IN THE HIGH coum' or KARNA'CAKA_.\_{." i u
cxacurr BENCH AT DHA3WAD--' " & 51- V
DATED was THE 29*" my 0,? Jiiiseé, 'zsbsia
THE momma MR. Jusmze H.iN-CHl;G_E RI
9sIPL- CEPL A
crs no 386/D, nsa-raa.:L:rk ~
opp: LELE' csam::~.n;:»;
TILAKWADI*BEGALUM_=_6p %
REP BY ITS LE-_AD_ MANAGER
SRIVIVEK A. AM6EKAR % %
s/<3 AMANTH Y. AMBvE'.i(AR,'._V
AGED Ascmr 35 YE:A.!§S;.' ' ...PfiTITIONER.
_ _ % {¥:s':(sRI MAQHUSUDAN R. mix, ADV.)
sax:-AUH %uaaA~ DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
L ' sE1.E;>Lm commssxowes.
FOR BELGAUM DIST
semaum 590015
GQVERNMENT or KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPT OF URBAN uEvEi.oPr~§EH'I
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 1. RESPONDENTS
(BY SR1 MA. HALIYAL, ADV. FOR R1;
SR1 R.K. HATTI, H.C.CE.P. FOR R2 & R3)
THIS PETITION Is FILED UNDER ARTICLES 2_Z$”.§;l§’I’CJ.j: _
or-‘ THE coNsm’uTIoN or-‘ INDIA PRAYING TO=.QUA$_H” THE
IMPUGNED omen AS pea ANNEXURE-S DATED-‘}’~.»?..§}23>;”‘~E}IRE€;T”=
THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER .é.’NE”‘GRANTg N’ECES$.?3\RY.
APPROVAL FOR CONTINUATION AND i-‘jXE£UTION OF’ 9HA$E~I
AND PHASE-II or coNsTRucIIoH_woRKII.E1’I;. I *
THIS PETITION comma oHIHII5GIII.tI%»:~I<;:
The pe t:1:_iLérIar' the chailenga to the first
respandenfs ;IrdI.1=4I.Vr,'-:V<.1l_aiHi:I.4=.'-'<3 t.1)'7.'t3.7'.08 (Annexureés) cancemne the
¢VII_IIffa4;tV:"3'~.:éraE'I9£ieIi: 'I9 théW;§éI:itioner fer constructing the ring road
aroIjr:¢x B_eVIVg'aI{I*:IV,'V_ W –
2; Th.e.”HI¥3_r3a’ef facts of the case are that the first
_1j”_’~..r’_e§’p,9ndeIIt .. ivésuéd the netification calling for the bids far the
4_’_’cI;I_rI’strII¢tie_rI ‘of the ring road araund Beiaaurn City. The
A”‘4″.’j~r_e_s;§e:Ir1erIIs on finding the petitioner’s bid to be acceptable,
‘V grI’taIéd inta the concession agreement and subsequently issued
33125,
the work order for the censtruction of the ring road.
for, the petitioner also furnished the “contract
guarantee”. when things stood thue,–“‘tne.SteteV’.”§§e’i;ern.rnent V
declined to grant sanction for the constriicti_on o1f’t1ij’e.’.rieg”
This resutted in the first respondent»reeoisrinaetvo the”?
original performance guarantee by—se.n1dirigA_theficeremvdnication,
dated 25.02.08. The petitioner’ respondent to
recenstder the matter..__ “fire: .reep.endeVnxt;” vide impugned
order dated ‘petitioner that it is
mandatory io”di§te:av?;f;_v the provisions of the
Karnataka ti’rben Authorities Act, 1987. The
communication fi3rti_frer..etat’esV’titat the petitioner is supposed to
ix:’jnesr-r._ th’e;’:preeis:–ens of”i’eXir before entering inte any contract
eitnetr ~eréSif’a;te individual, Government Authorities er
iiteemi C§’o%rernmentf~…Afuthorities. It proceeds to state that in the
…i_d4i’_ei:seeece ef”sei:ction frem the Government of Karnateka, the
‘..’_}ag_reernent”A_«entered into between the petitioner and the first
V«’ii’eep}ondent is mi! and void in the eye of iaw. The original
perforrners’ guarantee resubmitted by the petitioner came to be
rereturned with the said letter.
