- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26294 WP No. 20545 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 20545 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. ANWAR SADATH S, S/O LATE HASANABBA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, GRADE I CONTRCTOR, R/AT NO.20/8, PATE HOUSE, KASHIMATA, SURATKAL, MANGALURU, D K DISTRICT-575014. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.LETHIF B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY 2. THE ADDITIIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALURU-575001. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26294 WP No. 20545 of 2024 4. THE COMMISSIONER, MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA-575001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION AT ANNX-G DTD 12.06.2024 BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE ENTIRE BILL AMOUNT IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER FORTH WITH AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Caption petition is filed by a class I contractor alleging in action on the part of respondents/authorities in not releasing the pending bills despite completion of 80% of the work and de horse representation submitted to the competent authorities. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, and the learned Additional Government Advocate for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26294 WP No. 20545 of 2024 respondent Nos.1 to 3. Though various contentions have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the details regarding the work executed and the corresponding pending bill are set out in paragraph No.6 of the writ petition, this Court is of the view that the communication dated 14.05.2025, issued by respondent No.4 to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Urban Development, substantially addresses and resolves the grievance raised in the present writ petition. 3. While the learned counsel for respondent No.4 has referred to certain averments in the writ petition to argue that the petitioner himself admits that the entire work has not yet been accomplished, a holistic reading of paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the communication dated 14.05.2025 makes it clear that the core issues stand clarified. For ease of reference, paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the said communication are extracted herein below: “4. At present, this Corporation does nto have any balance funds under the Mahatma Gandhi Nagara Vikasa Yojana and the only available other source in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26294 WP No. 20545 of 2024 corporation is P-FAR Interest amount, amounting to Rs.16.14 Crores. 5. In view of the above, you kindselfis requested to quide us in the said matter as to how the said due payment may be disbursed to Sri Anwar Sadath for the said pending amount of 9,50,61,861.00 (Details attached in annexure)” 4. It is trite law that recovery of money, being a disputed question of fact, ordinarily falls within the domain of the civil courts, where the parties are required to substantiate their respective claims and discharge the burden of proof by instituting a suit before a competent forum. However, this principle is not without exception. In a given set of circumstances, particularly where the claim is made against the State or its instrumentalities, and such claim is not seriously disputed by the concerned authority which received the services, the writ courts, in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have intervened and issued appropriate directions. When a citizen, more particularly a contractor, has executed public work and seeks payment from a State agency which does not seriously dispute the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26294 WP No. 20545 of 2024 execution or quality of such work, and if no alternate efficacious remedy is readily available or would operate oppressively, the High Court is not precluded from granting limited relief, especially when larger public interest and fairness in governance are involved. 5. In the present case, a reading of paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the communication dated 14.05.2025, issued by respondent No.4 – Corporation to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Urban Development, unequivocally demonstrates that the Corporation has acknowledged the execution of the contracted work by the petitioner. The Corporation has not only recognized the performance of the work but has also formally brought it to the notice of the State Government by way of the said communication. In light of these admitted facts, the petitioner, having fulfilled the contractual obligations, acquires a corresponding legal right to seek redress before this Court for issuance of appropriate directions. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26294 WP No. 20545 of 2024 6. The role of respondent Nos.1 to 3 becomes significant in this context. Being recipients of the communication from respondent No.4, they cannot remain passive or indifferent. They are equally bound to act on the said communication and examine the petitioner’s claim for payment in accordance with law. Moreover, the State and its instrumentalities must act sensitively and fairly in matters involving public works. When a contractor has invested substantial funds, resources, and manpower to execute infrastructure or developmental works that benefit the public at large, it is incumbent on the authorities to respond with commensurate administrative responsibility. Undue delay or refusal to process legitimate claims, particularly when there is acknowledgment by the beneficiary department, undermines public trust and discourages participation in public projects. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26294 WP No. 20545 of 2024 7. In this background, the case warrants exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction, and this Court is of the considered opinion that a writ of mandamus deserves to be issued. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 12.06.2024 (Annexure–G) and to pass appropriate and reasoned orders in accordance with law. iii. While considering the said representation, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall also take into account the contents of the communication dated 14.05.2025, issued by respondent No.4 – Corporation to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Urban - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26294 WP No. 20545 of 2024 Development, which clearly acknowledges the execution of the work by the petitioner. iv. The above exercise shall be completed and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2