High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri G R Suresh vs Director on 13 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri G R Suresh vs Director on 13 August, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
 '-AN;;é..}" '

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA,   _

vamp THIS THEE 13%: DAY or-' AUfii»$§:'~  "  

BEFORE: Q é
THE HOITBLE MR. JIISTICJE "MOIi1}§Hj 
wan: PETITION NO.  91? 

BETWEEN

SRIG:zsU;eE$2----1_   ,   

Sm C; S RAh&;3Ki§1§SHNA.fi MA 3.3 '(R3 

ENGINEER C:a}V1%:*z*1<e,cxc*1?g3mr:.L;\S:~'§-- 3.) '

LEEKKALA 1'vTH--:i_c§z0s'S, ASHQKNAG§AR, TUMKUR

(REP. BY %1+§.Is'£i0Ur%:SEL--.L 'SEDDAEAFI, 310.2554

14TH GROSS," vi'£:f4T}~I 1MAm~,~' HSR _~ LAYOUT, IS'?

13'? sE(:1'<i)'1:.._' _   
TUMKUR      

V  * RESP()NDEN'I'S

THIS w.P. FILED "PR.P.YIIF£G~'"'I'0'~~..'jCALL FOR THE
RECORDS AN£)gD:REGI'""I~I1I§: RA.%;sPNI)IE'NTs TO SETTLE
THE CLAIMS §~Bi3;--.LS) 0!?' "1?_II~Iei PE'§'I"i--'.l'€)NER AS MENTIONED
IN THE scHE:I3t3jI,I3 Rs), ~5_.o2;-- LAKES TOGETHER WITH
EIv:I:>/ FSD 5WI'_i-'H 'AN. .II%I*§'£t.R'E.£§'i' AT" THE RATE 0}? 18%
FROM THE I3\A'i'{~:f«:.;IfI' IIA'$_I:'ALII__E_N 'DUE TILL THE DATE OF
THEIRvAC*:"U[A:;. PAfiI:IgI*§rII4:rv"If.;=.NI3 _E'§'C.

. THIS "4liV'i_?1.'i'I'"I'f[.(i)I\I.",' CQIIMING ON FOR PRLHEARING,

 . t T2I_Ia%.,I3;§.'=; frag" MADE THE FOLLOWENG :

ORDER

.’ . H “‘}’l*V1é ‘?’-Ifiitract betweeztl the 13€iit:i()ner and the

f_»respI)n(ie:n£–Agim1lturai Produce Markettjng Cenlmittee,

A ‘*:Lf’i”r;>.rV $12011: APMC, admittefily is not a stamiory contract

féifiing withm the definition or the term wider A:rt:I’.cle.

299 of the COI}st.itu’I:ion 9:’ India. So also, admittedly,

the axnounts payable under the contract, according
i

Kr’

to the petitioner was one since 5 years

The claim for recovery of moneys underffziie ‘fioIit1’2ict i

is one arising from oontracfttxaiti’

therefore, it is inappropriate for’-this eoiiriii. exercise ,

of extraordinary writ. iincier. the
Constitutiorz. of India,’ ‘:1

In that vigw of £1″ie:.%t,»it’iV’one1* must. m
relegated to “iiiigation. This View
of mine of the Apex Court
in wo’.eL1_)’_A _ vs. URION or INDIA
reporteol’ 513 and in the case of

oo;.§LY:oAsi . .ie’§ris. 1 mmosrmn PETROLEUM

V’,C0_i§P(§i§£L’:Iv’IQN LTD., reported in 1994441300 450.

Tiie petition is accordingly rejected.

Sd/-‘
JUDGE

V’ esg