1
IN TRE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA A? BAKGALGMIE
onrrso 1':-us me 27"' on or mw, zoos
PRESENT
'rm-: Howauz MR. 9.0. DINAKARAbi§§,§CIiIE'i-";1i.ij3_STfCE, j
AND
we Hma'm.£ Ma.Jus1'ic§ v.¢;%s£.gH.iAiiz:r%% 5; %
Between:
Mr K Ravikumar 'v
S/:3 late K--RagAh1;pat'i?§,.Nai--r1u,.
Aged abcrut 38 'ya_ar;,'l, _ _-
BBM? Cia'-as I Cc3vntra.¢tor,.v "
mes, Kodiha'i!i, %
HA1. 2"" stagspost, % @
Muneswara Termzie' Street,
4_.v..BangaȤ::2re -14 560 003... .....
.. .. .Pet:itioner
= fififlagaraj N Naidu, Advocate)
" _AVndV:
, 1'.' '?."h:e" 3=.:ate bf Karnataka,
Represéswted by its Secretary,
flepartment of Commerce and Industries,
% Ms Building,
A «Bangalore --- 560 001
2. The Commissioner, .
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Pelike,
(B.B.M.?.), N R Square,
aangalore.
(By Sri Basavaraj Karreddy, GA)
.. .¥§espo'n*dent$
This writ petition is filed under Articles' oh-tie
Constitution of India praying to direc:t1_the"nrespenderif:s" to
deduct the royalty from the petitioner run:__1ihg workV_--hi|'le. = '
This writ petition coming uVp*»l7:o'r>preliminatryx thist'
day, the Court delivered the foliowin"g':'~s,vv_
(Delivered by' r'-en.
The petitioner iii. petitiion' ie a registered civil contractor
carrying on citriiyyori(e"of"thefievernment Department and Local
Bodies. ,Ii§&'ie contended that for the purpose of execution of civil
petiti--oAn--er is required to purchase building materials
fromu"th'e__«pri¥ete'ilederces. It is further contended that the
VV'v:~eTwpetitioner'*doee not own any quarry and that he is net iiable to
l to the respondents. Hewever, the respondents
‘ded’i:c’£ing royalty from the blils of the petitioner without
Vlaiith’ority of law. Hence, this writ petitien praying net to deduct
royalty from the ieills ef the petitioner in respect of the
3
materiais procured by him from private sources for exacLsi_:__Iti.n_,
the civil ccmtract works.
ii’
2. in simiiar matters, this-Qourfin”G,V.;j:I§i§iéi!Afi
omens v. smrrs or KAMATAKA Am iiefrnieas in Writ
Petitkms No. 31334-31265’¢.{‘i:99~§ c2i;a;$ose4iAii*af} on 315” October,
1994 has iaid dawn the pri.nci:pies’V–rgi_at§.fig_’VA’i%)’.’*E’he payment ef
royaity by the contfafci;%3»r$. fie €sa'{:’n_e.:_4’a:§é’V.éX’i’r’iacted hereunder:
(a) VVVheré.:’:jpr:$:1ii;fin§*~_i’i3e ifiaférial (subjected to
krayaityj isjme .clfé;~::i§£}nsibility of the contractor
arid, jétize ‘ Jfiprovides the contractor
with ilépeicifiéd boffcw areas, for extraction of
” reqiiiirmzl… = construction material, the
ccietractgr will be liable to pay royalty charges
__ .Ai;a§’terial (minor mineral) extracted finm
such ‘afreas, irrespective of whether the
ll .ccSr3t1?act is a item rate contract or a lump sum
‘A s 4_ ctintract. Hence deduction cf royalty charges
in such cases will be legal. For this purpose
non-execution of mining lease is not relevant,
as the liability to pay royalty arises on account
2??’
(11)
t”
4
of the contractor extracting materiai
Government land, for use in the work.
Where under the contract the
supply the material (minor ‘§min:erals)iiie_v’tha_£’it
the Department/’employer and the oontrafiorwis
required to provide only”i’the laboLir.ane’V-senrigrice
for execution of any work iiivoliring ofasuch
material, and the’*zinit ratet.loes.’:not*~.include the
cost of material_,… there’ is on the
contractor’««c:te’ pay .. will be the
position”»_’e{ie=ii’.e__ii’ “co.i§tractor is required to
outside the work
aite, so’iviieng’vA3’as .._un.it_’ rate is only for labour
or. eeryiceiy .-not include the cost of
materiaii. -_
Where the contractor uses material purchased
in ‘opens marked, that is material purchased
froie,v_pi?istate sources like quarry lease holders
A or. private quarry owners, there is no liability
on the contractor to pay any royalty charges.
In cases covered by paras (b) and (C) the
” iliepartment cannot recover or deduct any
royalty from the bills of the contractor and if so
deducted, the Department will be bound to
5
refund any amount so deducted or cnllected to
the contractor. *
(e) subject to the above, collection of myafty
the Department or refund thereof__’By. vthe
Department will be govern¢d*”by ‘thsle as V
contract.
(0 Nothing stated aboveénalf beA’c9nstrunéd”‘:§s*”a
direction for refund in to any «pntticfivlar
contract. ‘ anthnrity
concerned shall 1 whether
royalty is _ in be I foyalty is
airéaatffr? wnéthér it should be
-new the above principlw
andaterms ‘of the fibntréct. ”
gtazak decision has been uphetd by the Dmsion
Benéfi the case of OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
nefianrnnrif or names mo GEOLOGY v. M.
“4”1’u¥é6!§}fiMV%qE£.rHAJEE in Writ Appeal No. 330 of zoos disposed ef
‘ ‘ tan” 3 §’~*7_’S’eptember, 2006.
5
4. Following the }uc£gment of this Court renderedfi V
Appeal No.830 of 2006, disposed of on 25″‘ Septenlboir u
this writ petition is also disposed of. No calls? a’s«to”–;osts:;V:_” _V
Chi¢;fJL~;si:i::o’
Index: Yes ‘ i»?’.
Web Host: Yééf No l
Ia