BBMP Can't Refuse To Clear Contractor's Bill By Contending Documents Of Work Order Were Seized By Investigation Agencies: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) cannot refuse to clear a Civil contractor's bill, by raising a contention that documents on the work/supply order granted to the contractor were seized by investigating agencies.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “The Departmental Head or Chief Commissioner of the Corporation could always seek for copies from a Court so also could an accused. In the present case, the petitioner also being an accused, the petitioner could make such an application. Instead of making such an application, the Corporation as also the petitioner have been blaming each other and neither having obtained copies to process the bills, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for aforesaid reliefs.”

The petitioner M/s. OM SLV Constructions, a civil contractor, claimed that the Assistant Executive Engineer made a false allegation against him that there was a shortage in the autos supplied by the petitioner and as such, threatened to terminate the contract. Thus he filed a petition before the High Court which directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau to enquire into the claim of discrepancies.

While the said proceedings were pending, the petitioner allegedly submitted various bills and called upon the BBMP authorities to release the payments. It is argued that he was informed by the Joint Commissioner that all the records have been seized and are in the custody of the City Civil Court and as such, until those documents are returned, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered.

The corporation contended that documents were not available with them since they had been seized firstly by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Lokayukta and were now in the custody of the Court. It was argued that until those documents were released, the Corporation could not process the bills.

The bench noted that there is an obligation on the Corporation to process the bills once it is submitted since the last custodian of those documents was the Corporation. It was opined that the Corporation cannot take a contention that it does not have custody of the documents. In such a situation, the Court found that it would be for the Corporation to make necessary applications to secure either inspection of those documents from the office of the Lokayukta or the Court and to obtain certified copies for them to process the bills.

It held that “Corporation cannot without taking any steps to secure copies of the documents seized from it contend that in the absence of those documents or on account of the seizure of the documents, the bills submitted by the petitioner cannot be processed.”

It accepted the submission of the Corporation that if the petitioner were to obtain certified copies from the Court, the said copies would be processed without insisting on originals and directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Court seeking certified copies of the relevant documents.

It was held that on furnishing of such certified copies to the BBMP, they shall be considered and acted upon by them.

The Court concluded, “In the event of application made by the petitioner being rejected by the Court for any reason, then in such circumstance, the Corporation is directed to either make an application for certified copies and/or an application for inspection of the documents to process bills submitted, which the said Court would be duty bound to do so. Needless to say, while processing the said bills, the allegation made against the petitioner in the pending criminal proceedings will also have to be taken into consideration and those aspects would be subject to the result of the pending criminal proceedings.”

Accordingly, it disposed of the petition.

Appearance: Advocate A. Nagarajappa for Petitioner

AGA B.P. Radha for R1.

Advocate Namita Mahesh for Advocate S.N. Prashanth Chandra for R2-R6.

Advocate Venkatesh S Arabatti for R7.

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 495

Case Title: M/s Om SLV Constructions AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 3893 of 2023.

Click Here To Read/Download Order