IN THE HIGH COURT or :<AR1\%.ATAKA AT BANGAL_O}§E._ W.V
DATED THIS Tm: :2 r 'T DAY OF OCTOBER, 295:6 % " *-
£3 E. FT) RE
THE HON'BLE MR. .1 l__}STIC£-_"i HN. §J,4AGAM§0H.AN
WRIT PE'I'I'i'I(')i\' N0. .1'1'975{2ooS(GM~R1a:sj
BETWEEN :
B.K.GANGADHAR ;
s/0 B.K.KEMPE3GOW[.);A\ A
AGED ABouT54,Y}s:{:::\:;<--s T
CLASS I REGD.CC),N1?R;-'x_C"I'(ER A
(CIVIL), R/AT N0. 13;s;r+;';m1A~C;;R
GAG AN ACHU M'B.m€i:} B i_._1jif:"vR,_('_)A'i),,_ V
KUVEM_P1V;'NAc?;AAVR. i\«*ii"fS€)I{£§L' I PETITIONER
(By sri.K.PRAS,A:j H%':(Vi'iA'I'}i.'fi_; _:*..¥§'\?..:)\.---
AND :
V" 'Tr1Ta:'%"sTA§;:3e: .«:)"I~*..1<;-xi-A .r\'I".='\ KA
TREP_R'1':A,.T.:I3js,«' H'._$' SJi('RPiTARY
T0 G{')'?«.F_ERNM13iN'i' (.13: KARNATAKA
WATER R}fiS(3_.i}R(Ti_§if§ I)!--EEMRTMENT
V . M.S.B!JH:_DING,
V'-BANGALORE -- 560 um.
D
i
s.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD,
COFFEE BOARD BUILDING
Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDH}
BANGALORE W 560 001.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
I-IEIVIAVATHI CANAL "ZIJNE
TUMKUR -- 572 I02.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER _
TURUVEKERE CANAL,---DIVIS1.G*N., '_
TURUVEKERE ' I ~
TUMKUR DISTRICT. " RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.K.S.MALI.II<;A--R3Uff~E'A1AH, GPFQR 'R"E«,3 & 4
Sr'; RAMACI%IANiERA, FOR'M.R§C_.R'A'V-1;"ADV.,
FOR R2 ~94.) *
T1»II'SI'WIRIfI:*, PETA:I'TIONfI:S EIL'EE"UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 22': OR _GCONST'1.TUT.}ON OF INDIA WITH A
PRAYER To QUA.SH.ANNEXIJR.E--L DT.11.i2.2006 WHEREIN
R3 CHIEF ENGINEE-R HAS 'REJECTED THE REPORT OF THE
EXPERT _WI'F}£0UT. ASS1'€_3NING ANY REASONS AND ETC.
wRIT"" --- "PETI'T1'ON COMING ON FOR
H"-.1PRELIMINARSAEEARING -«'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
'C'O'IIR*T_R_A.,SSEI)_TEE FOLLOWING;
ORDER
IILIIIIS writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature
” :cVéIIII*OraI*i to quash the Order dated 1 1_.l2.20(‘)6 passed by respcmdent NO.
per Annexure L.
¢¥{\i
‘K.
I.»
2. Petitioner was entrusted with excavation of Hemavathi Canal
from 56″‘ KM. to 57*” KM. Accordingly on 16.06. E990 there came to be
an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent. D_L1ri_ngVitlte’rcot1rse
of excavation of the canal work a solid rock was found. On._oral”ins’tructions
from the concerned engineers of the respondent the pe’titio’ner”‘uscd’acontrol 7.
blast to remove the rock portion in the canal.i’I’hereafter.tt§_e.A petitionuervtnatlce
a claim for this non–tendered work of the
The measurement books of not find a
reference with regard the nattire iength of control blast.
Therefore the thought it appropriate
to appoint’:_one retired Joint Director of CWPRS,
Pune, a rock”w–speciali;–:t to the matter and to submit a report.
