High Court Karnataka High Court

Kiran Reddy S/O Madusudan Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Kiran Reddy S/O Madusudan Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
IN THE HIGH couwr OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24*" DAY os APRIL, 2009

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF JusT,1:i;::'i's"~«'..'_gv-..: 57  _

AND

THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE v.G.';IsA:ju§;'A.H";T   "

WRIT PETITIONS N0.11994~998 of 2oos_a_';(-_GM, °  

Between:

Kiran Reddy -. T
5/9) Madusudan Reddy   . 
Aged about 28 years _ ' ._   _.   ~  ~
Occ: Class --I Contractor]  _ _   _  ' 
R/o House No.28/D ' '       '
Shantinagar   ;_
Gulbarga  --------  _ '

 ...Petitioner

(By Sri"I.R.'--BiradVar S;$»ri--~(:tfi'»a.g'ashetty, Advocates)
And: L V
1. we Asstatcifir Karnataka       A «
Represented by its Secretary

Department_of.4Min'eVsV and Geoiogy
M.S.BurEdEn«g'v-.   

7*,__eanga1cre'» S60 oc;f;7

 The State of E<"arn.'atat»<a

~ .« Represented.' byfits Secretary
4: -._D€p.a;'tAi':'T€-Ijt of Commerce & Industries
 M-.S;~Esu.i!dir'j'gs, Banga|ore--56O O01

  '.3';:"T.|--:jé"Ch'§}ef Engineer

V .G.u:i'barga

Irrigation Project Zone No.1

 

 



4. The Chief Engineer
Panchayat Raj Engineering
Risaidar Road, Seshadripuram
Bangaiore - 560 021

5. The Executive Engineer
Panchayat Raj Engineering Division
Gulbarga

6. The Executive Engineer
Karnataka Niravari i\iigam Ltd.
Dn.i\lo.1, Shulepet
Taluk: Chincholli
District: Guibarga V 

 is " -_...Respondents

(by Sri Basavaraj vi<a:red'diy*,_ "

These writ petiti_ons airetfilevd. under and 227 of the
Constitution of India;’praying~”‘t3o_ direr._t”t.h_e” _re’s_poVn’dents not to deduct
any royalty from the,’ bii.l_ls»’&_Vof the ipi_etitio’nergand not to insist the
petitioner to pl’OC!1′.iC’e thel.roy’a:lty p’aiG-._FeC6i”g;\f.,h.y’ their vendors.

These writ..pe’;itio.nsV’corningé’u-pdfor’ preliminary hearing this day,
the Court delivered the fol’!ow’lnVg;~”–~.__

“gzuoefienr
;,(-Deiviveredi by”‘P’.VD. Dinakaran, C.3.)

Th’e”pT_etitione.’r..in..tVh’ese petitions is a registered civii contractor

Zivicarrying oncivil of the Government Department and Local

&_E:5:o~di.es..V. It is contended that for the purpose of execution of civil

wo:<l<s,–..the 'petitioner is required to purchase buiiding materials from

it _:"-they privat'e sources. It is further contended that the petitioner does

snot ovyin"'a'ny quarries and that he is not liable to pay any royalty to the

respondents. However, the respondents are deducting royalty from

the bills of the petitioner without any authority of law. Hence,.,'the

petition praying not to deduct the royaity from the

petitioner in respect of the materials procured by him priyate it

sources for execution of the civil contract worl<s.""' ~

2. In similar matters, this it »
omens v. STATE OF KARNATAKA A1sl,12iioiT._HE_§,zs .l.i”1″\-‘~/iilffliit Petitions’
No. 31384-31266 of 1994 dispose’dRof_,o’l3, ovctoiier, @994 has laid
down the principles relating to:,.ivthe:=pai~,lrn.en’t”‘v.oVf’:V’*.ro’yalty by the

contractors. The same are e}?.t’ractve’d he-reunfide_rfi”

(a) Where..pro’»:ld)ng;,th_e ma.ter’ial ..(subj’ected to royalty)
is the _responsibility’,:of___the_’ contractor and the
Department proyi_des’«the…contractor with specified
borrowVxFareas,V’ ._fo’r_ “e)§t’i*acti’on of the required
canstruction’i material, the contractor will be liable
pay ‘royaltyivcharges for the material (minor

V'”rninerai,):’e}}tracted from such areas, irrespective of
“-i’=ry’,hAe’t;h:er.,v_thecontract is a item rate contract or a
‘contract. Hence deduction of royalty

H charges in such cases will be legal. For this purpose
V it :n4on¥Vexecution of mining lease is not relevant, as
* liability to pay royalty arises on account of the
Contractor extracting material from at Government

land, for use in the work.

(b)

(C)

(0′)

Where under the contract the responsibility to
supply the material (minor minerals) is that of the
and the

Department/emplo yer contractor is

required to provide only the labour and service fo.*’_Vt”
execution of any work involving use of
material, and the unit rate does not includeyufthe-v.r.”‘

cost of material, there is nofliabii.ity”,«on_:.

contractor to pay any royalty.__ This ‘will

position even if the contraictor is required to:
transport the materia’l.from,ioutsidethe work”site}
so long as the unit raters. only fog” labjcuror service

and does not include theicost ::na’teria’l;..’:V .,

Where the?_.:cor§traVctoi’*’Auses materiaipurchased in
open n”iarl<eo'w,r'theat, purchased from
private»Soeu~rces:'lil<e lease. holders or private
quarry __ ovvr'iers._v".there"-.._is. no liability on the

con tractor to pay yfiyalty charges.

In._.cases” paras (b) and (C) the

fiepartinvent cann.o.t«recover or deduct any royalty

A thebills of the contractor and if so deducted,

‘ I e 1 1 ‘ ” –e.{-G)

._-the will be bound to refund any

h A .arnount’si_:_3 deducted or collected to the contractor.

Subject to the above, collection of royalty by the

he ‘rD.epartment or refund thereof by the Department

he “will be governed by the terms of contract.

” i

X
‘ . …….

_,.,: