{"id":130038,"date":"2010-10-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-02-18T19:40:42","modified_gmt":"2015-02-18T14:10:42","slug":"maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Maregowda vs Karnataka Watershed Development on 27 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Maregowda vs Karnataka Watershed Development on 27 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH counr or KARNATAKA AT BANeALorf;:E\u00bbe'\n\nDATED THIS THE 27\"\" DAY or ocToBER,_2:010 :-'--.fj _kf%  \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTJZCE MOHA AsHgu\u00abaTAmg\u00a7e\u00a7jL:&%b\u00a74jp2. L'e\n\nwan PETITION No.1%:a4 r:3e5\/2010A(c;M4TEr~4)  \nBETWEEN:  r   \" V5\n\nMaregowda\nS\/cxchannamaraiah\nAged 54 years _' __ :   ~ \nProprietor, Janaki '%?ra'vei's Agericy\"  \n\nNO.6, Tefecom        .\nMagadiMain3Road'_. \"    '\nBangaiore-r?V9\"\"~.,%    \" PETITIONER\n\n(By Sri   ' '\n\nAND:\n\n 1. Kar.rjeta~ka W\u00e9terehedbevelopment\n\n' ' . Dezgiartment\n\n. }<\\..,H.\u00a32-_.v Comp"5e__x\n\n  'KVa\\\/ery" B_h'aVa_n_jr.\n\naw"\n\n~Banga\u00a3"ore'--.9'j;; "\nRe-._p.by,ii:s_Secretary\/Managing Director\n\nThe Profzrietor\n\nV  'Pe'!:\/s.Chethana Travels\n _ No.2,', Chikbazar Street\n\nrnxgear Jyoti Cafe Hotel\n\n\n\nOpp: Shivajinagar Bus Stand \nBanga|ore--51 .. RESPONDENTS  <\/pre>\n
(By Sri Narendra Prasad, HCGP for R1
\nR2 — served)<\/p>\n
This writ petition is fiied underA;%tiicies–‘226.:eund
\nof the Constitution of Ind.i\u00bba,-i.__praVyE.:\u00a7g to:i”q:’,i;asVh the<\/p>\n
communication dated 24.3.201’Oi’i\u00bbjVs’siJed b’y._i’5′-Vresipiondent<\/p>\n
vide Annexure–E by issuing a w.r’i’t’of_:’ceVrt.i.orari,i ‘etcf<\/p>\n
This writ petition coming  ffor=A._o’r’Aeii~ivrn’inary hearing
\nin B–Grou p, this.Vd.aiy’v–.the ;;CotJrt’J.:niaVde’the’ ft;-‘iiowing:–<\/p>\n
iiii   ;’vs’u’t>vrnitted~.3″<\/p>\n
their tenders. The tender””of’*.respo’n_den.t=  ‘is
\naccepted and consed’u.ent|_\u00aby’.”‘V_’V’tine}-tender” of the
\npetitioner is rejected.  questioned
\nthe aCceptani:\u00e92″g.i>f   3 the second<\/p>\n
respondentfi.   V. 3.\n<\/p>\n
3. 1’Sri” {earned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the petitiohnerV’subrni’t.s” that the contract period as<\/p>\n
 the t’end~~—-\u00abr’ notification is oniy for one year<\/p>\n
 to 31.3.2011; but the contract is<\/p>\n
awarded  of the second respondent for two<\/p>\n
.'”~=.__’y”ears E.’e..4,.’3’up to 31.3.2012; that the award of contract<\/p>\n
_i’r:–..ffa.v.our of the second respondent is with uiterior<\/p>\n
ix\/7<\/p>\n
-4-<\/span><\/p>\n
motive in order to help respondent No.2, though<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 has quoted higher price than the<\/p>\n
petitioner; that the vehicles which were being used\ufb02by.<\/p>\n
the petitioner in the earlier years are <\/p>\n
respondent No.2 in this year aisomand tha’tv–th.ere::fo~rVe   <\/p>\n
respondent No.1 is not justified in.,co:_nteindri.n.’g.’tiiaitilthgetfl<\/p>\n
vehicles supplied by the petit_i’oner   be l<\/p>\n
used-   E .g  it  c c\n<\/p>\n
4. Writ petition  o’ippmera.rg.i\u00a7y< the learned<\/p>\n
Governrrierit,rA;dvo:i:a\u00abte',.'.Vg"byit'Filing; the statement of<\/p>\n
objections.'  of objections, it is<\/p>\n
contended that' the tender of the petitioner is not<\/p>\n
'-itsV.3CC\u20ac'i5\u00a3\u00e9Ci"viii"..\u00e9V5\u20aclNV"""'(3f'V his past conduct; that the<\/p>\n
i'p\u00abet'it_i.o'rief'awialsia-.e1intrusted with the work of supply of<\/p>\n
  cars'~-for V_ti'ie1'period from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009, i.e.,<\/p>\n
