- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47736-DB WA No. 321 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT APPEAL NO.321 OF 2024 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI G K SHANTHARAJU S/O LATE KAPANAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS OCC-PROPRIETOR OF VINAYAKA ELECTRICAL ENTERPRISES R/A NO.36, GHBCS LAYOUT NEAR SUB REGISTRARS OFFICE BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE-560079 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.V.SHANKARNARAYANA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH RAJARAM T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. THE ENGINEER MEMBER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47736-DB WA No. 321 of 2024 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 …RESPONDENTS (R1- BDA, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE-SD; R2-THE ENGINEER MEMBER, BDA, BANGALURU-SD; R3-THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL), BDA, BENGALURU-SD; AJAY KUMAR M, ADVOCATE FOR R4) ******** THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No- 40491/2012(BDA) DATED 05.03.2013 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47736-DB WA No. 321 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 05.03.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.40491/2012 (BDA) by the learned Single Judge. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition. 3. The petitioner claims to be a Class-I Electrical Contractor. In pursuance to the tender notification dated 25.07.2003 issued by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'the BDA'), the petitioner had executed some work. It appears that there are some disputes regarding the work done by the petitioner and non-payment of the amount as claimed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the BDA has not paid a sum of ₹1,81,48,860/- and another sum of ₹ 30,00,000/- towards cost of the realignment of the lines, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47736-DB WA No. 321 of 2024 shifting of lines, i.e., the expenses which was incurred by the petitioner towards the electrification work executed at the layout. The petitioner made a representation dated 09.09.2009 calling upon the BDA to pay the aforesaid amount. 4. As the BDA did not pay the amount to the petitioner, he filed Writ Petition No.6541/2007 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 17.08.2009 directed the BDA to consider the claim of the petitioner and arrive at a fair and reasonable solution to the dispute. 5. In compliance of the said judgment passed by this Court, the BDA made an endorsement dated 25.11.2010 recommending payment of a sum of ₹26,33,121/- to the petitioner in respect of the work done by him, i.e., the payment which BDA found due and payable. 6. Dissatisfied by the said consideration and the amount determined by the BDA, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 40491/2012 (BDA) claiming the balance - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47736-DB WA No. 321 of 2024 amount from the BDA. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that disputed questions of fact are involved and as the writ Court cannot adjudicate the disputed questions of fact, petitioner ought to have resorted to remedy under the civil law, since constitutional/public law would not be available to him. 7. In sum and substance the petitioner's claim is a money claim in respect of the work executed by him for the BDA. In pursuance to the earlier judgment passed by this Court, the BDA has made payment of ₹26,00,000/-. Petitioner's claim is now more than ₹5,94,00,000/-. The claim has grown in leaps and bounds. The earlier claim was only for ₹1,81,48,860/-. Now it has grown to ₹5,94,69,621/- after receiving the payment of ₹26,00,000/-. 8. We do not find that this Court can adjudicate such a dispute in writ jurisdiction. We find no error in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47736-DB WA No. 321 of 2024 impugned judgment and order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. We also take note of the fact that the impugned judgment and order is passed in the year 2013 and this writ appeal has been filed in the year 2024 with a delay of 3022 days. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed both on the ground of inordinate delay, gross laches as well as on merit. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16