Smt Parvathamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2010

1

IN THE I~IIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Dated this the 26"' day of August 2010
PRESENT

THE HONELE MR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF JU§_'i".V3'V:('3I'£*'.--kf.G. ~.,

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUS'I'ICE   "

W.P.Nos.12108-12109/2C10~.& -1' C «

W.P.Nos. 12876» I2885/201G"{G~M--MMS)'   G' I '

BETWEEN :

I

2 SR1.   

 

3

SMTPARVATI-IA_MMA  ._
AGED ABOUT 60¥EARS, 1'

CLASS I CONTRACTOR,  ;   
R/AT GORUR, HASSAN *[;zx1:;UI~:,_ " V  
HASSAN D'ISTRICT;"»-.1" '-  ;

s/0 '?Ar;VA1'I{AMMAI,. A   ,
AGED"ABo'i{_TV, 42.  .  .
;CLAssIV:EvI»coNiIfRaC3§0R, .
R/AT  VILLAGE,
GORUR POST_§'--ARAKAhAGUD TALUK.
HZASSAN DIST}?1CTf".»I.
 " V,     PE'I'ITIONERS
'(By Sri M N MADI-IUSUDHAN &
 Sri RAGHAVENDRA. H.S. ADVS.,}

 OF' KARNATAKA

 REP; EY9'ITs SECRETARY.
 DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY,

.M.ۤ. BUILDING,
BANGALORE--56000I

 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

NO. 1. I-IRB~HLC DIVISION,
CAUVERY NIRAVARI NIGAIVLA,
GORUR, I-IASSAN DISTRICT.

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
DAM DIVISION,

CAUVERY NIRAVARI NIGAMA,
GORUR, HASSAN DISTRICT.



2

4» THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
HRBC DIVISION,
CAUWERY NIRAVARI N IGAMA,
I-IOLENARASIPURA.
HASSAN DISTRICT.

5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
YAGACHI PROJECT DIVISION,
CAUVERY NIRAVARI NIOAMA, 
BELUR TOWN AND TALUK,  
HASSAN DISTRICT.

6 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
HEMAVATHI CANAL DIVI--S_I'ON.
CAUVERY NIRAVARI NIGAMA, 
TUMKUR TOWN,  _  --. 
TUMKUR DISTRICT; 

7 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.   I 
VISEVESI%1WARA?,'AR (;AI~IAE.fDIVISION.
CAUVERY IfIIRAVARI=i NIGA'.M,_A'.= ' " 

  ' 

  I
  .RA'II1NGf TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO
 'DEDUC.T'~AIxY* ROYALTY FROM THE RETITIONERS WORK
BILLS A,ND'I~IOT;*;rO INSIST THE PETTITONER TO PRODUCE

TIaIEIIRO3'eI.r'$.'LTSz= RAID RECEIPTS BY THEIR VENDORS AND
DIRECfI' THE RESRONDENTS TO REFUND THE
AMOUNT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DEDUCTED AS

 FROM THE PETITIONERS WORK BILLS AND TO
GRAI'JT AN INTERIM ORDER TO DIRECT TI-IE
'.AR.ES_I?'ONDENTS TO RELEASE THE WORK BILLS OF THE

I*'E'I'FI'IONERS FORTHWITH WITHOUT DEDUCTING ANY

 iv' ROYALTY FROM THE SAID WORK BILLS.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE
THE FOLLOWING :



3
ORDER

J.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral) :

Sri.M.N.Madhusudhan & Sri.Raghavendra”-‘:4H:.\S..

Advocates for the petitioners. Smt.Swe’thaV

Advocate for respondent Nos.?{ to”-€L_

learned Additional Government! Advocate fo:r_”_;resp’or1d’e~nt’

No.1.

2. Learned coun’s’eifor- parties are agreed,
that the present covered with
the in Golayya vs.
The lifjqf and others,

W.P.Na,sos1 O.(:)9{a(:}i!}I:?E3fM-S], decided on

02.06.2609. V t

the light of the above, learned counsel for the

‘states. that if the petitioners produce

authentic” “imaterial before respondent Nos.2 to 7,

that royatty was paid in respect of the sand
transported (from a licensed quarry owner), from

Wxvhom the petitioner had purchased the sand, the

respondents would refund the royalty charged from the

petitioners.

sratIR;o,Kd11é,r,

4

4. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted liberty

to produce material before the concerned respondent

Nos.2 to 7, depicting that royalty had alreadyybienyt

by the licensed quarry owner, on the

purchased by the petitioners. ‘p1″o.d’u_ctio.n”

authentic rnateriai, royalty paid petitiC;nei’s

be refunded within four weelfisf:

5. The instant ‘W1’it petiti’o’r1sV’V”a_re diispesed of in

terms of the aforesaidiiw H

niv*

” -. Index: Y/N