Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 90277 (KAR)

M/S KMV PROJECTS LTD v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/12898/2025 · 2025-12-09

Suraj Govindaraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52174 WP No. 12898 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12898 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. KMV PROJECTS LTD., NO.302, 3TH FLOOR, 7 EAST PARK ROAD, KUMAR PARK EAST, BANGALORE - 560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT D. TARANATH REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VASU DEVA NAIDU S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, ROOM NO. 222, 2ND FLOOR VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CONTRACTS DIVISION KARNATAKA STATE POLICE HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NO.59, RICHMOND ROAD (GENERAL K.S. THIMMAYYA ROAD) BANGALORE - 560 025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52174 WP No. 12898 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF HTE PETITIONER DT-28.03.2024 (ANNEXURE-AJ) AND 03.10.2024 (ANEXURE-AK) IN VIEW OF THE RESPONDENTS ADMISSIONS AND REQUEST MADE TO THE UNIVERSITY AUTHORITIES VIDE RESPONDENTS LETTER DT-18.06.2022 AT ANNEX-AH AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW FOR RELEASE OF AMOUNTS STATED THREIN AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is before the Court seeking for the following reliefs: WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to consider the representations of the Petitioner dated 28.03.2024 (Annexure-AJ) & 03.10.2024 (Annexure-AK), in view of the respondents admissions and request made to the University Authorities vide Respondents letter dated 18.06.2022 and pass orders in accordance with law for release of amounts stated therein and pass such other orders as the Hon'ble - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52174 WP No. 12898 of 2025 Marked as Arnexile Atl. Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 3. A work order having been issued on the petitioner in terms of the agreement dated 17.09.2012, the petitioner is stated to have carried out works as regards which payment to those certified was not released on account of lack of finances. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation was submitted by the petitioner on 28.03.2024 at Annexure-AJ which has not been considered. Subsequently, another representation has been submitted on 03.10.2024 at Annexure-AK, which has also not been considered and it is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Whenever, any representation is required for the respondents to consider the same and pass necessary orders within a reasonable period of time either accepting or rejecting the request made in the present matter. 6. Needless to say, if an order of rejection is passed, the same would have to be accompanied by reasons. Neither having been done, I pass the following: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52174 WP No. 12898 of 2025 ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The respondents are directed to consider the representation of petitioner dated 28.03.2024 at Annexure-AJ and 3.10.2024 at Annexure-AK strictly in terms of agreement entered into between the parties and pass necessary orders within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii) It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner for any of the amounts sought for in this representation. The same would have to be calculated and adjudicated by the respondents in terms of the agreement. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3