 iastlyear, but service provided by the petitioner<\/p>\n
-w’a_s*unsatisfactory; In that regard, seven notices<\/p>\n
V’<\/p>\n
-5-<\/span><\/p>\n
were issued to the petitioner; that since the petitioner<\/p>\n
did not supply the cars as required, an amo.o’~ntj..\u00bbofvv<\/p>\n
?5,500\/– was deducted from the payment <\/p>\n
in favour of the petitioner.’E–n.  if<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 submits thatA1″thie__z’petitioner. <\/p>\n
imposed fine of 35,000\/– for
\nduring the month of.j:4’U.,\u00a2;e  fciziausef 17 of
\nthe agreement.__ Becagsye of the
\npetition e r,    –.1;’\u00a3.\/  ~  Apyrog ra rn wa s
\nadversgl\ufb01yyppi   regard to the
\naforernzentionwedyfavets’a:n”d..pircowirnstances, the tender of<\/p>\n
the petitioner vwias <\/p>\n
.  \\’  \u00a351-\u00a7”Th”e_;:ondit’ions found in the tender notification<\/p>\n
1’cwifesafrI’y…re.y”ea’.ithat the contract period is for one year<\/p>\n
i.e.”,~.. up_”to.iA4:3A1.3.2011. But strangeiy, the contract is<\/p>\n
iawardeici by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent<\/p>\n
if  No.2: for a period of two years i.e., up to 31.3.2012.<\/p>\n
}~”><\/p>\n
-5-<\/span><\/p>\n
It is a clear case of illegality, inasmuch as the first<\/p>\n
respondent cannot go beyond the termsj’~fanfd.Vv
\nconditions of the tender notification. Therefore}.5t”hVei'”~i–
\ncontract entrusted in favour of th’e”‘ser:orid  <\/p>\n
should be restricted to 31.3.20.i:1.,  is”r_elevan’t.:”to’:”i<\/p>\n
note that though responden”t\u00ab…V:VVi\\io.2this._se.ry.ed”:.v”y\u00a7iith’ a
\nnotice, has remainedabsentlfagndfher’-has not filed any<\/p>\n
objections.\n<\/p>\n
Be ‘tcoyntract entrusted in
\nfavour”of”thesysecbrid’respon’deint has to be restricted
\nto 31.3.2011’  specific condition found in<\/p>\n
the terider riotifi~c.a–tio’n.”\n<\/p>\n
‘  ..Vrlvoweiv:e’r_.__this Court does not find any ground to<\/p>\n
interfere yyitfhvfthe order pertaining to entrustment of<\/p>\n
“._,’contrac’t\u00ab;_in favour of the second respondent. It is no
\n true that the rates quoted by the second<\/p>\n
V,.._’::mrespondent are on higher side as compared to<\/p>\n
it”\n<\/p>\n
petitioner’s rates. But that ground alone cannot come<\/p>\n
to the aid of the petitioner, inasmuch as the pet–%t’i’o.’n~eyr’*.._’<\/p>\n
had failed to perform his duties entrusted <\/p>\n
year. In order to satisfy itself, th’e'”C’ou_rt._di,reAcVtf;d: the <\/p>\n
iearned Government to secure the’.__r\u00e9cVords.ofAthas <\/p>\n
respondent and the learned C3″o..\\:\/\ufb01ernment_V_Ad\u00a7;=oVc’a\u00a5te”Vhas
\nsubmitted the records-%..  first
\nrespondent. Thesaid  the notices
\nwere issued   respondent
\non various g  f ii;y4}%f6.2009, 5.6.2009,
\n2.7.2009, L  28.7.2009 and<\/p>\n
31.7.2007;’–_:All_ these  were clearly reveal that<\/p>\n
_.__the p\u00e9gtivtiioner ha–s:VV0_Qtsuppiied cars as required under<\/p>\n
V7__thV\u00e9’*t.end_er.’agreement. The records also reveal that<\/p>\n
an’.’a’rno.u’n’t’.j..’\u00a2’fVV’\u00a7’5,5O0\/~ was deducted by the first<\/p>\n
 ‘V.r’espo’nde’r)tvout of the amounts to which the petitioner<\/p>\n
A “\u00abwaVsi”eA_ntitled to in respect of the last year’s contract,<\/p>\n
.   cieariy means that the first respondent was not<\/p>\n
i\/3<\/p>\n
satisfied with the performance of the petitioner in the<\/p>\n
East year. Ciause 28 of the tender notifieati_On”*.._<\/p>\n
provides that the first respondent has a right\u00ab.,’:eitheVr:.a:’to  ‘<\/p>\n