493%
5
in Section 15 of the Karnataka Urban Deveiopment Atittimt~¥tgs
Act, 1937 (for shcrt, “the said Act”). The said p¢r%avisi;$§:is..”gfi:~駒
extracted hereinbeiew: ._ W _
” 15. Power at Autimrity toitimiertaket Am:-ksiit
and incur expenditure forjtdeveiapment eigégg-‘v *
(1) The authority may; K it it it
(a) draw up detaiied (néreinafier
referred to as “tieifdaidpiiéeieiitqtiiVséiigme”) for the
deveiopment ofttha._tirbanA’a_réé; Véiifi
(ta) with pteviaué iébbrovéi €>f the
time to time any
1″woiri_;3ment of the urban area
an;k;;*t’1’ii2t.f;ii*’ eitgientiiture therefor and also for
‘ “the and executicin of development
” H ….. .. 7
may also from time to time make
aiiti’ take it any new er additimai deveiopment
¢ schemes;-«
~ : (i) on its own initiative, if satisfied of the
A sufficiency at’ its reseurces; or
(ii) on the ractimmendatians of the local
authority, if the focal aaitlmrity pieces at
the disposal of the Autharity, the
am
necessary funds for framing and u
out any scheme; or
(if?) otherwise. ”
5. Sri Haiiyai further’ subméts t’hat:1′.Ao;1t!eE’finctlénon
of the said Act, if the value ot’–.tjb~o,>prob»::_sed_Vvsgoftfexéeedst”V
Rs.25,00,00€)/-, the iarior £2eznnisf;!o:t.'”%_of”‘the (§ovorn.rf:ent is a
mandatory requirement. \P§}*ht!_a§:- contention, he
has brought to my 4njot.i?_:e, ‘oto’Qision_s.vv’co’nt’oined in Section
1o(2) of the saint agoemguta netéinbetow:
** 10. pqw§;.a;::% e:;tre{ient.aotaor:nes.-
(1) ‘xxx. tk
_7’he.V authority rnay sanction any estimate,
:ca!.{ for téiirdérs or enter into any contract or
V. _ *’..,4:3;g;*oA§:e’ment, the value of which does not
rupees (we-nty–five Iakhs. ”
7′. .S}*§.:_ Hatti, the Seamed Government Header for
«:._=z;os?;;jt;n2aén–ts Ito. 2 and 3 submits that if the first respondent can
the project of ring road construction on its own and
‘ hitn own funds, the Government has no objection to its going
wnhead with the project. However, if the first raspondent is not in
51%
a position to implement the project on its
requires financial assistance from thglrrfigoverrirneni;.fh:enths”
