- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4001 WP No. 100397 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.100397 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SAASK DEVELOPERS, #61, GROUND FLOOR, 22ND WARD, ARVIND NAGAR, HOSPETE-583201, VIJAYANGAR DISTRICT, R/BY ITS PARTNER, MR. SYED NIZAMUDDIN. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI DISTRICT, OPP. RAILWAY STATION, BALLARI-583101. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, T.B. DAM ROAD, TSPL BUILDING, HOSPET-583201. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE, T.B. DAM ROAD, TSPL BUILDING, HOSPET-583201. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, HOSPET MUNICIPALITY, Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4001 WP No. 100397 of 2024 HOSPET-583201. 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HOSPET, HOSPET TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, HOSPET-583201. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, HOSPET, HOSPET TALUK, VIJAYANGAR DISTRICT, HOSPET-583201. 7. MR. LOKESH P.N. THEN ASST. COMMISSIONER, HOSPET, NOW ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANGERE, KARUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, DAVANGERE-577006. 8. MR. VISHWANATH H., THEN TAHSILDAR HOSPET, NOW TAHSILDAR, SIRAGUPPA, SIRUGUPPA-583102, BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1-R3, R5-R8; SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 03-10-2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N. NO. NA SA HO/ TANTRIKA/ KAAMAGARI/2022-23 AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO RELEASE A TOTAL SUM OF RS.10.47 LAKHS TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN TOWARDS THE WORKS DONE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HOSPET RESPONDENT NO.5 AND TAHSILDAR, HOSPET THE RESPONDENT NO.6, IN THE EVENT THIS HON’BLE COURT COMES TO A FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT NO.7 AND 8 HAVE EXCEEDED THEIR JURISDICTION FOR GETTING THE WORKS THEN THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO RELEASE A TOTAL SUM OF RS.10.47 LAKHS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4001 WP No. 100397 of 2024 TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND RECOVER THE SAME WITH INTEREST FROM THE SALARIES OF THE RESPONDENT NOS.7 AND 8. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue writ of certiorari quash the Impugned endorsement dated 03-10-2022 issued by the Respondent No.4 produced at Annexure-N. no. na sa ho/ tantrika/ kaamagari/2022-23; b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent no.4 to release a total sum of Rs.10.47 Lakhs to the Petitioner herein towards the works done by the petitioner to the office of the Assistant Commissioner Hospet Respondent No.5 and Tahsildar, Hospet The Respondent No.6; OR c. In the event this Hon’ble Court comes to a finding that the Respondent No.7 and 8 have exceeded their jurisdiction for getting the works then the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.4 to release a total sum of Rs.10.47 Lakhs to the Petitioner herein and recover the same with interest from the salaries of the Respondent Nos.7 and 8. d. Pass any other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the above case, in the ends of justice and equity. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4001 WP No. 100397 of 2024 2. The grievance of the petitioner was that the petitioner having carried out certain works at the office of respondents No.5 and 6 and bills having been raised, the same had not been paid. The reason for the same stated to be that no tender had been issued and contract issued to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the work had been done as per the instructions of respondent No.7-the former Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.8-the former Tahasildar, which was sought to be denied by the present Assistant Commissioner and Tahasildar. It is in that background, the former Assistant Commissioner and Tahasildar are directed to file the affidavits, which is so filed. 3. A perusal of the same, indicated that there is a admission made by the Tahasildar that the work had been directed to be carried out but, no contract had been awarded. Thus, in fact the petitioner had been permitted to carry out the work without awardal of tender or a work order. 4. In that background that the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department was directed to look into the matter and file - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4001 WP No. 100397 of 2024 an affidavit. Despite several opportunities having been granted, no affidavit has been filed. This Court vide order dated 27.02.2025 had observed that if the affidavit is not filed, adverse inference would have to be drawn and the matter proceeded with. An Affidavit is not filed hence adverse inference is drawn. 5. In the above circumstances, it is clear that respondent No.7 and 8 had called upon the petitioner to carry out the work. Though there was no tender issued or work order issued, the petitioner has carried out the work and submitted the bill. In that background, the petitioner, who has carried out the work, cannot be deprived of the monies expanded by the petitioner in terms of the bills produced. However, these bills would have to be verified in terms of the work, which has been done, which would have to be so done by respondent No.3. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4001 WP No. 100397 of 2024 ii) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the bills, which have been submitted by the petitioner, verify the works which have happened, certify the amounts and then make payment of the due amount, if any, on the said bills. The entire process to be completed within a period of 8 weeks from date of receipt of copy of the order. iii) The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department is directed to initiate such appropriate proceeding against respondent No.7 and 8 for having got work done by the petitioner without following the procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 and submit a report within 4 weeks’ from today. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM/-. CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1