CHERRY CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the notices bearing No.SA.KA.NI.A/KA.PE/P.R./434-439/2020-21 at Annexure-G series dated 15.12.2020; notices bearing No. SA.KA.NI.A/KA.PE/P.R./475-480/2020-21 at Annexure-J series dated 22.12.2020; and final notice bearing No. SA.KA.NI.A/KA.PE/P.R./509-514/2020-21 at Annexure-M series dated 31.12.2020 and for a direction to the respondent-authority to allow the petitioner to continue the work as per Work Order dated 01.03.2018 and 06.03.2019 vide Annexures- E1 and F till the completion of its tenure.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. S.A.Sudhindra and Sri.K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was issued with Work Order as per Annexure-B dated 28.04.2016; Annexure-C date 15.04.2017 ; Annexure-D dated 03.10.2018; Annexure-E dated 20.12.2017; Annexures-E1 to E3 dated 01.03.2018; Annexure-F dated 06.03.2019 and Annexure-F1 dated 05.08.2019 for maintaining and cleaning of public toilets by appointing scavengers and security guards as per the Work Orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was carrying on the work as entrusted to it to the fullest satisfaction of the respondents. Surprisingly, respondents issued the impugned notices alleging that the petitioner hired the employees less than what is indicated in the Work Order and that the petitioner is not carrying on the cleaning work properly and sought explanation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the petitioner submitted its reply on 18.12.2020 to the 5th respondent as per Annexure-H series. The 5th respondent, without considering the reply filed by the petitioner issued final notice dated 31.12.2020 as per Annexure-M series stating that the reply submitted by the petitioner is unacceptable and it would be recommended to the higher authorities for cancellation of work entrusted to the petitioner.