Development Projects Can't Be Abandoned, Shifted Or Stalled Merely Due To Change In Govt: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that a government scheme or a developmental project cannot be “abandoned, shifted or stalled” merely because there has been a change in political dispensation.

In doing so the court quashed a communication issued by the sitting MLA of Siruguppa who had directed shifting of an irrigation project from Ibrahimpur village to Nagalpur village.

“A change in political dispensation, by itself, cannot furnish a ground to obliterate or undo decisions already taken in accordance with law. Governmental schemes and developmental projects, particularly projects intended for the benefit of marginal farmers, cannot be treated as matters which can be abandoned, shifted or stalled merely because there has been a change in the political executive,” Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed.

The case revolves around an irrigation project intended to benefit marginal farmers of Ibrahimpur and Mannur villages, designed to supply water from Tungabhadra River to their agricultural lands. The project was approved, a tender was passed and awarded to the petitioner, and a work order dated November 15, 2022, was issued.

However, after a change in Government, the sitting MLA of Siruguppa intervened and sought to shift the project from Ibrahimpur village to Nagalapur village via a communication dated September 8, 2023.

The High Court said that elected representatives, while representing the interests of their constituents, cannot interfere with an already approved governmental project after completion of the statutory and tender process. It added that stalling the irrigation project would “deprive the farmers of the intended irrigation facility” and would render the public expenditure already incurred “futile”.

Noting that the doctrine of fairness in administration binds the States, the Court said, “Once a project is duly approved, the beneficiaries identified, the tender process completed and a work order issued, the State cannot, without any legally sustainable reason, render the entire process nugatory. Any decision to alter or abandon such a project must necessarily be founded upon relevant considerations, supported by reasons and taken by the competent authority in accordance with law.”

The Court, however, observed that government policies can be reviewed, modified or even discontinued for legitimate public purposes, but the same cannot be done arbitrarily or merely on account of a change in political dispensation.

Taking into account the photographs showcasing the trenches, laid pipelines and installed transformer in Ibrahimpur village, Justice Magadum said, “These are not circumstances which can be brushed aside by merely relying upon the general proposition that no work ought to commence unless the site is formally handed over.”

“In the present case, the State has failed to demonstrate any public interest, technical impediment, financial irregularity or other legally sustainable ground warranting shifting of the project from Ibrahimpur Village to Nagalapur Village. The impugned communication, therefore, cannot be sustained merely because it emanates from an elected representative or because a subsequent Government has issued a general circular concerning unstarted works,” the Court held.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the communications seeking to shift the irrigation project and directed the state authorities to consider the invoices/bills raised by the petitioner-contractor in accordance with the terms of the contract after verifying the work.

The Court added that the authorities are not precluded from considering any independent proposal for extending irrigation facilities to Nagalpur village in accordance with law.

Background

The petitioner contended that the while the work in Ibrahimpur village had been substantially completed, its work in Mannur village was stalled. It was submitted that the contractor had been derived of amounts lawfully payable under the contract.

On the other hand, the Additional Government Advocate submitted that despite the work order, the site was never handed over to the petitioner— first, due to standing crops, and then owing to the implementation of the Model Code of Conduct before Karnataka Assembly polls. It was further argued that after the new government was formed, directions were issued to not commence the unstarted works sanctioned by the earlier government until further orders.

AMARESH H. @ AMARESH POMPANA GOUDA HULUGUNCHI VS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS and batch

WP NO.105825/2024, WP NO. 105789/2023, WP NO.105795/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order