3
Petitions No. 31264-31266 of 1994 disposed of on 315′ Qcto’t2.et,,
1994 has Eaid down the principies reiating to the
royatty by the contractors. The same are extracted
(a) Where providing the material (sL:bje{:’t’ed to<ifoya:lty)'"
is the responsibility of the con*trac–tor and .
Department provides the c:o:n't.ractor' with -specified'
borrow areas, for extraction of the «–reguire?d
construction material;-._the"'~–vvill be liable
to pay royalty chabrgles' forfitlre ( minor
mineral) extracted from. such areas, v_ irrespective of
whether ;the",;contract :'s item' rate._.contract or a
lump deduction of royalty
charges» cases For this purpose
n.on-e)tecu'tion of myininflg lease is not relevant, as
theliability arises on account of the
contractor',eiktractingiiriaterial from a Government
5 land, for use in'the* work.
) under’-die’ contract the responsibility to
‘ 2 ., 2 supplythe material (minor minerals) is that of the
vbeiparfmentfemployer and the contractor is
to provide only the labour and service for
ex’ec:uti’on of any work involving use of such
, mate-rial, and the unit rate does not include the
{cost of material, there is no liability on the
“contractor to pay any royalty. This will be the
position even if the contractor is required to
transport the material from outside the work site,
\_,,. . ,Ww,,…wW.»,»’ -»=’»=»=M,.»…,..,.,.n. , .. .
4
so long as the unit rate is only for labour or service’ =
and does not include the cost of material. V V
(c) Where the contractor uses material purchased
open marked, that is material'”‘p–:ircha’sed’atfitomxa
private sources like quarry lease holders or.priyate” A
quarry owners, there is no “liability lithe’
contractor to pay any royait_y’oharges..__ ‘ I
(d) In cases covered by paras_b(b,) and the
Department cannot ‘r.ecov_ermor any royalty
from the bills of the’co:’iitraq:ti;vr}anad-if deducted,
the Department willdbe ‘bound’&°toV”‘refund any
amount so cledrjcteij or collected a- to. the con tractor.
(e) Subject aaboiieyfjcoallectioieg of royalty by the
D~ep–artn9ie.n’t reF’und._ the-reo.,r._ y the Department
will be goirernedt b y’ «theterms of contract.
(f) Nothing statedsijy’aboyemsnall be construed as a
directiona for lfefL’f?sCf«.._.i7i’} regard to any particular
4; contract. TlThaeV’Department or authority concerned
…C’sh,all decided breach case, whether royalty is to be
deductedvor if any royalty is already deducted,
yoawhether Vitvshould be refunded, keeping in view the
A above “principles and terms of the contract.”
_ The said decision has been upheici by the Division
of..tf?..%’is Court in the case of OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
‘raor,A:, ,m%PARTMENT OF MINES AND GE/o,Lo,
GY V. M.
MOHAMMED HAJEE in Writ Appeai No. 830 of 2006 disposed of
on 25″‘ September, 2006.
4. Foiiowing the judgment of this Court rendered..’in.t:\i’Ji9itVv
Appeal No.830 of 2006 disposed of on 25″‘
these petitions are disposed of in simiiar_te,rrhs. _-i\io’.to ”
I: « ‘
costs.
% Ch.g’e’;f3’us’tice’i 0 00
sax.
Judge
Index’:.Yes«,/ “”” ”
Web ‘H_ostv:_Yeds . *
Ia ” ._