accept or to reject the tender. Since the’ p’etitio’r:’erV:d–iLr1 <\/p>\n
not perform as the agreement ente’red~.,iAnto binithe <\/p>\n
2009-10, this Court does not  erro’r.i’n
\nrespondent in rejectin;::i:’~the  Vo\ufb01pthe ‘pet’itioner.
\nAccordingly, the Vwork  of the
\nsecond respon_de’:fi,t1″Vfof’–.Athe’: 1.4.2010 to
\n31.11.2011 is yyith. Hence, the
\nfoliowingv . ‘\n<\/p>\n
a)’ T  of–..’:,co’htract with which
\n_ — .. _ the second ‘respondent is entrusted,
\n‘   ls~..restriCte=ti’up to 31.3.2011.
\nb.):”‘i?’resi’1.?’notification will have to be
\nV  ~’S\u00a7\u00e9?.:’ed by the first respondent<\/p>\n
0 ~~ vhcalling for tenders for supplying of<\/p>\n
 cars, for the period from 1.4.2011.\n<\/p>\n
%;–~”\\<\/p>\n
mg.\n<\/p>\n
C) The order of the first respondent<\/p>\n
relating to entrustrnent of work in  <\/p>\n
favour of the second respondent uga\ufb02j
\nto 31.32011 is not interfered witi\u00e9,__:’  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Maregowda vs Karnataka Watershed Development on 27 October, 2010 Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar IN THE HIGH counr or KARNATAKA AT BANeALorf;:E\u00bbe’ DATED THIS THE 27″” DAY or ocToBER,_2:010 :-‘–.fj _kf% BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRJUSTJZCE MOHA AsHgu\u00abaTAmg\u00a7e\u00a7jL:&%b\u00a74jp2. L’e wan PETITION No.1%:a4 r:3e5\/2010A(c;M4TEr~4) BETWEEN: r ” V5 Maregowda S\/cxchannamaraiah Aged 54 years _’ __ : […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130038","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMaregowda vs Karnataka Watershed Development on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maregowda vs Karnataka Watershed Development on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-18T14:10:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maregowda vs Karnataka Watershed Development on 27 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-18T14:10:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":991,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Maregowda vs Karnataka Watershed Development on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-18T14:10:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maregowda vs Karnataka Watershed Development on 27 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Maregowda vs Karnataka Watershed Development on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maregowda vs Karnataka Watershed Development on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-18T14:10:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maregowda vs Karnataka Watershed Development on 27 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-18T14:10:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010"},"wordCount":991,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010","name":"Maregowda vs Karnataka Watershed Development on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-18T14:10:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maregowda-vs-karnataka-watershed-development-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maregowda vs Karnataka Watershed Development on 27 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130038","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130038"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130038\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130038"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130038"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130038"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}