A fully performed contract discharges all obligations, barring further claims unless legally warranted, as affirmed by prior judicial decisions and Supreme Court principles.

ORDER :

E.S.INDIRESH, J.

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the Government Order, dated 07.11.2016 (Annexure-A), passed by the respondent No.1.

2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioner claims to be the Class-I contractor, and the petitioner was awarded with work relating to construction of Common Head for Alamatti Left Bank Canal and Chimmalagi, Lift Irrigation Scheme at Alamatti Reservoir. In this regard, the petitioner has produced the Agreement dated 11.05.1994 (Annexure-B). It is averred in the writ petition that respondent No.2 had called upon the petitioner to execute several additional works which were outside the scope of the original Agreement. These works were completed by the petitioner. In this regard, six supplementary agreements for the additional works were executed, which are produced at Annexures–C1 to C6. The petitioner contends that after completion of the work, respondent No.2 issued a “No Due Certificate” (Annexure–E). However, respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 01.02.2006 stating that the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs.37,52,000/- as the Comptroller and Accountant General’s Office had not approved the final payment during auditing of the accounts of the respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred W.P.No.2234 of 2006 and this court vide order dated 13.02.2008, (Annexure-F), allowed the writ petition, and quashed the claim made by the respondent No.2. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 has again deducted Rs.37,52,000/- by issuing an order dated 01.04.2008, from the bills payable to the petitioner under the 'Balki Project' and same was questioned before this Court in W.P.No.40140 of 2008, which came to be allowed, on 25.08.2009, and the said order of the learned Single Judge, was challenged in Writ Appeal No.10446 of 2009. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.10.2009, (Annexure-G), dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.2. Despite these orders, respondent No.2 did not refund the deducted amount of Rs.37,52,000/- to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 08.12.2009 calling upon respondent No.2 to refund the said amount. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed C.C.C. (Civil) No.3006 of 2010 against respondent No.2. In the meantime, the respondent No.2 filed Civil Appeal No. 10007 of 2010 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The appeal preferred by the respondent No.2 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 23.07.2025. It is also stated in the writ petition that, the petitioner was issued with the order dated 09.02.2012, seeking recovery of Rs.37,52,000/- as arrears of land revenue and same was questioned by the petitioner before this court in W.P.No.7493 of 2012. This court vide order dated 28.07.2014 (Annexure-H), allowed the writ petition consequently, quashed the order dated 09.02.2012. Thereafter, the respondent No.1, passed the impugned order dated 07.11.2016 (Annexure-A), claiming recovery of Rs.37,52,000/- which is impugned in this writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri. K. Arun Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel Sri. Sundara Raman M.R, for the petitioner; Sri. Manjunath B, learned Additional Government Advocate, for the respondent-State and Sri. Prashanth B.R., learned counsel appearing for learned counsel Sri. K. Ramachandra, for the respondent No.2.

4. Sri. K. Arun Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that, the respondent No.2, having suffered orders of this Court in three earlier writ petiti