prior approval of the Government becorr;es:;’nsl~a~oess.3V’7:”” ‘
8. The submission of the léarrnsd coimsel .!:1a\}g received
my anxious consideration. V Tns pro”\rlsiorg$’V».»containéd in Sections
1o(2) and 15(1) and 15(2) mm An: are extracted
hereinabove, do not’i’n;:l:loaté._thasihes the prior approval
of the G-overnn’r’eni;’;””wl»;§” 1%. rnalndlétoryVlretxolrement. The word
‘ “maY” and 10(2) of the said
Act cannot oéroolnstrofov “shall”. A: the most, taking
the prior _a;3pro;\:al_” of}. Réovernment is only 3 directory
rféotllrernéht;’«.o.:’r-logy’ oénnot be construed to he ‘must; if it leads
word ‘may’ connotes an enabling or
7’s../.__”.permlssifr’é meg: Fm» duty. Therefore, the cancellation of the
_L’1:«.;a.gr’sgment ~ on;. the ground that the respondent No.1 had not
“*’c~l_1e prior approval of the Government is not sustainable
em
8
9. The impugned orcier is thouchtiess, ta say _th:e”-iiazist.
It gives unwanted and unwarranted advice and ting’
petitioner in the feiiowina words:—
” Your company is supposed to :k._¥i0’éii” rtfieii’proxiisin’i1§,,,..A
of law before entering intoany co’ntrar.t either. iivithi ”
the private individual, Geve–r;i’i¥ient Agtiivaritiés; bi’
semi Government Auttzpritieslf if ” 3
19. 3;: the same bfiizg, its-aé’irm%:i::i¢?iirz:.§ ei~:_t No.1 is aiso
supposed te knaw_.vt.hi:a: v_prn\g’:AiniVi:;~’nf,_-3:: of:VAini€a_Vbvef;3r’é entering into a
contract wiizhigneri is subject to the iaw as
fuily and and the State and its
instrumen.t.=3.ii£Aie«S””” Véi-ineption. The first respondent
#3riiti;.;3riti,:,vr§t:a’i”id$’ an ?:xi’i锧é’rne foeting as a private individuai a$
far iaw is ccencerned. I
1A1-,-…__V i\i¢;§eii*zi:r’z}gAis forthcaming in the statement cf objacticms
“*’i.–1’1f£’i’fi6″‘»£:gnT beiwaiii cf respandent Nest as to what action has been
V against the afficials responsibie for and instrumentai in the
of the agreement between the petitiemer and the
‘reépandent Ntm. Presumably no actinn is initiated against any
Hfiii
of the efficiais, because the entering into the agreement’
petitioner was not improper. That apart, the petiti’o.nerf_jbeind
third party can not be invariabiy expieeted”t_o’*«.knoiré_’:
transpired between the respondent No.ai..e’s2£i rfiftitiitticiverttyi
whether-the respondent No.1 has the pr!or’vta¥e=pr”cnreiV of the it
respendent No.3 or whether” the reeréonlcierit-._i$ie.I’ ‘¢’e’n”Venter into
an agreement with the petitioner approval of
the Government te the irrdeer
management of
12. it is not thetthe respendents that anything is
wanting on thetzertvvof”th.eV.’peti:tiener or it has vioiated the terms
ofvVeareem%ent;. The”‘Stea;te and its instrumehtaiity cannot retract
frem.Aite.,protntse_Vo’rv assurance, uniess the assurance is against
any lt’ew;’Tgebii$:”‘_o.oiiV¢y”‘.or nubiic Good or against the equity iteeif.
this re’t;earc§.; itie profitable to refer to same of the decisions of
i i $20 on]
V’ The issue is no mere res inteera. The Horfble
Stiioreme Ceurt in its decision in the case ef SIJNIL PAHNALAL
.V§3AHT!§IA AND OTHERS V. CITY AHB INDUSTRIAL
833%.
10
coxpomnou as MAHARASHTRA rm. (cmco rarjiiishort)
AN!) ANOTޣR, reported in 2907 Am sew
that if the ailettea ef the sites have acteé an a3sfif’é’t1cé.§s_«””
held Gut by the CIDCG, which caused thié a’i*i9ttaes4t§fi:_”é.i;éjr”t’héi’r
positien ta their prejudice, it is not opien
uniiateral decision ta cancel the ailitzttffi-sents Em the jq’;3.r<VV:}V't2v;:4'i§"ti1at it it
(CIDCG) had acted without._jurisfii'cti§ri"and/ciit'in Excess of
jurisdiction and violation of its Jm'ie§i- r_}§:gvtIvi§ti':;_ns.
14. ‘fag. ‘Cmrt in the case of H15.
I-io11LAL PAbA§ipAt iiILLs co. no. v. STATE or
ufrtan piigaizasri ie;$§f2edi in (197502 sec 409 has held that
{tie itdio’-::i:Vj;?’iV::.+:-.~_1i:’t>1f:tifarrgissary estoppei, which has been variously
tailed .?r-2-§%uiSit”ej~v_..gstpfipei’, ‘quasi estoppef, ‘new estoppel’ is a
V”.–«AA’.Vf§ri;1cipieéuroivzfédvté satisfy’ the equity. The petitioner has acted
‘ _.firsi:’*’:;espnndent’s promise, which has manifested itself
af the cancession agreement and further in the
iitisrfiirancie ef the watk-erder. It is inequitabie ta aliow the
tax as back upen his premise or ta act differently from
fiififi.
11
his premise. This is an the mere se, which the _p.ifer’:1ise}~e__ji.h-eé’
altered his pesiticm in reliance an the premise.
15. Further the Herfbie Supreme”iCeL:ft”ivn fiheecalse
LIi~lIT£I> v. ASSISTANT cdaiiexssieneg:i.%répi¢rted in”
(zetma sec 792 has reiterategii-tiie’i;«.th~e_ priinasie einderiyina
the iegitimate expectation is” the ruie ef
fairness. It is obseivea iii” QRHARI A1-mm
SUGARS LTD. AND omens
raise-riled iii a person’s ieeitimate
expectaticm was hat a particuiar decisien, then
the decisiqe-meiterV_sh.eL;.§d the deniai of such expectation
?.fnI’~eiiow.i’ii§ se§~ee Aavei*i’ic%«i~=*:–a’ public interim.
I a.Eie.iirariness, fairnesss in actien and due
JV’eyéonside£a!!:ien._j’ofiriie legitimate expectation ef affected party are
‘ ”4”1’:’eé$ef»htiaVi reeeiéements fer a vaiid state action. In a case sf this
‘ie§~itimate expectatien of a citizen may not by itself be a
‘”i£if_si:in.d§ enforceable right but every legitimate expectation is a
iii’*««V.AVi”eiei;arxt fecteriequirina due consideration of a fair decisien
‘making process. In taking this view, I am fertified by the
355%.
13
19. The petition is aliowed in the above 4_
as to costs.
sac*