M. GOVINDA Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner claims that pursuant to a tender notification issued by the second respondent for the period 2013 -14 ending on 31/03/2014 to run a service of ferrying people across the Tungabhadra river, from Kodandrama Temple in Venkatapur Village on one bank to Purandar Dasar Mantapa on the other bank. He was awarded the contract on payment of Rs. 1,85,000/ - It transpires that fresh tenders had to be invited after the expiry of the term. Since the election code of conduct was in force and since the petitioner's services, as per the notification, were coming to an end on 31/03/2014, it was decided by a resolution dated 04/03/2014 that the petitioner could be permitted to continue the service for a temporary period, till such time, fresh tenders were invited. It was also said to have been decided that such permission could be granted if the petitioner paid an additional 10% on the amount of Rs. 1,85,000/ - and therefore he was required to pay a sum of Rs. 2,03,500/ -. The term, however, was not specified and was only mentioned as a temporary extension. It transpires that there was yet another resolution by the Panchayat on 25/06/2014 reiterating the decision on the resolution passed earlier, as on 04/03/2014 that the petitioner's services could be continued for the year 2014 -15 on the same terms. It is this resolution which has prompted the petitioner to contend that his term has been continued till the end of year, namely, 31/03/2015. And that the extension was for the whole year namely 01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015. Thereafter, it transpires that since the respondents took steps to invite e -tenders for a fresh term, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, the respondents have vehemently contested the petition and have filed statement of objections asserting that ferrying permission granted to the petitioner vide resolution dated 04/03/2014 was to continue services for a short period subject to the condition that the petitioner paying a sum of Rs. 2,03,500/ - and he was required to pay the amount within one month. However, the petitioner had paid only a sum of Rs. 60,000/ - and has failed to pay the balance amount even as on date. The respondents had issued a notice calling upon him to settle the amount within three days and since the petitioner had failed to make the payment, another notice was issued on 22/08/2014 intimating the petitioner that respondents were in the process of calling e -tenders and if so inclined, the petitioner could also participate.