H. UDAYASHAM KAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Class-I PWD Contractor. He has filed this writ petition, to issue a writ of mandamus and direct the respondents to pay the balance bill amount of Rs. 19,18,781/- for the work executed by him.

(2.) Sri K.T. Gurudeva Prasad, learned advocate, contended that the respondents have no right to retain the balance bill amount towards contract work executed by the petitioner i.e., for construction of roads and bridges as per the Scheme H/A No.3054 for the years 2000-01 to 2003-04, even after final bill submitted by the petitioner was accepted. He submitted that despite submission of repeated representations and the correspondence amongst the authorities, there is inaction on the part of the respondents and the petitioner has been made to suffer financial loss. He further submitted that, since, no steps have taken for payment of the balance amount even after submission of a representation on 16.01.2013, this writ petition has been filed for grant of the relief.

(3.) Sri H.T. Narendra Prasad, learned AGA, on the other hand submitted that the writ petition for issue of direction for payment of the balance bill amount being not maintainable is liable to be rejected. He submitted that the alleged work executed, even according to the petitioner, being for the period 2000-01 to 2003-04, the writ petition having been filed on 03.01.2014, there is bar of limitation, apart from need for adjudication of factual matrix, which is not permissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction.