A L %
7/”
Index; ‘Ygs/’.’No