Sri N Ramesh vs. Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri N Ramesh, a successful bidder, sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents (Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Chitradurga; Project Director, District Urban Development Cell, Chitradurga; and Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga) to release payment for work done under two work orders dated June 13, 2022, and June 16, 2022, totaling Rs. 1,97,91,538.66 including GST. The petitioner had completed the work and submitted representations for payment, but the bills remained uncleared. The respondents filed statements of objections. Respondent No. 2's objections indicated that proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-R8) crystallized the payable amount to the petitioner as Rs. 26,18,227/-, including GST, and declined the remaining claim.
Held
The Court held that the correctness of the rejected claim, beyond the admitted amount of Rs. 26,18,227/-, cannot be adjudicated upon in the present writ proceedings due to the factually dense aspects requiring appreciation. The Court directed Respondent No. 1 to take steps to clear the admitted bills of Rs. 26,18,227/- and Respondent No. 3 to facilitate such clearance. Regarding the remaining declined claim, the Court stated that it is for the petitioner to take necessary steps to have such claim adjudicated as per law. If the petitioner chooses to approach the Civil Court, the time spent in the writ proceedings would be taken note of appropriately under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Court also directed that payment of the admitted amount should be endeavored to be made within four months. The issue of the correctness of the rejected claim beyond the admitted amount was expressly left undecided in these writ proceedings.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court can adjudicate the correctness of the rejected portion of the petitioner's claim, beyond the admitted amount of Rs. 26,18,227/-, in the present writ proceedings, considering the factual density involved? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents should be directed to release the full payment as per the work orders and that their representations should be considered. The petitioner sought a direction to release payment pursuant to the work orders and to consider their various representations made to the respondents. Respondents' contention: Respondent No. 2's statement of objections, referring to proceedings at Annexure-R8, indicated that the Deputy Commissioner had crystallized the payable amount to Rs. 26,18,227/- including GST, and declined the remaining claim. Respondent No. 1 submitted that bill clearance is dependent on government fund release, but the primary responsibility lies with Respondent No. 1. The respondents contended that the correctness of the rejected claim, beyond the admitted amount, cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings due to the factually dense aspects requiring appreciation.
Sections Cited
Section 14
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER NO.NASACHI/TANTRIKA(1)/CR/2022-23/13 DTD 13.06.2022 WORK ORDER NO.NASACHI/TANTRIKA(1)/CR/ /2022-23/13 DTD 16.06.2022 ADDRESSED TO R1 FOR A SUM OF RS.1,97,91,538.66/- INCLUDING GST (ANNEXURES-L, P, T) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner in this petition has sought for the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondents herein to release payment to the petitioner pursuant to the Two Work Order No. NASACHI/TANTRIKA(1)/CR//2022- 23/13 dated 13.06.2022 Work Order No. NASACHI/ TANTRIKA(1)/CR//2022-23/13 dated 16.06.2022 addressed to Respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs. 1,97,91,538.66/- including G.S.T (Annexures-L, P,T) b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent no.3 to consider the letter dated 17.08.2023 and 16.09.2023 to release the payments to the petitioner pursuant to the Two Order Work No. NASACHI/TANTRIKA(1)/CR//2022-23/13 dated 13.06.2022 NC: 2025:KHC:11731 Work Order No. 16.06.2022 NASACHI/TANTRIKA(1)/CR/ /2022-23/13 dated 16.06.2022 for a sum of Rs. Rs.1,97,91,538.66/- including G.S.T (Annexures Q & S) c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 11.08.2022, 15.07.2023, 19.08.2023 and 05.10.2023 issued by the petitioner to the respondents (Annexures L, N, P & T respectively) …." Further, the petitioner submits that the representations have been made to the respondents at Annexures-L, N, P and T, which require to be considered.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was notified through E-procurement by the respondents. The petitioner was a successful bidder.
It is further case of the petitioner that after he has completed his work, he has made representations to the respondents to clear the bills. Despite such representations, it is the stand of petitioner that bills raised for the work done have not been cleared. NC: 2025:KHC:11731
Statement of Objections have been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondent No.
In the statement of objections of respondent No.2, Annexure-'R8' are the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner and in terms of the said proceedings of Deputy Commissioner, the amount payable to the petitioner is crystallized as Rs.26,18,227/- including the GST component.
It is further submitted that the remaining claim of petitioner has been declined in terms of the proceedings at Annexure-'R8'. The rejection of claim with respect to the amount apart from admitted claim of Rs.26,18,227/- cannot be adjudicated upon as to it correctness in the present proceedings, in light of such adjudication requiring appreciation of factually dense aspects.
Accordingly, insofar as the admitted amount referred to above, the respondent No.1 to take steps to clear the bills and respondent No.3 is to take necessary steps to facilitate such clearance of bills of respondent No.1. NC: 2025:KHC:11731
Sri S. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that clearance of bills is also dependent on Government releasing the funds. However, the Court would not intervene into such aspect, while making it clear that the primary responsibility to clear is with respondent No.
Insofar as the remaining claim of petitioner is declined as per the proceedings at Annexure-'R8', it is for the petitioner to take necessary steps to have such claim adjudicated as per law.
In the event, if the petitioner is advised to approach Civil Court, needless to state that the time spent in these proceedings would be taken note of appropriately in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act by the appropriate Court. The payment to the petitioner is to be endeavoured to be made within a period of four months. (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP/VGR
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.