S.D.Anantharaju S/O S.D. … vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 August, 2009

 "'s.A."'tshsx%araj"u.,,

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 12"' DAY OF AUGUST, 2009

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. 9.0. DINAKARAN, CHIEF Jt.:'s1'*_:i't':'E:»»'.',1---.., 2- 

AND

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE v.(3_. sA55,}i.A'§u*~r.,.'  "
WRIT PETITION NOS.22242 - 246 ofzoos (G,;::'éA_p.m"-six': 
Between: A A A A A A

1. S.D. Anantha Raju,

S/o S.D. Dyamappa,

Aged about 60 years, - V V
P.W,D Contractor,   
3"" Cross, 3.C.R._.vE.~':t_-,'--:'r'_asi0r§e;, I   V  :
Chitradurga  ,     

2. S.A. Mahesh,- '     
S/0 s.o.'Anantha.Raiu,.  
Aged abouta_27ryea'rs,  b
3"' Cross, 3CR--.Extens~i_on',._
Chitra:u'urga--577V5Qi'; 'O

 £2,/to'  D... VAna'njth'a. Raju,
A Aged a¥:'(,)_'L:$Z_, 2'3' years,
3". Cross,' JC'_R__ Extension,
Chi'tradurga~5?7501.

  Kondattfieddy,

.  _S/oevengal Reddy,

._ '*._Aged"a.b0ut 60 years,

A . P,W».--D; Contractor,

'  R/',0. No. 3993/67, 5"' Main

A  .,19~=" Cross, MCC "B" Biock,

O' Davangere. .. Petitioners

(By Sri C. Shivakumar, Advocate)

 



  Davan:~}_gere._ ,

And:

1. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary
Department of Commerce &1ndustries,
M.S Buiiding, Bangaiore.

2. The Executive Engineer,
P.W.D. Division,
Chitradurga.   ._

3. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division,
Chitradurga.

4. The Executive Engineer,  
Panchayath Raj Engineering Division,-**'* --. 
Chitradurga. '  T "

5. The Executive Engineer,  ._ V
Panchayath Raj Engineering D'i"v"isi:Jn, 
Davangere. '  *  r  

6. The Executive "
P.W.D. Division,,_ ' 
Davangere.

7. Secretary, --. _    -
-Agricuitu-rate Produce IS/i'ari~;eting Committee
 .,Ch'itr,aderga'»."i I "
8. S'e<:_rei;a_ry,.  C  
Agricuiinhfe Pwiduce, 'i'~/iarketing Committee
...Respondents
(By Sri Basavaraj Karreddy, GA)

 . ''These.i''writ petitions are filed under Articies 22.6 and 227 of the

'A'-4"_Con«s:titu'1;ion of India praying to direct the respondents not to deduct
r=oya|.ty,_fr'om the petitioners running work biiis; and etc.

   These writ petitions coming up for preliminary hearing this day,

 the Court delivered the foi|owing:-

,., 

 -

_t£.n»_ci4e;~<V:_V No

case, whether royalty is to be deducted or if any royalty
is already deducted, whether it should be refunded,
keeping in view the above principles and terms of the

contra ct. "

3. The said decision has been upheld by the

of this Court in the case of OFFICE or THE pihstecvtfoeé one

DEPARTMENT o:= MINES AND GEoLciéi””v«.’_ M. .;r4o’e.m~_1’r~iEo”‘.

HAJEE in Writ Appeal No. 330 of2006Vdispose_d»1o_f.on 2’57%–ff.septe%.–{be{,”.

2006.

4. Following the judvgjrtwent rendered in Writ
Appeal No.830 of 2006 disposed of 2006, these

petitions are disposed_olf”in ‘similar telfns.-i.’ No_jord”erj’as to costs.

V     Chief Justice

Sd/...
JUDGE

: j.iiéb"..i}§o;§ti  Ne"