WP N030672/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED Tms THE 26"' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2«9c9:'__'__*- "
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. ?EfiARTHAvAT$A.1;A: _
WRIT PETITION No.3o572/2008-{GM-T§E,§1" ' I I
Between:
SRI.N.M.NE3RLIKER ,
S/O MOHIDDEEN SA!-{EB _ 2
AGE:55 YEARS ' r
CLASS--I KPWD CONTRACTOR '
RESIDING AT KEN3KE--RGA,LL1 :
NIPPANI, CHIKODITi&L_UK _ "
BELGAUM _ PETITIONER
(By sri.M§he§ii'E5;V;>a;1:;{3;;,c1irI'.'.I_ . '
And: I I I
1. THE STA'1"E._OF'. KAR-NATTAKA
REPR'ESENTE--D BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
"KARNA'I'AKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
. r .(_GQVT, OEKARNATAKA UNDERTAKING)
A V 4--::--: §'LQOR,.C.OFFEEBOARD BUILDING,
' ._ "A:wiB'EU:<A'12VEEDHI,
' __BANGALQRE.
V THE STATE OF' KARNATAKA
n REPRESENTED BY
I _ TIIE CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION),
"NORTH, CLUB ROAD,
E BELGAUB/I~59O O01.
WP No.38672/2008
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
GRBCC DIVISION--NO.4,
CHIKKODI
BELGAUM DISTRICT. RES2Q1§BEPiAj'S'¢_ T'
[By Smt.K.Vidyavathi, AGA for R1 '7 ' '
Sri.Shrikant J.Bhat, Adv for R3)'~.g I A '
This petition is filed under "a-§ticles'v-2l26. and ofithe 2 E'
Constitution of India praying to"zdi'r.ect re's.pondentV; No.3 to
release the forfeited earnest deposit-..Vrnoney ofithe petitioner
immediately and etc., it T' - T it it
This petition comingori for'lpreli.rriif:'ary'_V__hearing in 'B'
group, this day, theflourt rn--ade'thle. following: "
1. ThevlpetitioneriEon_traeto_r is'i3efore this Court praying for
writ of mandamus' ltireisploiatdlent No.3 to release the forfeited
earnest rnoneytudepolsit thefpetitioner and also to quash the
letter on the fiie of respondent No-3 at
‘yAnne}:t:rc~_HV… -. ”
._ for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner v’\}’hc”/is a contractor entered into an agreement on
izvith respondent No.3 for construction of Niclhori
,.j.9flran’Q~}:–.”eanal in KM. 48, ?:9\:n/d 50. The petitioner was
WP No.30672/2668
granted six months’ time to complete the work. But the
petitioner was not given a site clearance for €X6Cuti011″~():.f2.t1’lCf
work. The petitioner executed the work worth .
r
The petitioner requested for extension o,{..ti_r_ne ro£”c’or}:’p1éti¢11 or
the work. The petitioner has wri;tte1i”r.letterf
respondent on 23.10.2005 requesti–ng him. to acq1iire;.v:.h¢V and
which was required for work. Thelpetitioner several
representations to respondenpt regard. The
petitioner issued alegal to the 3rd
respondent as” :::VEv2ieispo’r’iident No.3 while
passing the money deposit of
Rs.1,45,0t{3v(ii))!_i_ii’ petitioner is before this Court
seeking for Writ of rnandarnusi.
3. Signce theupetitioner’ has not completed the work as per
respondentiNo.3 has forfeited the earnest money
deposit. V is’ material on record to show that breach of
contract was to not making the site available for the
” i-:iV”V”«petitioner’.,_«Under such circumstances, respondent No.3 is
‘ «,,€)i.I”1f,it’.~(?,f’C.iT§,0 forfeit the earnest money deposit amount. I see no
if ‘i-flilegality or infirmity in the order.
WP N0.30672/2008
4. In the resuit, writ petition fails and the same is
dismissed.
Sd " 3111/-