Karnataka HC: Sitting MLA's Direction to Shift Approved Irrigation Project Quashed; Change in Government No Ground to Stall Sanctioned Schemes
The Karnataka High Court at Dharwad quashed a Siruguppa MLA's communication seeking to relocate an approved Tungabhadra lift-irrigation project away from Ibrahimpur and Mannur villages, holding that a change in political dispensation cannot defeat accrued contractual rights or the legitimate expectations of identified farmer beneficiaries.
The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, in a common order disposing of three connected writ petitions, has quashed the communications through which a sitting MLA of Siruguppa Assembly Constituency sought to redirect a sanctioned lift-irrigation scheme — approved for marginal farmers of Ibrahimpur and Mannur villages in Ballari district — to Nagalapur Village. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, sitting singly, held that an already approved governmental project, which had progressed through a statutory tender process and generated contractual rights in favour of the successful bidder, cannot be stalled or shifted merely on account of a change in the political executive or a general executive circular issued by a subsequent Government. The Court directed the State's Small Irrigation and Internal Water Development Department to inspect and record completed work at Ibrahimpur Village and settle the contractor's bills within eight weeks, and to issue necessary communications for commencement of the Mannur Village scheme within four weeks.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The three writ petitions arose from a single irrigation project designed to supply water from the Tungabhadra river belt through a pipeline to the agricultural lands of marginal farmers in Ibrahimpur and Mannur villages, Siruguppa Taluk, Ballari district. The project originated from repeated representations made by farmers who had no assured source of irrigation.
After preparation of a project report and assessment of expenditure by the competent authority, the scheme was approved. A tender notification followed, and Sri Amaresh H. @ Amaresh Pompana Gouda Hulugunchi, a Class-I contractor from Ballari, emerged as the successful bidder. A formal work order was issued in his favour on 14 February 2023, with an approval letter of the same date confirming the amount of Rs 31,40,940.92 payable to him. A separate work order dated 6 March 2023 was issued for the Mannur Village component.
Following the Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections and the formation of a new Government, two developments occurred that became the subject of challenge. A general circular dated 31 July 2023 was issued by the new Government directing that uncommenced works sanctioned by the earlier Government should not be started until further orders. Separately, the sitting MLA of Siruguppa Assembly Constituency, Sri B.M. Nagaraj, issued a communication dated 8 September 2023 (Annexure-M) seeking to shift the sanctioned project from Ibrahimpur Village to Nagalapur Village.
The contractor filed WP No. 105825 of 2024 challenging the MLA's communication and seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release Rs 31,40,940.92 due under the contract. The farmer-beneficiaries of Ibrahimpur and Mannur villages filed the connected petitions — WP No. 105789 of 2023 and WP No. 105795 of 2023 — challenging communications that had effectively stalled or halted the project intended for them.
The State's Objections
The Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the State, opposed all three petitions. The State's written objections in WP No. 105825 of 2024 offered two explanations for why the site had not been handed over to the contractor. First, standing crops existed in the field at the relevant time. Second, the Model Code of Conduct had been imposed from 29 March 2023 in connection with the Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections, delaying site handover. The State also relied on PWD Department Code 2014, Section 135.3, which provides that no work should be commenced on land not duly handed over, and on the tender conditions which permitted the employer to instruct the contractor to delay the start of any activity.
The AGA further contended that the circular dated 31 July 2023 prohibited commencement of unstarted works, and on that basis argued that the contractor could not seek release of any amount.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Magadum examined the work order itself as the starting point. The order, issued by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation and Grant Work Department Division, Ballari, recorded that the contractor had furnished the requisite security deposit, executed the contract agreement, and was thereby expressly instructed to proceed with execution of the work. The Court held that in the face of such express terms, the contention that the contractor had no authority to proceed could not be accepted.
