B C RAJU Vs. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a P.W.D. Electrical Contractor. He was entrusted with the work of internal electrification to the composite Housing Scheme IV Phase in the new township, Yelahanka I Stage consisting of group I and II numbering 345 houses and II Stage consisting of 362 houses in group I and II by the respondent-Karnataka Housing Board ('the Board' for short). According to the petitioner, he completed the work worth Rs. 7 lakhs. On a representation made by the petitioner to the Board for entrustment of mains to be provided in respect of 1293 houses at Kallahally II phase, Shimoga, stating that he fell into difficulties as he was not allowed to complete the contract work entrusted to him in respect of 707 houses at Yelahanka, the petitioner submits that the Board, after taking into consideration the financial loss incurred by the petitioner, decided to entrust the service main portion of the work in respect of 1293 houses at Kallahally in lieu of internal electrification of 707 houses at Yelahanka and the said decision was communicated by the first respondent to the 2nd respondent with a copy to the petitioner in Annexure-B and the petitioner accepted the work agreeing to do the same at the rate of PWD electrical SR rates of the year 1992-93.

(2.) The petitioner further stated that the Board approved by a letter dated 24-8-1994 to carry out the service mains in respect of the houses and the petitioner was instructed through the officials of the Board to provide service mains by laying underground cables and accordingly the petitioner provided service mains in respect of about 400 houses by investing huge amount of money. The petitioner alleged that in spite of the entrustment of the work to him, the Chairman of the Board instructed the officers of the Board to issue tender notice in respect of the work already entrusted to the petitioner as the petitioner refused to yield to the demand for payment of money to the Chairman and the other officials of the Board. The impugned tender notice was issued in Annexure-F dated 14-11-1994 calling for tenders for carrying out the work and the same is assailed as mala fide, illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims that the entrustment of the work to him resulted in a concluded contract and he prays for a direction to the respondent not to entrust the work of service mains relating to electrification of 1293 houses at Kallahally village to others.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents objections are filed stating that the Board has formulated a Scheme called Composite Housing Scheme at Kallahally, Shimoga and the State of Karnataka has sanctioned the scheme under Government Order No. HUD 92 KHB, 89, dated 30-3-1989 under which 1293 houses at Kallahally II phase were constructed and the electrification work was to be completed. The houses have been allotted to successful applicants and the allottees are pressing for handing over possession of the houses for occupation. A short term tender notification was issued calling for tenders for execution of work of underground service mains from poles to individual houses under the impugned notification. The petitioner was entrusted with the work of providing external electrification for arranging power supply to the houses at KHB Housing Colony, Kallahally, II phase, Shimoga on tender basis, but the petitioner failed to carry out the work within the time stipulated and even on date about 20% of the work was still pending and the performance of the petitioner in execution of the work was not satisfactory and there was inordinate delay in completion of the work. The petitioner failed to approach the Executive Engineer, KHB, Shimoga to observe the formality of execution of contract for the work of service mains for poles to individual houses and there was no concluded contract. The allegations made against the Chairman and other officials were denied. In calling for tender, the procedure was strictly following and there was no irregularity and the petitioner has no right to question the same. The claim of the petitioner relating to his laying underground cables in respect of 400 houses was denied and it is stated that the petitioner laid cables in respect of only 156 houses without obtaining the works contract and work order from the Executive Engineer while carrying out the electrification work in the lay out. However, the tender notification is issued in respect of other group and as such the petitioner's rights have not been in any way affected in so far as two groups for which the Board will take separate action. It is further averred that the delay in completing the work on account of the order of stay granted by this Court would cause great hardship to the allottees.