in man HIGH couaw ow KAnNAmAKA Am Banéaififin", I 'TED E Tfils was 13"'__g or Mnnggggzcfiai T O F El R E." THE HON'BLB M.JUSTICE K L.MAmJufi3§H' " WRIT PETITION no. 3§7é*oE zéasran-Em/S) BETWEEN 1 alts 5 EARISH GownA_'; .1u '= AGED Amour 32 rEaRs;g,_ , RfA£;s/Qgm.sEE?HARAMA1Aa,, uo;13;;sm+¢Ros$;AsRommE.LAxouT, Amm1GUp?E,v1Ja§AfihaAR?' ~BANGALOEEe4fi,'a ' V' \v'K v1Jé:[KufiAR*" S[O-NAGESH<SUsERA3A snawwy, AEEE ABouT12é_3EARs, " R/Am no 70,11 MAIN ROAD, 2 _4T3 cRosa,HosAHALLI VIJ"YAfiAfiAR, "EANaaLoRE--4o. PO = 3aC.£AGESH SfQ.€HINNA MARE GGWDA, ;AQED ABOUT 29 YEARS, h'M/s.ARpITHA couswnncwxons, '«fiO.729,BTH CROSS,RPC Laxofiw, BAHGALQRE--40. S/O.MARE GGWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEKRS, M!S.MARUTHI CDNSTRUCTIONS, RPC LAEOUT,VIJAIANAflAR, BANGALORE-49. PETITIONERS (By 8121. P V CI-IAN'DRASHEKAR,ADV.) AND : 1 STATE QF :r_A.12_r.~r_A.TA_rOT -s 4. RZE'.P.BY ITS PRINCIPAL sEc.*RETf1_"xRT, f)E'PARTi-a'Ei.~a"'f GF P'u'BLI(3. f-30%, M.S.BUILDING, ' _ -V BANGALORE-01. REP. BY ITS PRI_1fiCIPAL__§11C£R¥}TA1§Y'*«_ _ THE FITTEF E1\;Q"r1.1"'r.!mD DEPARTMENT OF PU'BLI_C ',WOnIK_m_ I'2C')'f"',"K . OTEOLE, T A' 'V 3 THE .......-Q'B_ ;~LA_I-iA_"rs.';;n:aA1a _.%;m J c.ROm);BzO§Om.ORE-O2. % "" P 4 TTHT. AUTHORITY KEIMARA OTPA123 vm-.s=T"'-_;axTN. _, 13ANGAL'ORE.w2U , By' I."Ts. cOv.z«.e1s-.¢:-x-:~:Ez=.~. """ " . . . RESPONDENTS
(::;yf EAIIEERAPPA, AOA FOR R1 5. R2;
sRI’;~3. N”. FOR R3:
. EOET 11.4)
*1’i~’.IS W.F. IS E’ILEu”‘ UNDER ARTICLE’ 225 E:
V227.-.93 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
‘OT3zEcT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DEDUCT my
_V .’.j;.ROTALT2 FROM OUT OF THE HILLS OF THE
PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THE WORKS CARRIED
GE”! B1′ TI-“..EM FOP. TI-IE ASL! LOCAL-
LVVBODIES, PURSUANT TO THE NOTIFICATIONS DT.
i5.7.i§fi5 VIEE A’1*T1~’l’E§fI.A. A’N’D ET. 2fi.3.19§fi VIEE
ANNEELB. AND DT. 28.5.94 VIDE ANNEXHC. AND TO
REFUND was ROYALTY AMOUNT
.nGM THE PETITICNERS.
THIS WRIT PETITIQNV-_CO§%&I1§Ié'”:’ON-ti’; fi~oRi
PRELIMINARY HEAR:;~:e- Teas; DAL’ ;, -‘i’-ma _’er:;U”R’I{_ MEKDE
THE FOLLOWING:- i * 1. .
W .
my, VA
0
I!
Heard the eetneelhtetethe.petttieners and
the reapondents. LQte’L1»v %2h ‘
2. The §etitRonees*Rte*eie;; e-ntrecters.
They hmfieflteéethetffiiled these Writ Petitions
ta Rqgas;}R¢$exg;e§~A;R”ahd C and to further
diregt ,E;a.:tee§eheehts not to collect the
royalty frem_the_§etitioners bill in respect
s._ Offltheiworkwerfier issued by the 2″ respondent
.V,’afide”te”efyrther direct the reep-ndente to
Refund the royalty if hny celleeted fram the
‘, petitienere -anning bill.
h”a3. It is not in dispute that in similar
eircumstances this. Court in G.V.KUMAR AND
CTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA in W.P.NO.31264
to 31266/94 disposed of on 31.10.1994 ha% laid
<:/
V
down the principles relating to the ' _
royalty by the contractors. 'i'he '* V
has become final since the "iias.A.'not':"b_ee;3
reversed .
4. In View of the .é’a,;iie, thi;-2. jcc>’i.u.~1.’-;§ is of
N’
he opinion, the p:re’sen’tm’:_Wri§t.fl’Petitiozii has to
be disposed of to
consider the eit” er
for refund to cieciuct the
roYa1t3i ”” bills by
consirierihg’ ladi down in
G. V. K’q”1~¢iA1{ ‘.’
the”‘::e–su1t, the Writ Petition is
vclirecting the re__,-nd.ente to
co11.si’deri’the’ case of the petitioners for
‘refunci ..of«:_ royaity or not to deduct the royalty
“§£j:..–.-o”:_:;'”‘~«–._1;…e running 121115 by applying the
‘-3§ri’3jic”p1es laid down by this Court in
& orrmns vs. STATE 017 KARNATAKA ag.
OTHERS. Accordingly, Annexure-A, B and C are
%/
quashed. Petitioners are perIuitte§1″””‘t¥:_’%_
fresh raprasezntati— -3: -urniahi.z-zg. V.
2-me .-‘.;r%z: passed ifi G.v.3:s:’aIni;”ar§ vs;
STATE ca? KARNATAKA Am owfimis £he. ‘>
respondents to consJ’.d4e1§V’VL’L’t.1_i eei;: détaépfrofisjerly.
__~s,.\A.._