On the Model Code of Conduct argument, the Court noted a material chronological fact. The work order had been issued on 15 November 2022. The Model Code of Conduct came into operation only on 29 March 2023 and remained in force until 15 May 2023. The Court held that the Model Code of Conduct could not, by itself, justify withholding the site from the date of issuance of the work order, well before any election process began.
The Court then turned to the photographs produced by the contractor, which showed that trenches had been dug, pipeline had been laid, and a transformer had been installed at Ibrahimpur Village. These facts, the Court held, could not be brushed aside by relying on the general proposition that no work ought to commence without formal site handover.
On the central question of the MLA's communication, the Court extracted the relevant portion of Annexure-M — which, in Kannada, directed that the irrigation facility originally approved for farmers of Ibrahimpur Village be extended instead to farmers of Nagalapur Village — and found it unambiguously sought to shift an approved project. The Court acknowledged that elected representatives may legitimately bring genuine requirements of other villages to the Government's attention. However, it drew a clear line: such representative functions “cannot extend to interfering with an already approved governmental project after completion of the statutory and tender process.”
The Court was equally direct about the circular dated 31 July 2023. Even if that circular had some application to genuinely unstarted works, it could not provide legal cover for displacing a project where contractual rights had already accrued and, in the case of Ibrahimpur Village, substantial physical work had been executed.
Justice Magadum then articulated the governing principle: “A change in political dispensation, by itself, cannot furnish a ground to obliterate or undo decisions already taken in accordance with law.” Governmental schemes intended for marginal farmers cannot be abandoned, shifted, or stalled merely because the political executive has changed hands.
The Court was careful to note that it was not holding the Government permanently barred from reviewing schemes framed by earlier Governments. Policies may be reviewed, modified, or discontinued for legitimate public reasons, but such power must be exercised by the competent authority, on relevant considerations, in accordance with law, and supported by reasons germane to the project. In this case, the State had demonstrated no public interest, technical impediment, or financial irregularity warranting the shift from Ibrahimpur Village to Nagalapur Village.
On the Mannur Village farmers, the Court noted that the project had been approved and a work order issued, yet not a single step of construction had commenced. The Court held that leaving beneficiaries in perpetual uncertainty, without any legally sustainable reason, was equally impermissible.
The Court also addressed the situation of the Nagalapur Village itself, clarifying that if the newly elected MLA considered that Nagalapur Village also required an irrigation project, nothing prevented the competent authority from considering a separate proposal in accordance with law, subject to availability of funds and statutory compliance. What could not be permitted was displacement of an already sanctioned project merely at the instance of a local representative.
Outcome
WP No. 105825 of 2024 was allowed. The MLA's communication dated 8 September 2023 (Annexure-M), insofar as it sought to shift the sanctioned irrigation project from Ibrahimpur Village to Nagalapur Village, was quashed and set aside. Respondents 1 to 3 — the Government of Karnataka, the Chief Engineer, and the Executive Engineer of the Small Irrigation and Internal Water Development Department — were directed to inspect the project site, record the work executed in the Measurement Book and other relevant departmental records, consider the contractor's invoices and bills in accordance with the contract terms, and take an appropriate decision within eight weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.
WP No. 105789 of 2023, filed by the farmer-beneficiaries of Mannur Village, was also allowed. The communication dated 18 August 2023 (Annexure-J) addressed to the Executive Engineer was quashed. The respondents were directed to take steps forthwith to commence the irrigation project for Mannur Village farmers in terms of the work order dated 6 March 2023, with the necessary communication to the concerned contractor to be issued within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.
WP No. 105795 of 2023, which had become substantially covered by the above reliefs following the quashing of the MLA's communication, was disposed of as nothing further survived for consideration. The respondents were additionally directed to ensure that the irrigation facility for Ibrahimpur Village farmers is extended in accordance with law, subject to verification of work already executed and completion of departmental formalities, within the eight-week period. The Court recorded that its observations would not preclude the competent authority from independently considering any proposal for Nagalapur Village in accordance with law. No order as to costs was made.