R. N. Parameshwarappa vs. State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court held that the petitioners were justified in their contention that the Schedule of Rates (SoR) had not been revised since 2014. It noted that Clause 8 of the Karnataka Public Works Departmental Code, 2014, clearly mandates annual revision of the SoR, outlining the methodology for working out rates based on lowest tendered rates and price fluctuations. The Court observed that while ad-hoc increases were made through orders dated February 6, 2018, February 20, 2018, and March 12, 2018 (Annexures B, C, and D), these were not a comprehensive revision and Annexure-D even indicated the withdrawal of some ad-hoc rates. Consequently, the Court found it incumbent upon the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations. The Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the representations dated March 15, 2018, April 20, 2018, and May 18, 2018, within three months, subject to the petitioners establishing receipt of these representations. If receipt is disputed, the petitioners were given liberty to submit fresh representations within ten days, which would also be considered within three months of receipt.

Facts

The petitioners, registered Class-1 PWD Contractors in Karnataka, filed writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondents (State of Karnataka and its Public Works Department officials) to revise the Schedule of Rates (SoR) and consider their representations dated March 15, 2018, April 20, 2018, and May 18, 2018. The petitioners' grievance was that the SoR had not been revised since 2014, despite the Karnataka Public Works Department Code mandating annual revision. They also highlighted that the introduction of GST in July 2017 had increased material costs, making the existing rates unsustainable. The respondents contended that the submitted representations lacked acknowledgment of receipt and suggested the petitioners submit fresh representations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to revise the Schedule of Rates annually as per Clause 8 of the Karnataka Public Works Departmental Code, 2014? - Petitioners argued that the Code mandates annual revision and that the failure to do so, especially after the introduction of GST, has led to financial hardship. They relied on the Code itself. - Respondents did not explicitly argue against the obligation to revise but raised a procedural issue regarding the acknowledgment of representations. 2. Whether the representations submitted by the petitioners are liable to be considered by the respondents? - Petitioners contended that their representations addressed the critical issue of outdated SoR and the impact of GST and therefore deserved consideration. They relied on Annexures E, F, and G. - Respondents argued that since the representations lacked acknowledgment, fresh representations should be submitted for consideration.