- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2102-DB WA No. 1086 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 1086 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. S.V. ENTERPRISES ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No. FLAT No.P-2/7 SAI PALACE, SY. No.150/A/1 AND 2 PAUD ROAD, BHUSARI COLONY KOTHRUD, PUNE PRESENT OFFICE AT: FLAT No.5 INDIRA APARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR ABOVE GOUTAM HOTEL, PAUD ROAD KOTHRUD, PUNE-411 038 MAHARASHTRA STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. K. NARASA REDDY S/O LATE K. CHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS PRESENT SITE OFFICE No.20 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH CROSS ROAD BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA SHETKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ROOM No.320, 3RD FLOOR VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2102-DB WA No. 1086 of 2021 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT URBAN DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY M.S. BUILDING VIDHANASOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE CHAIRMAN BWSSB, 1ST FLOOR CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 009 4. THE (PRINCIPAL) ENGINEER IN CHIEF BWSSB, 2ND FLOOR CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 009 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER WWM BWSSB, 5TH FLOOR CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 009 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WWM (K AND C VALLEY) DIVISION BWSSB, KADABEESANAHALLI, STP BENGALURU-560 037 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEVARAJ C.H., GA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2021 IN WP No.4835/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2102-DB WA No. 1086 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 2. This writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioner challenging as against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prayer in the writ petition was for a consideration of the legal notices/representations preferred by the petitioner at Annexure - K and Annexure - K1 and to take appropriate steps to make payment to the petitioner. Learned Single Judge has non-suited the appellant on the ground that the matter is one of contract and that since the valid contract determines the rights and obligations of the parties, a writ petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus would not be maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is absolutely no factual dispute between the parties and the respondents have also admitted that works had been completed by the appellant and the amounts are due. It is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2102-DB WA No. 1086 of 2021 submitted that in the above circumstances, the dismissal of the writ petition was completely unwarranted. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 6 submits that there was two contracts for the conduct of work by the appellant as claimed by the appellant. It is further submitted that the estimated work was for an amount of Rs.82,81,000/- for one work and Rs.25,60,000/- for other work. The works were commenced on 20.12.2006 and 08.06.2006, respectively and were actually completed by the appellant on 10.08.2007 and 15.11.2006. It is submitted that as regards the first work, the appellant was liable to be paid only Rs.62,47,692.50/- as per the actual measurements taken at the time of completion of the said work in the presence of the appellant. Out of which, the appellant had already been paid Rs.57,60,405.20 and hence, due amount is only Rs.4,87,287.74/-. With regard to the second work, it is submitted that though the estimated cost was Rs.25,60,000/- after the completion of the work, it was found that the appellant was liable to be paid only Rs.23,21,145.95/- as per the actual measurements taken after completion of the work in the presence of the appellant. It is further stated that as per - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2102-DB WA No. 1086 of 2021 the payment register, the appellant has already been paid Rs.21,57,230.10/- and the amount due is only Rs.1,63,915.85. It is therefore contended that the amount due is much lower than what has been claimed by the appellant. 6. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that it is an admitted case that two works as claimed by the appellant in the writ petition had actually being carried out by the writ petitioner and that amounts are due to be paid to the writ petitioner as claimed by him. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the details of the amounts claimed are available in Annexures-K and K1 and that the claim is liable to be considered in accordance with law, which was the only prayer sought for by the appellant in the writ petition. 8. Having considered the contentions advanced, we are of the opinion that the question as to the amount actually payable is the only dispute between the parties and in the absence of any specific dispute with regard to the works done by the appellant, the claim raised by the appellant is liable to be considered by the respondents. In the above view of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2102-DB WA No. 1086 of 2021 matter, this appeal is allowed. There will be a direction to the 5th respondent to take up Annexures - K and K1 and any further representation that the petitioner may wish to submit before the 5th respondent and to consider and pass orders on the same, after hearing the petitioner within four weeks. The amounts found due to be payable to the petitioner shall be paid with interest if any, as provided in the contract. The claim of the petitioner for refund of the Earnest Money Deposit and any other amounts due will also be duly considered by the 5th respondent. The admitted amounts if any, found to be payable to the appellant shall be paid forthwith, at any rate within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10