- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42792-DB WP No. 8448 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 8448 OF 2024 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SUBHASH S/O RAMAPPA @ RAMANAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC: CONTRACTOR RESIDENT OF SIDDARAMESHWAR NAGAR WARD NO.7, MUDHOL - 587 313 DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.P. KULKARNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI VASANTHAKUMAR K.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (C AND B) NORTH DHARWAD - 580 008. Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42792-DB WP No. 8448 of 2024 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT NEAR DURGADEVI TEMPLE CAMP AREA BELGAUM - 590 001. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT BAGALKOT - 587 101. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT BAGALKOT - 587 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER No.Lo.E/ViBha/Ugran/Usuku/WP No.104437/2018(MMS)/2021-22 DATED 04.06.2021 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, BAGALKOT DIVISION, BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE (ANNEXURE-K) & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42792-DB WP No. 8448 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 04.06.2021 passed by the third respondent (Executive Engineer, PWD, Bagalkot) being arbitrary, erroneous and opposed to law. The petitioner also impugns the proceedings dated 06.08.2021 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Engineer, CAB North, Dharwad being arbitrary and unreasonable. 2. It is the petitioner's case that certain work orders were issued to the petitioner for mining sand and transporting the sand from Malaprabha river basin, falling within the limits of Chettinahal, Papatnal, Chittaragi, Chinnapur, Palathi and Hiremagi villages of Hungund Taluk, Bagalkot District, and stocking the mined sand at Government designated stockyards. These work orders were issued during the period 26.09.2011 to 03.12.2011. The petitioner claims that since there were no approach roads for transportation of the mined sand from the river basin to reach the public roads - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42792-DB WP No. 8448 of 2024 and then to the Government's stockyard, a joint inspection was conducted in December 2011; estimates for laying the approach roads were prepared in 2011-2012; and the petitioner was directed to lay the approach roads. The roads were made in the lands of respective private land owners on payment of compensation. The petitioner made the said roads and performed the contract work of transportation of mined sand. 3. The petitioner also states that since the matter was urgent as the PWD was required to construct houses to rehabilitate people displaced from flash floods during the period August to September 2011. 4. The petitioner claims that after laying the approach roads on payment of compensation to land owners, the petitioner executed the work of transportation of sand from the river basin to the designated stockyards. Insofar as the invoices for transportation of sand from river basin to designated stockyards is concerned, the PWD paid the bills in the year 2013. The petitioner claims that thereafter it started "dilly dallying" in the matter of payment for laying of approach roads and of compensation as per their estimates. The petitioner alleges that unless the demands for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42792-DB WP No. 8448 of 2024 illegal gratification were met, the PWD authorities were not inclined to make the payments and kept the bills pending for an indefinite period. 5. The petitioner claims that during the period 2013 to 2015, the petitioner made several representations for payment of his legitimate dues to officers as well as higher Government Officials, but the said representations did not elicit any positive response. 6. On 16.12.2015, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka, PWD seeking payments as per their estimates prepared earlier. However, the said representation also did not elicit any response. 7. The petitioner states that the Superintendent Engineer had also recommended that the petitioner’s bills be cleared but the same were not. The petitioner relies on a letter dated 16.11.2017 issued by the Superintendent Engineer, PWD addressed to the Chief Engineer, C&B North, Dharwad, recommending that the pending bills be approved referring to the Government notification dated 02.07.2011. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42792-DB WP No. 8448 of 2024 8. Since the petitioner did not receive any response to his representations, he filed a writ petition being WP.No.104437/2018, inter alia, praying that the directions be issued to respondents to consider the representation dated 16.12.2015 along with the letter dated 16.11.2017 and to direct the respondents to make the payments of the amounts as reflected in the petition. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 08.03.2021. 9. It is material to note that the respondents had contested the maintainability of the said petition and contended that the claims raised by the petitioner were arising out of a contract and thus could not be considered in a writ petition. However, the learned Single Judge did not accept the said contention and directed respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 16.02.2015 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of the said petition. In compliance of the said order, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 04.06.2021, out-rightly rejecting the claims made by the petitioner and questioning the executive. Respondent No.3 found that the claims were not genuine. Subsequently, proceedings were held under the Chairmanship of the Chief Engineer, C&B, North - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42792-DB WP No. 8448 of 2024 Dharwad on 06.08.2021 and the claims made by the petitioner were not accepted. 10. Thereafter, in the year 2022, the petitioner filed another writ petition being WP.No.8547/2022(GM-MM-S), inter alia, praying that directions be issued to the respondents to comply with the order dated 08.03.2021. The said petition was taken up by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 13.01.2023 and after some arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to take appropriate proceedings as available under law. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. 11. Thereafter, the petitioner once again filed a writ petition being WP.No.104397/2023 before the Dharwad Bench of this Court reiterating the prayers made in the earlier petition. The said petition was disposed of by the Court on 10.01.2024. The Court found that the petition was not maintainable on the ground that the subject matter related to sand mining and its transportation and therefore, the matters were required to be considered by the designated Green Bench of this Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42792-DB WP No. 8448 of 2024 12. The facts of the present case clearly indicate that the petitioner has been filing repeated petitions for seeking amounts in respect of his claims for works allegedly done. The issues involve disputed questions of fact and it is not apposite to entertain such disputes in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. As noted above, the petitioner after presenting arguments for some time, withdrew his writ petition being WP.No.8547/2022. The order dated 13.01.2023 disposing of the said petition indicates that the petition was withdrawn with liberty to take appropriate remedies. Filing another petition seeking the same relief before another bench of this Court is, clearly, not an appropriate remedy. 14. The petitioner claims that the Court had orally observed that the petitioner should approach the Bench at Dharwad. The order permitting withdrawal of WP.No.8547/2022 does not record any such observations. The practice of attributing oral observations which are not found in the orders passed by Court, has been deprecated by the Supreme court in several orders. It is the settled law that an order of a Court must be read as it reads. There is no indication in the order dated 13.01.2023 that any liberty was - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42792-DB WP No. 8448 of 2024 granted to the petitioner to refile the writ petition before another Bench. 15. It also appears that any claim made by the petitioner for the work done in the year 2013 would be barred by limitation. Concededly, the first proceedings instituted by the petitioner for claiming the said amount was in the year 2018. 16. In the given circumstances we consider it apposite to dismiss this petition with costs of Rs.25,000/-. It is so directed. The costs shall be deposited with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within a period of 2 weeks from date. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48