Executive Engineer v. M/S M Venkata Rao Infra Projects Pvt Ltd

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:39560-DB( WA(No.(1947(of(2025( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010794822025( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

TH DATED(THIS(THE(29 (DAY(OF(JULY,(2026(

PRESENT(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(D(K(SINGH(

AND((

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(T.M.NADAF(

WRIT(APPEAL(NO.(1947(OF(2025((LB-BMP)(

BETWEEN:(( (

1., EXECUTIVE,ENGINEER, (FORMERLY,BRUHAT,BENGALURU,, MAHANAGARA,PALIKE),, CURRENTLY,BENGALURU,CENTRAL,CITY, (CORPORATION),, NOW,GREATER,BENGALURU,AUTHORITY, (SHIVAJINAGAR,DIVISION),, QUEENS,ROAD,,THIMMAIAH,ROAD,,, STONE,BUILDING,,BANGALORE,560052, , Digitally 2., BENGALURU,CENTRAL,CITY,CORPORATION, si gnedtiby (FORMERLY,BRUHAT,BENGALURU,, VASANTHA MAHANAGARA,PALIKE),KUMARY0B K CURRENTLY,BENGALURU,CENTRAL,CITY, CORPORATION,NOW,GREATER,BENGALURU, Location: HIGH AUTHORITY,(SHIVAJINAGAR,DIVISION),, COURT0OF QUEENS,ROAD,,THIMMAIAH,ROAD,, KARNATAKA STONE,BUILDING,,BANGALORE,560052, REPRESENTED,BY,THE,COMMISSIONER, …APPELLANTS, (BY,SRI.,PRASHANTH,S,H.,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( (

1., M/S,M,VENKATA,RAO,INFRA,PROJECTS,PVT,LTD, OFFICE,AT,NO.48-19-6,, 2ND,FLOOR,,MVR,COMPLEX,,,

DWARAKANAGAR, VISHAKHAPATNAM -530 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNTORY MR SAMBASIVA RAO G …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE VIDE ORDER DATED 25/07/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.2788/2025, ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.2788/2025 filed by the respondent for quashing the letter/order dated 03.01.2025 issued by the Executive Engineer (Projects Central-4), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru.

¶2The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.

¶3The petitioner who is a registered contractor was awarded a contract for construction of a grade separator at Shivananda Circle, Bengaluru for which work order dated

30.06.2017 was issued in favour of the petitioner. The cost estimate for the said contract was prepared under the then prevailing Value Added Tax (VAT) and Service Tax regime. However, during the execution of the contract, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime came into force with effect from

01.07.2017. After the execution of the work and on payment of the bills raised by the petitioner, the BBMP had withheld the payment of the bills raised for the differential tax component.

¶4Aggrieved by this action, the petitioner had filed a writ petition as the petitioner was of the opinion that the differential tax rate was not to be paid by him for the work completed inasmuch as the project was executed prior to

01.07.2017. The taxes payable under the new GST regime were not taken into consideration while finalizing the tender/work order.

¶5It is not in dispute that the agreement executed between the parties contains an arbitration clause. The petitioner has already invoked the arbitration clause for adjudication of his claims arising out of the contract which would include the differential tax component deducted by the BBMP.

¶6Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon consideration of the material on record, we are of the considered view that the dispute falls within the realm of private law and a public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be available to the petitioner to raise a contractual dispute for money claim. Since the petitioner has already invoked the arbitration clause, any claim regarding the differential tax deducted may be raised in those proceedings.

¶7We make it clear that we have not expressed opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim or on the entitlement to the differential tax amount as deducted by the

BBMP. It is for the arbitrator to examine and decide the issue on merits in the arbitration proceedings.

¶8However, we are of the considered view that the invocation of public liability is not available for money claim under a contract. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 25.07.2025 is hereby set aside in the aforesaid terms.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

RKA CT:SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20