13:3 HOBPBLE nm.JUs'r1c1=: 5 IN TIE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS TI-E 87" DAY OF J Ann THE Horranz Mn.JusTic§E K I§€'I£V_EE%VfAi€ARAY.VANA BETWEEN: T ' s/O"LA'1'ET1sdLI12£;GEP15A; CLASS §'€3QNTRA"€3'I'OR, Rm REN_UKA :_NI_LA'YA, THIENGSBHADRA BADAVANI, _; §%§NTI3kI I " THIS WRIT APPEAL IS c)'I~*%%%%L'I*%II;r;I KARNATAKA HIGH coUIz¢T}IIAcT; .P1*. QNv:'ME'RAI"}'S"'RYQIQIIRECTING THE RES?i??O1§F'f3A}33'9N.T§"*§7O...VP:A.Y«THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE TO 'I'III'q;_ PETITi(.§1"€E§R;': TIIIS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY «H:EIi1v§iNQ'"'«--._THIS DAY, SHYLENDRA KUMAR .J DELi~'§é7i;"£§E:}.5'i'HE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT
AA Writ appeal by a contracter who had taken his
Ghance in writ petition for recovery of the amount
said ta be payatale on the execution of the Work in
V
favour of the Zilia Panchayat, Huvina
Bellary district.
2. As the leamed .
the Writ petition granexigliberg; as *the«ieapepgnant~e
petitioner to approach tbeflcivii-~.oouff’withfiregard to
recovery ef money, ‘the ‘afjpeel.
3. appeal is that in
meme;xwtk§g1;i£j¢z;e:1S:o.15e1oS?/2007, on the basis of
a authorities, direction had
been ieeued bills of the contractors at
t?;e:.e3a§*liest 1A’3Vi1\t.–r;:.:-t iate than six months and a like
have been passed by the learned
in this writ petitien also.
AA As rightly observed by the learned Single
Judge, relief is with regard to recovery cf the money,
such relief cannot be ganted in writ jurisdiction. It
is open to the appe1lant~petitioner to work eat his
contractual right before any other forum.
5. Mere fact that in some othef
some direction is issued is f:ot:;’_:a~’precede13.t
calls in all things and moreover .issue_o’f: is”
a discretion of the souurt matieI’ which can
be claimed as a matte: lrl)jf’l1*igl_.1:1_;:l;”fgifieeordingly, writ
3913631 is disr£il§secl=._ 2:
a:As_ has been dismissed on
merit, llapp–lieai:iofj’–..o.s’eekir1g concionation of delay
the appeal does not survive for
‘ ;{it3:1Vsi!;i_erat:;i§I1_, hence, the same is also dismissed.
:1
Sci/-
JUDGE
Sé/~
93 Eimgg l