LAWS(KAR)-2011-3-350

T.K. RAJAN S/O KUNNI PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD DEPARTMENT PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT AND KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS

Decided On March 25, 2011
T.K. Rajan S/O Kunni Pillai Appellant
V/S
State Of Karnataka Rep. By Its Secretary Department Of Public Works, The Executive Engineer Pwd Department Port And Inland Water Transport And Karnataka Road Development Corporation Ltd. Represented Herein By Its Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has sought for quashing the letter/order dated 09 -10 -2009 issued by the second Respondent directing the Executive Engineers of various Districts not to release the amounts due to the Petitioner and send the said amounts to the second Respondent. Further the Petitioner has also sought for a direction to the Respondents not to transfer or remit the amount payable to the Petitioner to any other Authorities until disposal of the O.S. No. 894/2009 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore.

(2.) IN the writ petition, the Petitioner has contended that pursuant to the tender notification for maintenance of State Highways dated 5 -3 -2005 issued by the Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited, the Petitioner being the Contractor engaged in the business of infrastructure development submitted his tender in respect of the maintenance of road of Mangalore Division. The tender amount is Rs. 16.21 crores. As per the notification, the successful tenderer has to maintain the road, i.e. Resurfacing, Pothole Filling, Shoulder Repairs, repair of Drains, Culvert, Bridges for a period of three years. The contractor has to execute the repair work within a period of 12 months and he has to maintain the road for a period of two years thereafter. The Petitioner being the lowest tenderer his bid was accepted and entered into an agreement for maintenance of stretch of State Highway at Mangalore for a sum of Rs. 17.58 crores. Thereafter, the agreement has been entered into between the Petitioner and Respondents on 16 -9 -2005 and work order has been issued on the very same day.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner filed this writ petition contending that the amounts due to the Petitioner by other contract works cannot be withheld by the Respondents.