- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30465 WP No. 11251 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11251 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: M/S NANTIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, NO. 1316, 2ND CROSS, K.H.B COLONY, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 079 REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER, AMIT SHARMA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KANISHK RAVINDRAN.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA HOUSING DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. RAJIV GANDHI HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, (RGHCL), CAUVERY BHAVAN, 9TH FLOOR, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30465 WP No. 11251 of 2025 C AND F BLOCK, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. BELGAVI CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CTS NO 4821/27A RSNO 1005, SUBHASH NAGAR BELAGAVI KARNATAKA - 590016. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 4. M/S IMPRINTS NO. 55, FIRST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, BETWEEN 5TH AND 6TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER REG UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956). 5. M/S CHETANA CONSORTIUM CHETANA HOUSE NO. 3/1, 10TH CROSS, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (REG UNDER COMPANIES ACT. 1956). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1; SMT. SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30465 WP No. 11251 of 2025 LETTER OF TERMINATION DATED 28.03.2025 BEARING NO. RGHCL 84 VHK 62 2021-21 VIDE ANNEXURES-C; DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO HAND OVER THE SITE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND FURTHER DIRECT RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO CONDUCT HUD BUST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE DATED 04.02.2025 BEARING REF. NO. 700008/RGHCL/BELGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-B; DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO REFUND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED TO A TUNE OF RS. 4,93,01,467/- WAS ENCASHED WHICH BY FORFEITING/INVOCATION OF THE BANK GUARANTEE EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 04.02.2025 BEARING REF. NO. 700008/RGHCL/609 BELGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE- B ALONG WITH ANNEXURE-E VIDE REF. NO. 700008/RGHCL/BELGAVI/008 DATED 03.04.2025. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has successfully participated in the tender floated by the second respondent for construction of dwelling units at Alarwad and Angola - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30465 WP No. 11251 of 2025 in Belagavi. The second respondent has floated this tender under the Pradhana Mantri Awas Yojana [Urban]. The petitioner seeks directions to the second respondent to hand over the construction site after the third respondent [Belagavi City Municipal Corporation] conducts hudbust [the proceedings for fixing of boundaries] and for directions to the second respondent to refund the amount of Rs.4,93,01,467/- The second respondent has received this amount invoking the bank guarantee offered by the petitioner. 2. When this petition was listed on 09.04.2025 Ms. Sumana Baliga, the learned counsel for second respondent, perhaps to ensure that there is no precipitation has stated that no fresh tenders would be issued till the next date of hearing, and this arrangement is continued and continues to be in force as of today. It is because of this undertaking Ms. Sumana Baliga makes a request for expeditious disposal of the petition with the alternative request - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30465 WP No. 11251 of 2025 for permission to issue fresh tenders. Mr. Kanishk Ravindran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is heard for disposal of this petition. 3. The petitioner premises its grievance essentially on the assertion that the second respondent has failed to provide an encumbrance free site for commencement of construction and to ensure that the construction is free of encumbrance, the third respondent must ensure hudbust. The petitioner has also stated about repeated efforts made to commence construction but to no avail. The learned counsel submits that even before the work order is terminated, the second respondent has forfeited the bank guarantee. 4. Ms. Sumana Baliga, on the other hand, places on record a set of photographs [one of which reads as under], to assert that the petitioner has commenced construction but has abandoned the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30465 WP No. 11251 of 2025 same without any justification and therefore the work order is cancelled and bank guarantee forfeited. 5. This Court must observe that the petitioner’s cause against the second respondent and even other respondents is steeped in factual matrix and a detailed enquiry would be necessary, but more importantly if the second respondent has not been able to provide an encumbrance-free site, the petitioner cannot insist upon execution of the construction under the work order. It should be at - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30465 WP No. 11251 of 2025 the second respondent's discretion to decide on whether there must be another tender. 6. As such, there cannot be a direction to the second respondent to hand over the site. Insofar as the petitioner's cause against the invocation of bank guarantee, it would suffice for this Court to observe that the petitioner must work out its remedy as is permissible in law separately and not in the present proceedings. Hence, the petition stands disposed of subject to all just exceptions. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr