BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday granted 45 days to the one-man commission appointed by the state government to conduct an inquiry into the 40 per cent commission allegations made by contractors in awarding projects from 2019-20 to 2022-23 during the previous BJP government and directed it to submit the report to the court in a sealed cover.
Modifying the earlier order of staying further proceedings of the commission, Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order after Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty told the court that the inquiry report would be submitted if reasonable time was granted.
During the last hearing, the court stayed further proceedings of the Commission headed by former High Court judge Justice HN Nagamohan Das as the inquiry was not completed within 30 days as stipulated in the order issued by the government on August 5 while constituting the commission. The court was hearing a petition filed by Nikshep Infra Projects and 43 contractors/firms questioning the validity of the constitution of the Special Investigation Cell to investigate the works.
The AG also submitted that 50 per cent of payments will be released to contractors according to seniority. The court asked the petitioner not to precipitate the matter given the assurance given by the AG. A further hearing is on February 6, 2024.
The division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit observed “What kind of government do we have”, when the counsel of the contempt petitioner informed the court that the tax (TDS) was deducted for the entire bill amount, which was due, though it is paying only 50-75 per cent of the total amount due to contractors. “Can there be a 100 per cent deduction of tax amount when the government is paying only a partial amount,” the court wondered.
The court also orally observed which contractor would come forward to execute the government’s works and they would quote four times the actual amount for the government works in future.
“It is taught in administrative law that the State is the first enemy of citizens and it appears to be so in this case,” the court observed orally while refraining from passing any order for now given the petitioner’s undertaking before the single judge.