High Court Karnataka High Court

Amrut S/O Tippanna Doddamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Amrut S/O Tippanna Doddamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
111 THE men corner or xjxmurmxa AT  

namn THIS THE 28*" DAY or MAY zoqé. 1'  ~.'  "' 

93.333151'    %
THE nomsm MR. ran. nxnmmrfin, 
THE H0!l'BI..E  

WRIT PETITION noslsfis 1&:'.11-1;:  /0 9 ( aw mm 5)

BETWEEN:     '

. AMRUT 3/0  

Age 41 yeam,. o'er; 1>w;:)_ cm:2:;acto:>.__ 
R/0 H.Nc;. 60, Sbalcti E1*«I4aga1',=._ .
GULBAR(} A.: ' .  = _   ' ..PE'I'I'I'IONER

(BY=.sffis.s;--  Advocate.)

AND:

1; Q erha stage  xgammka

'Répmsaentcxi ' :ny%.1ts--% Secmtary
D&:pa.fiimcnt"Mi1:¢s.--& Geology
M.s; B".'1i1dingj'j_ 

i  BA:~:c3u¢s._1_._c3:3__:::,; 1.

"  Statc~:>f'Kar.aata1ca
 ' R'apA.'by'its secreztary
   Eficpartgxxcnt of Industries ea Commence
 --..Iw'I.S'g. Building, Bangalare -- 1.

'  3)-- 'uI'IiéTI.'lxecutivc Engineer,
    ..PWD Division Gulbarga.
 V4) The Executive Enginecr,

Panchayat Raj Eng Division
Gulbarga.

 



S) The Executive Engneer,
Fradhanamanei Gram Sade}: Yojana I

Planmng Div. Gulbarga.     
6) '£'hc Executive Engineer _ it 1
Miner Irrigation Division, Gulbarga.
7') The Commissioner,   _»
The Gulbarga Urban DevcieQme1';'tAut,hr>z'ity,
Main Road, Gulbafga. " '  v  

8) The ()ommissioncr,,_  it

City Municipal    
  = 1 _e..V".[R;"3S¥'ONDENTS

Gulbaxga. H V . _
i (By er;   Gen.)

These writ petitio_n:';.aie4v flied _u_rader Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution' ofilndie..preyi'n_g'to direct the respondent not to

deduct royalty from ‘the -bills”—o_f”the paitioner and not to insist
the petitioner te produ_ce._ i:i’ie”‘ royalty paid receipts by their
vendors. ,Direct the respondent to refund the royalty already
dVe£iucted»» from’ the bills ofthve petitioner.

These 9i;ri~t’pefitions coming up for preliminary hearing this
day,’ ethet_eCqiu.zrt§deiiverw the following:–

lLLQ..§_H_§..E.I
it -.e:(Delivered by PD. Dinakaran, C3.)

rfl’E1e. Epetitloner in these petitions is a registered civil

“e.§’.i:<':::'*.':Al:'|.'3.t.'ior carrying on civil works of the Government Department

Local Bodies. It is contended that for the purpose of

i 'execution of civil works, the petitioner is required to purchase

x

buiiding materials from the private sources. It

contended that the petitioner does not own._any."'euVa'rr§i»'aiici_'_:thetKi'

he is not iiabie to pay any royalty to

the respondents are deducting royalty from 'the-v_At55i_iIs*~-'of; the-it

petitioner without authority of IawV,t…..i-f{ence.,L' these writiipetitions
praying not to deduct the roiyeigty froiri'ivth'eVee.t:iiis»» of the petitioner
in respect of the rria§te__riais"broé'i;redjfvfront from private

sources for exec_utisvr;_ s_ifi_il" t;on–treft,t works.

2. In    c:..v. KUMAR AND
omens V.:z'§'Vl:'ifiTVE    AND OTHERS in Writ

Petitionfi Nor-i 31Vs’s4;3:t2iss*§r’iss4 disposed of on 31″ October,
1994-._ down AAthe””‘principies reiating to the payment of

royisiity’ The same are extracted hereunder:

(3) providing the material (subjected to

royaity) is the responsibility of the contractor and
A’ ‘ the bepartment provides the contractor with
it “specified borrow areas, for extraction of the
required construction mate-riai, the contractor wiil
be liable to pay royalty charges for the material
(minor mineral) extracted from such areas,
irrespective of whether the contract is a item rate

V’ .

3;’ I
L_,,= M?”

at’

contract or a lump sum contract.

deduction of royalty charges in such cases irriii A’
legal. For this purpose non-execution ”
lease is not relevant, as the liability to
arises on account of the contracts? ”
material from a Government land, ‘for the

work.

(b) where under the ._ responsihility to

I a is
K __ *._o,Toen marked, that is material purchased from
i .V jarivate sourcw like quarry lease holders or private

supply the material (niinortmiiwerals) v”istnat of the
Department,/en:ployer”‘ ..th_e V’.contractor is

required to any the ‘and service for _

execution _A it involving use of such
material,’ and does not include the
cost oft’ myataria-i, there is no liability on the
conitractor to any royalty. This will be the

.. ., even if the contractor is required to
tire: “material from outside the work site,
‘5o”*long’as};tha unit rate is only for labour or service

and ‘not include the cost of material.

‘ Where the contractor uses material purchased in

quarry owners, there is no liability on the

contractor to pay any royalty charges.

(d) In cases covered by paras (£3) and

Department cannot recover or deduct aq}{“‘r:§yalty

from the bills of the contractor and A V
the Department will be bound . ~aref£:nd

amount so deducted or collected to wntraezert 3

(e) Subject to the above, colleotion of :oyaltyVibyvi~he
Department or refunti thereof _ . Department
will be govomeor by the storm: or

(0 Nothing state;i_’ –abe_ve as a
direction for” ta any particular
contrac_;t} V :5_rVa¢.Etbority concerned
shall in wizether myaity is to be
dedueted’ or is already deducted,
whether it4._si;auid.£45e._rei:’iJnded, keeping in View the
abqye principiesfliaivd terms of the contract. ”

has been upheid by the Divisicn Bench

Visor this coon; in the case of ormze or me oxnecron or

.1 eEi=5ga1″He_sTior muss AND GEOLOGY v. M. nonnum’-:1)

mt Appeal No. 330 of 2905 dispesed of on 25*”

i V 1 sopotorober, 2006.

4. Foiiowing the judgment of this Court ren&r§q.__”E–5 “§3it§{‘2V

Appeai No.83) of 2006 disposed of on 25″‘ M

these writ petitions are aiso disposed of. fflb “o4rdA_e£rA as;

Ssh] _
index: ‘Q . V
Web Host: Yéé,/I 1s£d–<.. "