M/S N D Waddar And Company vs. The Karnataka Neervari Nigam

In order avoid to repetition, facts only of WP no.106691/2023 would be recited. This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs: a. Issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.2 to take decision on the letter addressed to it by 3rd respondent as per Annexure-D ¸ÀA:PÁ.¤EA/£ÀA.6/PÁ.«/PÀ.¤Ã.¤.¤/vÁ.±Á/2021-22 964 dated 30/10/2021 and release/reimburse the amount entitled by the petitioner as per the representation dated 12/10/2021 vide Annexure- “C” in the interest of justice and equity.

Sri Shivakuamr S.Badawadgi, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has submitted bid for execution of various works under respondent. On 22.11.2017 petitioner’s bid was accepted and tender agreement was NC: 2024:KHC-D:4597 executed between petitioner and respondent no.

It was submitted that petitioner completed work on 15.05.2020 and that Chief Engineer of respondent No.1 – Karnataka Neeravari Nigam had issued completion certificate on 21.09.2020. It was submitted that since during execution of work, tax regime transitioned from Karnataka Value Added Tax to Central Goods and Services Tax, with consequent increase in tax burden on petitioner contractor. Therefore, he submitted representation dated 12.10.2021 as per Annexure-C to respondent no.

Upon receipt, respondent no.3 as per communication dated 30.10.2023 at Annexure-D forwarded petitioner’s representation to respondent no.

Alleging that petitioner representation had not seen any progress thereafter, this writ petition is filed for direction to consider same.

It was submitted that this Court in WP no.9721/2019 with connected matters disposed on 11.04.2023 under similar circumstances had directed respondent to consider claim of contractors and pass orders thereon and therefore, sought for allowing writ petition. NC: 2024:KHC-D:4597

On other hand, Shivaraj S.Bellakki, learned counsel for respondent no.3 would submit whether petitioner would be entitled for reimbursement of amount claimed in representation etc. would be question of fact required to be determined by respondent and in case petitioner submits records or further representation, respondent no.2 would consider same and pass appropriate orders within reasonable time.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused writ petition record.

From above, it is seen that only relief sought by petitioner is for direction to respondent no.2 to take a decision on petitioner’s representation at Annexure-C forwarded by respondent no.

But same would involve determination of facts. Therefore, without going into merits of petitioner’s claim, writ petition is disposed of directing respondent no.2 to consider petitioner’s representation as forwarded by respondent no.3, in light of directions issued by this Court in WP no.9721/2019 with connected matters disposed on 11.04.2023 in accordance with law, within an outer limit of eight weeks, from date of receipt of certified copy of order. It would be open NC: 2024:KHC-D:4597 for respondent no.2 to seek clarification or documents from petitioner for effective consideration, if same is not available with it. Order to be passed after considering petitioner's representation on merits. Needless to observe, that result of consideration to be informed to the petitioner. JUDGE