TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1659
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sist the writ petition contending that: disputed facts are involved and therefore, writ remedy is not suitable; matter is contractual in nature and therefore, petitioner should be relegated to civil remedy; there is an Arbitration Clause and therefore, Writ Court cannot interfere. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons: (a) Ordinarily, Writ Courts do not grant indulgence in matters involving contract and non payment of contractors' bills, more particularly when disputed facts are involved. Yet another reason is, that the aggrieved parties can work out their remedies by an ordinary civil suit or by invoking arbitration clause, if there be one. However, even in plain matters like payment of contractors bills, Courts nowadays have been observing a kind of callousness and 'come what may attitude' on the part some public functionaries. Their actions are manifestly arbitrary and absolutely unjust, to say the least. This is not a happy thing to happen. In every such ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te the bill claim. The Architect appointed by the respondent-Corporation vide Certificate dated 21.11.2017 certified the completion of work and recommended as under: "Certified that a sum of Rs. 34, 85, 179.00 (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Eighty five Thousand One hundred and Seventy nine Only) may be paid to them under advice from us". (e) The Managing Director of Corporation vide Letter dated 19.12.2017 requested the third respondent-Director of Tourism Development specifically stating that the work has been completed satisfactorily; the structure has been handed to the Corporation already; a sum of Rs. 1, 46, 56, 901/-having been remitted to the petitioner, the last bill amount of Rs. 34, 85, 179/-needs to be paid, the said bill having been authenticated by the departmental architect. Therefore, he had sought for release of the said amount to the Corporation so that, the same would be utilized for paying the pending bill. The said Letter reads as under: (f) Nothing happened either with the Government or Corporation so far as the claim for payment of the bills and therefore, petitioner sent the representation dated 08.02.2018 complaining that despite lapse of ten month....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no contentious issue about the completion of the tender work and there being specific reports about satisfactory completion of the work, petitioner cannot be compelled to go for arbitration on the basis of a "make believe dispute". Secondly, several representations of the petitioner resulted into a fully positive response from the side of respondent-Corporation, its Managing Director specifically asking the Government to release the fund to enable him to honour the long pending bills of petitioner. Never the Government took the pains even to reply to the Corporation, let alone to the poor petitioner. Thirdly, the so called complaint about unsatisfactory completion of the work is concerned, it is apparently time barred since such complaints were raised for the first time, more than a year having lapsed since the structure was handed over to the Corporation and on being inaugurated, it was put to routine use. (i) It is a well settled position of law that only a genuine dispute merits reference for arbitration and not 'fictional disputes' of the kind. This view gains support from a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED vs. M/s TATPAL PETROL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of private law, either; there is Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 and Rules promulgated thereunder. There are sufficient elements of public law. A contract to which State is a party, does not create an island completely immune from judicial review under Article 226 & 227. (k) This is a fit case for levy of exemplary costs for the ill-treatment meted out to the scrupulous citizen who had done the work for the State entities. A message should loudly go to the quarters that be, that the courts would not tolerate indolence on the part of public bodies when interest of the citizen is put to peril. Both the sides having been heard even on this aspect of the matter, this court is of the considered opinion that the second respondent-Corporation should be saddled with a cost of Rs. 2, 00, 000/-payable to the petitioner in addition to interest at a reasonable rate for the delay in making payment in terms of undisputed bills, that are already authenticated by the concerned. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the second respondent to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 34, 85, 179/-plus the retention amount, if any....