1
IN THE HIGH counr or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9*" DAY or JULY 2009
PRESENT
% THE I-fON'BLE MR. ran. DINAKARAN,' CHIEF JU'_is':VTI"c":'EV'~~',.\:"~
AND
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE st§%;~§AF=7£*I"~4
WRIT PETITIONS NO.16212-21____§;;of
Between:
Sri Ashok Kumar,
S/o Vishwanath Rao,
Contractor, Age: 42 years, _ '
R/o No. 9-4-~28, Qazi Colony, j
Gandhi Gunj Road, _ _ _ "
Bidar Dist. Bidar. "
...Petitioner
(By Sri aGo_::.V:ri'sti' Stkhaéhampu r, Advocate)
And'; .' " t
1. state_c5f..g<«akhé't'aka~t','"Y
V » .Represe__nted V by 'its t Secretary
Departrn"entv*--.of Mines and Geoiogy,
BuiEdi"ngAs':,
_ "Bannga1ore-S60 001.
The Evézecutive Engineer
Water Transport Division Bidar
§?u'b'!ir;t Works Ports and Iniand
{sand direct.-.._thVé'respondents to refund the royalty already
“diédi.-cted from the -,biils of the petitioner.
. . petitions coming up for preliminary hearing this
day;’th’e.. C;’ou_ri: delivered the fo|lowing:-
Dist. Bidar.
3. The Executive Engineer
Panchayath Raj Engineering
Division, Bidar.
4. The Executive Engineer
Minor Irrigation Division
Bidar.
S. The Executive Engineer
Pradhana Mantri Grama .
Sadak Yojana, Division Bidar
Dist. Bidar. ”
6. The Executive Engineer ”
Major Irrigation Divis;ioifi-
Bidar.
…. * “Respondents
(by sripe;iis;{vafai..:i§eireddy, GA)
These writ are,_fiie:d”‘under Articies 226 and 227 of
the Constitiij_cion,of Ind*ia_praying to direct the respondents not to
de:riuci;.,fron1′:’th’e bi..ils of the’ petitioner and not to insist the
petition’e.r’to.gp’i*odu:ce{th.e royaity paid receipts by their vendors
/””” 2
(8)
(b)
4
Where providing the material (subjected to royalty)’
is the responsibility of the contractor and_;th’e\ ~ A’
Department provides the contractor with speclfiedjf.
borrow areas, for extraction of _the ;
construction material’, the contr=?Cf0? 5?
to pay royalty charges for theairnaterial (‘r,7i’no.* ‘~
mineral) extracted from sur.h”areas,”irrespectivert«:gi’v
whether the contract is a iteinhirate contract’ “or a,
lump sum contract. ._Hence”‘cieductien of royalty
charges in such casesviillgbeg this purpose
non–execution of minging lease not ‘réi;3.u,9z,-nt, as
the liability toahp-ay rééyaltl/.:’,é3rises..h’onaccount of the
contractor:.extEactihg’: ma-t_eria_l– améovernment
land, forguseghhin the ” ”
Where Wthe con~tr_act the responsibility to
supply: the mat’e’ri’aVl’i'(minor_.minerals) is that of the
Departrnentv/ernployer.ifland the contractor is
re:;ruired’4to..,provi’deonly the labour and service for
execution of'”any–«’worl< involving use of such
A niateriaipand the unit rate does not include the
material, there is no liability on the
'i;'ontracttir.5i'o pay any royalty. This will be the
position' "even if the contractor is required to
transport the material from outside the work site,
A it so long as the unit rate is only for labour or service
and does not include the cost of material,
<3;
6
M0}-IAIVMED HAJEE in Writ Appeal No. 830 of 2005 disposedef
on 25″‘ September, 2006.
4. Foilowing the judgment of this Coc§Jfif»Vrehdef’ed
Appea: No.830 of 2005 disposed of on 25*” se;$tember;\.ee,,2L0ps
these petitions are disposed of in sin1ilar”‘t.e:fins. No’oVrde§?’.=as *to
costs. , _ 1
2. A
F
. ‘ ml 4
_g:.:s*:1ce
5/’
Index: Yes_/; No
/ …..
web i¥i’es.t,; §es