Shreedhar Shetty vs The Executive Engineering on 6 August, 2009

I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE .
DATED THIS THE 63"" DAY OF AUGUST 2009 V H

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, cH1E§.JL%.éff.I,CLé,::  "

AND
THE HC)N'BLE MR.JosTIC.E: v.G'.---- ,SABHAIjII'l.'A .'  A'

WRIT PETITION Nos.22819--228'23,:'oF 2O()v',»3~.{('3vVV1'v'i--.?3\/Iii/'i_--S}VV
Between:

Shreedher Shetty,    

S/o. Krishnaiah She1_.ty,, " '

Aged about 64 yea'rs.,V"' 71.,

P.W.D. Contx*aoto1",,.., "T-1   '
Abhinandanii, K1:kkik--'at~te,V'i,  "
UdupiTa1uk,"-_  V _    
UdupiDistrict.'  .   _  ' .. PETITIONER

{By Sri. Najgamg Nfnaiudu "-- Aév. "for Petr.)

I. The  Ehgiiieering,
Department 'o1'_~§?.VLi' . D. Division,

  Udupibivisvion,'

Udupi 'I'aluk aria District.

T135 *E3i¢CufiV€ Engineer,
._[3epartr1'1_ent of Panchayath Raj,
_EE_ngin'eering Division,

 . 'Udupi Division,

1,: okiupi Taluk and Dist.

 



2

3. Department of Minor Irrigation,
Udupi Division,
Udupi Taluk and District.

4. The Executive Engineer,   ._
Department of Port and Fishers, '
Udupi Division,

Udupi Taluk and District.

5. The Commissioner,
City Municipal Counseling,
Udupi Division,  
Uc1upiTaluk and District. V  

6. The Executive Engineer,
National Highway,  _ _ _  ,  .
Udupi Division,   '    '   

Udupi Taluk and Dist; RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. Basavaraj Adv.,_,fo:i_Respts.)

These Wm Petititsnsunizler Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India”praying’-to..–direct the respondents not to
deduct any royalty from”the”petitioner’s running work bills.

These ‘Writ Peti-tions” coming up for preliminary hearing on
thjsday, the Court delivere.d….t_.he following:–

D,JUDGMENT

(lj’_e1iv’ered by P.D. Dinakaran, cu.)

V _ The ipetitionertiin this petition is a registered Civil Contractor

C on civil works of the Government Department and Local

contended that for the purpose of execution of civil

ivorks,….the petitioner is required to purchase building materials

ts?

from the private sources. it is further contended that the

does not own any quarry and that he is not Iiab_1e”to ‘

royalty to the respondents. HoWever,….. the

deducting royalty from the bills of the pe’titior’1’eriiwithoutiaiithcrity.1

of law. Hence, this Writ Petition prayigg not-.to’ deduct the. royalty

from the bills of the petitioner in respect .the procured
by him from private sourcesy_._.fbr ciyil contract
works. H L V’ i it i i

2. In KUMAR AND
omens omens in Writ
Petition Nos’.-__ disposed of on 315′ October,
1994 has relating to the payment of

royalty by the contractors?’ The same are extracted hereunder:
‘ Li/_here«vlliii}c)roviding the material (subjected to
“the responsibility of the contractor and

V the.i:D€}’e,o:artment provides the contractor with

i sixzcified borrow areas, for extraction of the

H reqhired construction material, the contractor will

be liable to pay royalty charges for the material

(minor mineral) extracted from such areas,

irrespective of whether the contract is a item rate

(0)

contract or a lump sum contract. Hence deduction
of royalty charges in such cases will be legal.’ -3′
this purpose non~execution of mining lease. is
relevant, as the liability to pay ~royal–‘ty

account of the contractor ext’r_acti’ng.. ‘materialfrolr:*:l’li’*-aw”:l A

a Government land, for use in the work. A

Where under the contractfithey responsihility} to
supply the material (minor minerals} is that of the
Department/employer acontractor is
required to provide only the labourvand ‘service for
executionuof_ any work of such
material,’ theunit. rcztelfdoes not include the

cost _of–f__rnaterial,._lth_ere””is liability on the

Zvlhcontractbr i5¥”§.;;ay;lq.,};y royalty. This will be the

position _e’ve”n.. if__the it contractor is required to

transport the rnat=e.ri’al from outside the work site,

–.,so long..,as~t’he'”unit rate is only for labour or

service and not include the cost of material.

thevcontractor uses material purchased in

opefif..m’arlced, that is material purchased from

private sources like quarry _ lease holders or

‘p_r*ii.’ate quarry owners, there is no liability on the

A’ ‘ contractor to pay any royalty charges.

In cases covered by paras {b} and (c) the

Department cannot recover or deduct any royalty

§y””)_’\.K

UL

from the bills of the contractor and if so dedueiteolf.V[:

the Department will be bound to ‘V’

amount so deducted or collected to the .con’lraCtor. _

(6) Subject to the above, collectton f
Department or refund thereofbythe De’p_aArtm.ent’:.’ b
will be governed by thel_ter_rns of ‘contract.._V 1

(f) Nothing stated above construed a
direction for rqfttrid in re:ga’rd_ vto”‘any particular
contract. The Departmelntujor aath.ority_”.concemed
shall decided in:each:cas’e,_t’zvhetherroyalty is to
be or is already
deducted, ‘be=refunded, keeping

in__V[vietvV”‘the;___above.__prine{bles and terms of the

V’:V_contrtact.”‘5

3. “The said. has been upheld by the Division

£hi’g[*c§5u:;; in the case of OFFICE or THE DIRECTOR

015′ Dr3raA?1:Tt§:£:_1§*t’,”oté* MINES AND GEOLOGY v. M. MOHAMMED

V’:-:AJEE fmfipeaz No. 830 of 2006 disposed of on 25th

-I j September,

6

4. Following the judgment of this Court rendered’-{f1.e.Writ

Appeal No.83O of 2006 disposed of on 25th Septembpef,

Writ Petitions are also disposed of. No o_rd»er_as cev’$t’s:V ” VV

‘-“.’1″»f’
_§Z”:’u*’_”.}$[‘”

JUneE

Index: Yes / N05/..

Web Host: e3 /”}’~?.cV»V5. _

Msk*

inéée