High Court Karnataka High Court

Amaresh Kondappa Hosangadi vs Gadag Betigere City on 13 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Amaresh Kondappa Hosangadi vs Gadag Betigere City on 13 March, 2008
Author: S.R.Bannurmath & Gowda
1

Tim   or     
DATED mm 'mm 13" Davflov;-u*.4ésIi::ri.%%aoOa!$V%«  7

vnnaQufa'k _VwW
'rim I-IOWBLE ran. JuBTlHcEI':>g¢$ nmfiuhugrn

mm uownm pm. JI1s#r:¢:m7A.3i.\:'3:§tiit3:;:'i~AI.A «own;

wage ggg; a1 *Nas,_   mmnmn

V Mfg A * 101:

{W


S;/_o Eiondapgsa iipsgrifli,
Ae.6i145  %  

'I234...-..£.5h~! m n n n 1-can 'n!.7l'\":".1-J-'J'ln.n.e-.
l\C3UL\l15..].5 'J1I§3Cl..l   CF,

fiaglag 5.32' 101. *

.   

” ~ .Bh_ues::;1:.1;E–*aInall1,

2 …la-.:…….: …I…. 4.1..

.2 ¢’.~:.,I.;’.a….1′ I:n…….._…………._……._
« _ 9;-vu-:;§1ui;i:s1uvu1m1 uu auuuz Lu,
A » ‘Aggq ‘years,

Basveshwanmgar,

Gacgag 532 101.

In: ……. -.1 ……….. — £11-: …….. .. 1u.-.-.-…:
x$…o1.|u.Iu1uuuauppu Dlllvuppu. nuguvl,

‘ ~ ‘S/oshivappa Nagavi,

Aged 34 yeam,
Ubigc:n_i_l:atLi,

Near DyamavvaTe1nple,
Gadag.

II?

1. Gadag-Beligere City Mu11ieipa:L1:ity,;~ ? d
Rep. by its Commissioner,
Gada-g-Betigere, T ‘

Gadag.

2. Deputy Cunxmiseieiier,
Dh..=.~..n.n.ra.d Diet.r’1et, ”
Dharwad.

A ‘ Reslxmdeulxs

(By Mr. K3; 3t’:I_’1i.p1′.,CO§;11’J§SBl, .

9″” “W “mel: ‘eAde..=l’e’1.’_ 1

J\’J IYJJ A lJv’Iifl.l

Mr.ede.e;eee15as:;ae, .AGjA.1_’er”R. 2)

“Ellie ‘ “filed under Seetiun 4 of the
High praying to set aside the order
peewd L’-‘a’_.’!VA’1′-‘!.V },’!.”..!..i!3i:’.-IL’.N..’.”.’. 19.949,/9.906 ‘.1a!!.:.’-4.1 07. 1252935;

‘_ on for Pxeiiminary hearing, this
day’, J._, delivered the following:

-‘I”‘I”I”lfI.IlI’.'””l”

gvggigav J.

is a. delay of 78 days in filing the appeal. In

“ii**~«.:ega1al’ IA Ne.’2.,'(}’.’ Ha L.’-zen med Le eendene me

U5

‘ ealne. Nuliee is ordered. Respundenus are represented by

counsel. Accepting the cause shown for the delay, IA

I
2/07 is allowed and the delay is condoned. Heard the
learned counsel on both sides re-admission.
I”’ 4…

.5″

2. As the of dispute is in very 4_

with consent of both sides, eppealé ;

hearing.

.111; e;:}.-..l 2e -,_._ ..y !LI.e”n.rn! ;__I_1!ii,1r;,.1 «:.;_,L1;gi_I;’,

the order oi’ the iea:11e;ie”-‘iz*z e}J1’iuge: iii_sii1iu’s”ii1§; uie wfii.

petition No. 12:§4o/ 2:306

4. ” and they were
e11u’11el.ed’ .. :(201lLI’aCl. work by Gadag
ML;1;ieipe_1i___Ly,_ as there was immediate

‘~’T:3fiiLi’i,j’rii. ire werk urder {he “reieci.

‘ el. Door Steps” Iirsl. respondent has passed

‘1°es:;1uLiei1g.ei,:ii’ueti11g civil work without calling for lenders

as 347(3) of the Ka1’nal.aka Municipalities Act

iii… we-.’1; we: _.1_._ILeLed in.) these co11l1’aclo1’s. After

eoiilpieiitiii iii’ {he

u..n Innnn – mu n-1;»:

‘ yuyiiifilita W “If u. un’I;2u, uau

R Hcun|.1’aewrs approaclied this Court in the impugned writ

petition. Learned Single Judge alter hearing mm sides,
refused to grant the relief only on the ground Llual. as there

4′..’:——”””’
y

—-

is cuntlactual obligation, jurisdiction or this

Article 226 of t.he Constitution of India

the appellants have an altt:~1’iiVate«1jc:’meg1yzg ” Hellee, tithe» T A’

pieaeiit writ, appc.m”w’.

5. After hearing l;ei’vVtl1ev§appe1la11ts
and the lealned Muuicipamy, ls:

-_r_ _ em, the contract work
e11t:rust.ed€ by the al’e:e%d e’.:!1+..~.’-.1.-…
a 204 was filed and now
it is pending bethxe this Cuuu. By

virtue gr u.tu.te,m. cider in the said R.S.A., it is stated

;.1«I4_}1;ic_..:pa1iLy though willing is unable to make

VCt)11side1i11g the facts and Lil’tJl.llll8Lt:l11t>t2B of

t in order to protect the interest of both the parties

in em’ new it, \.n.u__I.1:1 L: _,”12_aL 3; L1 proper to direct the 1″

I..- I.

respondent. to make paymeirt cf the antnitieu auitsunt 1.6

V

……….. ‘:..I’.~.’.V.’~ -‘ -.1.

the appeliaiits subject in the appuiiaiita fi.i’1_”.Efi.1:s1:.1a.iVg~-._:b3:?;._1_i:a.V

guarantee to the aforesaid sum .

IL is made clear that in cast:

agailxesl. the appellants am: m;.xav¢:;s,= has ‘ ”

appciianis is this
Bequest of 111;: .fprV”appclla11ts to get
Llxemxiselvcs’ VLi–ie’ ;-said R.S.A. With this

di1t:cLie:1n;v!a}VAifi:;'”aii3.:¢:al of.