w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

M/s. Cherry Constructions, Rep. by Proprietor C.M. Maha Deva, Bengaluru v/s The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary Revenue Department, Bengaluru & Others

    Writ Petition No. 322 of 2021(LB-BMP)

    Decided On, 12 January 2021

    At, High Court of Karnataka


    For the Petitioner: S.A. Sudindra, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, K.R. Nithyananda, HCGP, R2to R5, K.N. Puttegowda, Advocate.

Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned notice dated 15.12.2020 vide Annexure-G, G1 to G5, 2nd notice dated 22.12.2020 vide Annexure-J vide Annexure-J1 to J5 and final notice dated 31.12.2020 vide Annexure-M to M5 passed by the R4 authority and etc.)Through Video Conference: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.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is carrying on its work as entrusted to them under Work Order by employing number of employees as indicated in such Work Orders. Further, he submits that maintenance and cleaning work of public toilets is also carried on to the fullest satisfaction of the respondent- authorities. Without there being any reason, the respondents have resorted for issuance of notice under challenge.5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.K.N.Puttegowda appearing for respondent-BBMP, on instructions submits that 4th respondent-Executive Engineer is the competent authority to take appropriate decision and if the petitioner files proper reply before the 4th respondent, the same would be considered and appropriate decision would be taken in the matter. Learned counsel would further submit that there is allegation against the petitioner with regard to its work and also that it is not paying salary to the persons employed by it and it has also not employed the number of employees as required under the Work Order. Further, the learned counsel submits that if the petitioner files reply along with supporting documents, the same would be considered and appropriate decision would be taken. Therefore, he prays that the petitioner may be directed to appear before the 4th respondent and file its reply.6. The challenge in this writ petition is to the notices issued by the respondent-BBMP. A perusal of the notice would indicate that the petitioner was entrusted with the cleaning and maintaining of public toilets and the premises of the Ward Offices of the BBMP by employing scavengers and security personnel. But, the petitioner has failed to employ the staff as indicated in the Work Order and as the cleaning work of the petitioner was unsatisfactory, explanation was sought for. The petitioner submitted its reply under Annexure-H series dated 18.12.2020. A perusal of the reply would indicate that the same is bereft of any details. As the petitioner's explanation was unsatisfactory, final notice was issued as per Annexure-M series stating that explanation of the petitioner is unsatisfactory and it would be recommended to the higher authorities to cancel the Work Order. No final decision is taken by the competent authority/respondent No.4 on the notices issued to the petitioner.7. The submission of learned counsel Sri.K.N.Puttegowda appears to be reasonable and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case.8. Hence, the petitioner is directe

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d to appear before the 4th respondent-Executive Engineer, Gandhinagar Division, BBMP on 22.01.2021 at 3.00 p.m., and to file its reply along with supporting documents. The 4th respondent shall take appropriate decision after considering the reply of the petitioner, within four weeks thereafter.Till a decision is taken by the 4th respondent after considering the reply of the petitioner, no precipitative action shall be taken based on the final notice dated 31.12.2020, Annexure-M series.With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.