Shri M M Bahavikatti vs. The State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, Shri M. M. Bahavikatti, a civil contractor, was awarded a work order for the construction of a compound wall and improvements in a cremation area at Annigeri town. An agreement was executed on August 7, 2017. The petitioner claims to have completed the work, but a sum of Rs. 4,84,305/- remains outstanding, along with GST and interest from November 6, 2017. The petitioner submitted representations to respondents 2 to 4 (Deputy Commissioner, Chief Engineer, and Executive Engineer) which have allegedly not been considered for approximately four years. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions for the payment of the outstanding amount and interest.

Held

The Court observed that the petitioner's representations had been pending consideration for approximately four years. It held that the petitioner's remedy should not be frustrated by the lack of a decision on their pending requests. Therefore, the Court directed respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation and take a decision in a time-bound manner. The Court explicitly stated that it had not passed any order on the merits of the claim itself. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh representation within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order. The respondents were directed to take an appropriate decision and inform the petitioner within eight weeks of receiving such representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are liable to pay the outstanding balance amount of Rs. 4,84,305/- along with GST and interest to the petitioner for the completed work, as per the agreement dated 07.08.2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that the work has been successfully completed as per the tender and agreement, and a significant amount remains outstanding. They contend that their representations seeking payment have not been considered, necessitating judicial intervention. Respondents' contention: The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents submits that if there is any dispute regarding the payment for the work executed, the petitioner must pursue remedies available under the agreement dated 07.08.2017.