B K GOPINATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) petitioner had entered into an agreement with the state government to execute the work of earth excavation of left bank canal of harangi reservoir project from chainage 79.300 to 79.500 kilometres. The work was to be completed by 14-5-1977. But the petitioner failed to carry out the said term. By a letter dated 14-12-1977 (annexure-r4) petitioner requested the concerned assistant engineer to extend the period for three months by setting out an undertaking that he will complete the work in the last week of march, 1978. But he again failed to maintain his promise. Since the petitioner failed to resume the work, by a letter dated 27-3-1978 (annexure-r5) the assistant executive engineer directed the petitioner to resume the same before 5th april, 1978. Because of the failure on the part of the petitioner to resume and complete the work even within the extended time, he was served with a notice dated 29-4-1978 calling upon him to show cause as to why his contract need not be cancelled. Despite service of notice the work was not resumed. Petitioner was again served with another notice dated 28-7-1978 requiring him to show cause as to why after cancellation of contract the balance of work need not be entrusted to another agency for completion thereof and the additional cost be realised from him as per clause 3(c) of the agreement. It was also indicated in the said notice that if the petitioner fails to file any reply it would be presumed that he has nothing to say in the matter. Thereafter, under the communication dated 26-9-1978 (annexure-r8) the contract of the petitioner was cancelled and the work was given to another agency for completion thereof. It may be noticed here that the unfinished work of the petitioner was duly assessed by the departmental authorities under due notice to him. Subsequently, by a registered letter dated 11-11-1980 he was intimated about the said fact clearly indicating therein that an additional sum of Rs. 32,854.65 had to be spent by the government in getting the balance of work done, and he was called upon to pay the same. Since the petitioner failed to pay the said sum, respondent-deputy commissioner was requested to recover the same as the arrears of land revenue as provided under clause 50 of the agreement read with Section 190 of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter,'the act' only). Present writ petition has been filed against the said recovery proceedings.

(2.) learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned recovery proceedings on the ground that since the alleged breach of contract has not been admitted by the petitioner, therefore the authorities had no jurisdiction to initiate the impugned recovery proceedings. According to him, even if there is a breach, damages cannot be quantified by the authorities because in law the authorities to the dispute cannot ACT as arbiter in relation to the same. In support of his proposition, he relied on a decision of the supreme court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills, Thirthahalli. On the contrary, learned High Court government pleader, with reference to the original records as also the two statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents, submits that in the present case breach is writ large on the face of the records and the quantum sought to be recovered is based on the documents, without involving any discretion of assessment thereof by any particular authority.

(3.) for appreciating the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to certain conditions incorporated in the agreement. These are the following: