High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Basavarajappa Dalapati vs The State Of Karnataka & Others on 3 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Basavarajappa Dalapati vs The State Of Karnataka & Others on 3 June, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
 =If 

   ---- 566 091.

IN THE HIGH 00331' OF' KARfl&I'AKA. AT 

mrmn 'rum 'rm: 3"! DAY or Jun  ' j«-I:   

PRESENT

ms Horrsw ma. 9.9. BIMKAI-"gm,    .V T T

'mm Hownw Mnmméai 

wnrr P£'1"!'l'IOfl5N0.v3:3~...1  (auV--§n?I£'s;

Between:    . 
Basavarajappa Daiapati  _. _     
Age: 45 years,  C?;ntt"m:?t9r,'--.V:-«--.,V 
R/o Mustur,    '   ..
Taiukz Yadagi;,----Dist: 'Guibarga.  

 '~  .  ...PetitIoner.

 VL my sgi 9:313}, Advocate)
Ami:

1'.2_The  of K.a_ma_I:aka,
Repiesentatiom' W its Secretary to
Depan:men£:.6f.VM£ne.s«»& Gaeoiogy,
M.S.'-Bufldirg, ~ 

* Bangafqre --- .560fE)01.

.- «Tim State "of kiarnaaka,
 '~3y_it3 Sgcretary to

'  of Industries & Commerce,
__M_.S;..Buiiding,

 

' V  f j * 3.» u Exafiutive Engineer
 "Eula Panchayath



Division Ywgir, L 
mot: Guibarga ...Respondent$V  L 

(by Sri Basavaraj Karaddy, GA)

These writ petitions are mad under Articios of V.

Constitution of India praying to direct the.rmponde-.nts’n’ot’to’ d.eou”ct
the royaity from the btils of the petitioner and “not ‘to, insist
petitioner to produce the royalty paid receipts by veodoos. ~ Utroot

the respondents to refund the royalty. tiifisf

of the petitioner.

Tia writ petitions coming up for”‘p,re€!minar’y this day,
the Court made the foflowinga =

(beilxrorod by:’#5.”fi.’

The petitiooer ‘—i$i§a;.’ civil contracmr
carrying on Department and Local
Bodies. “It -‘purpose of execution a civfl
works, the is buiidlng matertais from
the private ‘contended that the petitioner does
oie’rn’Vai’o,r”:k;t5:£rArrir:sA fiaanrt’Vt!?i”a%:’t”tVi1ey are not iiabie to pay any royalty to
the mtpondents are deducting royaity

tho of without authority of Eaw. Home, the

prayi~.n o;.not to deduct the royaity from the bilis of the

«i of the materials procured from them from private

éxocution of the civit contract works. «««« _’ E

.z
3

2. In similar matters, this Court in GM. KUMAR ‘V,

sure or KARNATAKA AND omens in Writ Petitiorlsl’ Nq..’.:3i3s4I_§

31266 of 1994 disposed of on 31* octob¢r;””£994 ‘_c.u§uii’..tfia V’

pri nciples relating to the payment of myalty

same are extracted hereunder:

(a) Where providing materiel. trl ‘myaltfl is
the responsibility Departrmnt
provides the con£racti5r.n_ivitn~ amas, for
extraction 5,? the irriaaenal, the
cont2*actcir’§Vfll,l1.be liable p”ayA:.n§§?alty..Vcharges for the
material 1 from such areas,

of Eiantract is a item rate

contI”act.or’af:’lr,inip —conmract. Hence deduction of

mjraltil lchergesfiii cases will be legal. For this

ri0rIfe;(ecu_£io;=:”blt:f mining lease is not relevant,

five liability to pay royalty arises on account of the

‘ ctmlzraczfor material from a Government land,
V’ ” work.

1′ (b).–._: Wh-§fE._un5er the ccntract the responsibility in supply
A cm _nEtatafial (minor minerals) is that of the
..De-giarbnent/employer and the contractor is required to

V prenvide only the labour and service for exewifon of any
work involving use of such material, and the unit race

A does not include the cost of material, there is no liability

on the ccntrector to pay any royalty. This will be the
position even if {fie contractor is required to tranwort

the material from ouislde the work site, so long as me

.. .

unit rate is only for labour or service and ‘7’

include me cast of material.

(C) Where the coniractor uses mattgnal A f
marked, thatls material p£.Il’C’f7%:€1Vf’Tl’lf.*l”7;lA pl’l’VaB C’fl_SC3′!Jf’LT€5 bl
like quarry lease holders orlvpdyata dually
is no liability on the contfagfitlr to “aragf rliyalty

charges.

(cl) 1?: cases covered by”pa_ras”{l2}:’» . nt
cannot reseller or :ledur._’t–.ar:y Arsyalty fi’e.r._n the bills of
the canl:lf.3c!2:§r’:a:and Lif SQ lfiepartrnant will
be to Iargroum or collected

(a) ” Cbilflcfion of royally by the
Depakpvnent by the Department will be
govemad 5:;-ntract.

(D V’ ._i ‘Nothing above shall be construed as 3 direction
. in to any particular oonrsact. The
A ” ~ ._ D:-parfiv3én£_or authority concemed shall decided in each

. __ royalty is to be deducted or if any royalty

is allaégry? deducmd, whether it should be mmnded,
kééplrig in View the above pfirlciples and terms of tire

fhe said decision has been upmu by me Dlviskm Bench of
*71::~a:~.:.l in the case of orrrcs or me aznecmn or

laélrnmwaut or mass mo 6504.061 1:. M. noumnao

.» _,»..s,_’)

1-: . ..

HAJEE in Writ Apped No. 330 of 2006 disposed

September, 2006.

4. Following the judgment of this its

mess of 2005 disposedof on 25*”

are disposed of in simila aerms.__ No or<3ef';as_ *

'I I an …… ..

Index; Ycsf Hg). ‘V . V
Web’ Host: ‘Y§;_S’?._Nc V’ ‘_.