Dilip B. Bhosale, J.

1. We have heard Sri Subramanya Jois, Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. K. Vidyavathi for the Respondent-State.

2. These appeals, by original respondent No.3 in writ petition, are directed against the Order dated 11th December, 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge, whereby W.P. No. 13841/2006 has been finally allowed at the stage of admission. Since the order is short, it would advantageous to reproduce the same;

“Petitioners are the Directors of second respondent society. The second respondent society entrusted certain works to the third respondent under a deed of agreement dated 19-10-2000 as per Annexure-A. On the question of payment of certain money there came to be a dispute between second respondents and the third respondent. In the circumstances, the third respondent approached first respondent-Government by giving representations. On the basis of these representation a notice was issued to the second respondent. Now under the impugned orders at Annexure-B and B1 dated 16-12-2003 and 1-3-2004 respectively the Government directed the second respondent to pay certain money to the third respondent. Petitioners being the Directors of the second respondent are before this court.

3. As per Clause 19 of the agreement if there is any difference between the parties, then they have no work out their remedy by approaching an Arbitrator. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the first respondent Government is without jurisdiction. On this ground alone the impugned orders are liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

i) Petition is hereby allowed.

ii) The impugned orders at Annexure-B and B1 passed by the first respondent are hereby quashed.

iii) However, the third respondent is at liberty to proceed against the second respondent for recovery of money in accordance with the terms of the agreement/Annexure-A.

iv) Ordered accordingly.

4. Mr. Jois, Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that the Learned Single Judge was not justified in disposing of the writ petition finally, in favour of the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by this Court in LALBI vs. MODINAMMA@ MODINBEE AND OTHERS ILR 2012 KAR 4403, (FOR SHORT “Lalbi”), Mr. Jois submitted that in the writ petition the Learned Single Judge after its restoration which was dismissed for non-prosecution, without issuing notice to the appellant decided the writ petition finally in favour of the respondent-petitioner, in his absence. He submitted that the appellant did not have a notice after its restoration either to show cause why rule nisi be not issued or that the petition would be heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the Learned Judge deserves to be set-aside.

5. It would be necessary to state few facts that are necessary and relevant to understand the controversy raised for out reconsideration. It appears that initially a notice was issued to the Respondents, including respondent No.3-appellant to show cause why “rule nisi” should not be issued. The writ petition was filed before the Principal Bench and then it was transferred to the Circuit Bench at Dharwad after its establishment in 2008. When the writ petition was placed before the Court, none appeared for the petitioner and as a result thereof it came be to be dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 11th July, 2011. The order dated 11th July, 2011 reads thus:

“Service report received for the Court below indicates that the petitioners No.1 and 2 have been served personally and the petitioner No.3 has been served through his wife and the service is held to be sufficient by the endorsement of the Senior Civil Judge, Athani. Despite service of notice issued through Court, the petitioners have not made representation for appearance it appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition.

The petition therefore, stand