Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 42746 (KAR)

SRI. GURUNATH S. REVANKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/6191/2023 · 2025-10-14

E S Indiresh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40683 WP No. 6191 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.6191 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. GURUNATH S. REVANKAR S/O SHAMBA REVANKAR, AGED 64 YEARS NO.001, 'A' BLOCK KUMARADHARA BUILDING NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560047 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.B. ACHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001. REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA ) Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40683 WP No. 6191 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO. NAAAE 81 BANGBUSWA, 2022 DATED 06.03.2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALL OTHER REPORT AND OR OPINIONS SEEKING TO IMPLICATE THE PETITIONER FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE COM. A.S. NO.112/2019 AND ALL OR ANY ACTIONS WHICH ARE INITIATED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE COMMUNICATION PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER BE QUASHED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In this petition, petitioner is assailing the communication dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure-A) addressed by the respondent to the BDA, Bengaluru, with regard to taking action against the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40683 WP No. 6191 of 2023 2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this Writ Petition are that, the petitioner had served as a District and Sessions Judge and after retirement, the petitioner was appointed as a Law Officer - II at BDA on contract basis for a period of one year and served till 30.09.2019. It is pertinent to mention here that there was a dispute between the BDA and the Contractor of BDA for non payment of dues and as such, the matter was referred to the Arbitration Proceedings and an Award came to be passed on 05.11.2018, wherein the learned Arbitrator directed the BDA for payment of certain sum of money in the Award dated 05.11.2018 and the same was communicated to the BDA on 13.11.2018. Thereafter, on 06.12.2018 the file was made over to the Engineering Section of BDA and to the petitioner seeking opinion with regard to feasibility of filing appeal against the Award made by the Arbitrator. It is also forthcoming from the petition that, Arbitration Suit came to be filed against the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator and the said suit came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation in Arbitration Appeal i.e., Com. A.S. No.112/2019. As such, the respondent herein has addressed the letter dated 06.03.2023 to the BDA to take action against the petitioner for having not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40683 WP No. 6191 of 2023 given the proper opinion with regard to feasibility of filing appeal is concerned. Hence, this petition is filed by the petitioner. 3. Heard Sri. P.B. Achappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 4. Sri. P.B. Achappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, in the Arbitration Proceedings between the BDA and its Contractor, Award came to be passed on 05.11.2018 and same was communicated to BDA on 13.11.2018. On 06.12.2018, the file was sent to the Law Officer (petitioner) seeking opinion with regard to the filing of the appeal in the circumstances of the case. The Law Officer (petitioner) returned the file seeking for award copy. As such, on 10.12.2018, the file was re-submitted to the petitioner with the Award copy. On 11.12.2018, the petitioner has given the opinion stating that there is no feasibility of filing appeal against the Award made by the learned Arbitrator. In that view of the matter, it is argued by the learned counsel that, the opinion given by the petitioner herein is only advisory in nature - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40683 WP No. 6191 of 2023 and therefore, no action should have been taken against the petitioner herein as per Annexure-A to the petition. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay in filing the appeal cannot be attributed to the action of the petitioner as the petitioner herein has given an opinion immediately with regard to feasibility of filing appeal and ultimately it is for the Authority to take decision in the matter. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, on 06.07.2019, the BDA took decision to file an appeal against the Award made by the learned Arbitrator for which the petitioner cannot be penalised as per Annexure-A and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 5. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HYDERABAD VS. K. NARAYANA RAO (Crl.A.No.1460/2012 disposed of on 21.09.2012) and BHASKAR BANERJEE Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANOTHER (C.R.R.No.1920/2014 disposed of on 08.04.2022) and submitted that the opinion expressed by the advocate / law - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40683 WP No. 6191 of 2023 officer is not binding on the parties and it is ultimately the Authority has to take decision with regard to feasibility of filing of the appeal and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure-A and submitted that the Arbitration Suit came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and therefore, sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure-A. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the impugned order would indicate that, the arbitration proceedings between the BDA and its Contractor was pending before the learned Arbitrator. The Award came to be passed by the learned Arbitrator on 05.11.2018 and same was communicated to BDA on 13.11.2018. Thereafter, on 06.12.2018, the Engineering Section of BDA has sent the file to the petitioner seeking opinion with regard to feasibility of filing of the appeal as such. It is also forthcoming from the records that, on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40683 WP No. 6191 of 2023 11.12.2018, opinion was rendered by the petitioner as a Law Officer of BDA. 8. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the BDA in its meeting dated 26.02.2019 has discussed with regard to settlement of the Arbitration Award and thereafter no decision was taken and accordingly acted based on the Minutes of the Meeting. In that view of the matter, delay in filing the appeal cannot be attributed to the petitioner as the petitioner herein being a Law Officer has given his opinion with regard to feasibility of filing of the appeal or not and even otherwise, taking into consideration the fact that the file was in the custody of the petitioner from 06.12.2018 to 11.12.2018 i.e., only for a period of five days. In that view of the matter, the reason assigned by the respondent to take action against the petitioner cannot be accepted. 9. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed. The communication dated 06.11.2023 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent in respect of the petitioner herein is hereby quashed and all further proceedings if any, shall also stand quashed against the petitioner accordingly. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40683 WP No. 6191 of 2023 10. It is also made clear that the aforementioned observation made by this Court exonerating the petitioner being the Law Officer is considering the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above and further, allowing this Writ Petition is only in respect of the relief prayed for by the petitioner herein, in this Writ Petition. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47