_cVAccordiiiglytA.Sri. B’§’3+./_E_.VVRVan”aegt)wtia submitted a report as per Annexure K
V_and’th.e C()1_’tC}1.i>’.i.4()zi1;<1V are as under:
5.l ~.1nh.abitedfvillageis and factory quarters, HT towers are located close to
the”canal alignment and HT and LT power transrnission lines and rope
it ” wa.y run across the canal alignment. Considering the large number of
ujtargets to be protected against blast induced damages and their
.”‘\I’m’
.7″
proximity to blast site and the quality of strata to be excavated it is
opined that earth work excavation with controlled blasting isessential
and clearly justified in the case of KM 57 ofTBC.
5.1.: The circular guidelines clt. 13.10.1998, olj’__tl1″e.::Go:\:it.llé11§l¥: t;tt:t¢’d
on the precedent practices and stz1nda1t.ds,_ The sam_e.gi1’itleli’nes 7.
could be adopted for
criterion, earth work
to be carried outillorf the KM 57.
5.2 Earth work excavation to be adopted for
the full length in: 57lf1*1;es emcee earth work quantity of
l776S:’–l_.84_ Mlilland HR, excavated by blasting is
required tos’oe1clas’s’:t’i.’ed “earth work requiring controlled blasting.
__5.3 Adjata of Rs.1″9.5_[; lll1.’c1Sl:l)(‘3t3l’1 approved in March 1994 (199394) and
. ‘ope1’at.eAci:.l’or’the balance earth work executed under controlled blasting
ll This rate could be adopted for settling the claim of
the”eort–tracto1’.
-hgxf-….
3. Subsequently respondent No. 3 passed the irnpUgTV1€*d””order at
Annexure L dated 1 1.12.2006. In this order at Annexure No.
3 has neither rejected nor accepted the report of
Thereafter respondents issued a co1nrnuni_catio.n2dated”06:06;2’0082..,tofthe7..
petitioner as per Annexure N statingrhat theyiizre tojgpiay any
amount to him. Hence, this writ petitioni, 6′ _
4. Heard arguments Vo’n._.Vfr,oti1*2_ theside_’~an’d~. perused the entire writ
papers. _
respondents by Viorrier_.iddziteddd*£4.’09.2006 appointed one Sri. B.M.
Rarnegowda, retired 3oi11t;I}irec»tor, CWPRS, Pune — a rock specialist to
. _inspec,t« spot and to submit a report with regard to the nature of rock, the
V’:1e»ngth of ,COI1[i’0:1″‘~b_1aStS used and the quantity of the entire excavated
muatejrihaii.’ K dated 26.10.2006 Sri. B.M. Rarnegowda
‘Vsubrn.itted iaareport. It is obiigatory on the part of respondent No. 3 to
‘Lconsiider the report submitted by the expert. But in the impugned order at
‘~i:~AnVF:16XL1fC L respondent No. 3 has neither accepted nor rejected the report
/7’l\’;’\\j
\.
6
submitted by rock specialist — Sri. B.M. Ramegowd:-1. There is no
justification for respondent No. 3 to ignore the report subrnitted by the
expert. On this ground alone the impugned order is liable V.
For the reasons stated above, the following;
:
i. The writ petition is hereby allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 13.1 .passed*b_y/[respondent No. 3 as
per Annexure L &1id_fft_hei_l_ communication dated
06.06.2008 issued per Annexure N are
hereby z: _,
iii. ‘Fhe7n’1a’tter No. 3 for fresh consideration
by consii«cl_erivngjll submitted by rock expert Sri. B.M.
_ftéarneigoxydall0ds”‘pe.::___A_nnexure K as expeditiously as possible and in
‘ “..1.21ter than two months from the date of receipt of copy
” . . er’ v(iv).1*clered accordingly.
Sd’/3
JUDGE
% -I.L§s/:’3iii02010.