High Court Karnataka High Court

A H Abdul Khader S/O K Ahamed vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 20 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
A H Abdul Khader S/O K Ahamed vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 20 March, 2008
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT' BANOALOIOEIIETE 

DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MARCH, 2068 f_    E

BEFORE   

Between:

1

A H ABDUL KHADER S_lO"4-I{I"AHI$M;El§ "  _
AGED ABOUT 45 YRS I    .    
FWD CONTRACTOR.  '

R/AT THATSYA MAIIIZIL 
PUTTUR O.I<.DI:~I*I  V I

I '...x_rI.b11rPIONER

(BY SRI.NAGARAJA;N ISIAIOU-,__AD;§I,)  _   '

AND:

1

"  MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION

  " MANGALORE D.K.I.)!ST
I (.13? SRI.R.KUMAR, HCGP)

THE .., - .fi§..E 'OF 'l%<_E§P{V1\Z;$_'I°Af{;':_.f€*EP'BY ITS SECRETARY

DEPT. OF C,O'MMEI_2c;II.' 'AND "INDUSTRIES
Pv1.S.BUILDIP€€}S BAr\!.GALURE 1

 .   

‘PWDIIIVIOIOIN

A”2_VMAN-GALOi?E.D”;–K_. DIST

TI-IE”I:*,IcEt:{I*I*IvIé:”I§INGINEER
PAI’@-E}!-!AYATH~–.V_RA-J ENGINEERING DIVISION

-VMANGALORE “D.K. DIST

EXEVCEUTIVE ENGINEER
“NI=.:1iIOIsIAL HiGHWAY OIVISIOII
..j_.MANG’ALORE D.K.DIS’I’

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

A.

HE HQNBLE MRJUSTICP) L NAI2Ai9?+NA SWAMY I

2

THIS W.P. FILED PRAYING TO, DIRECT THE REsP€)’Nl3j’riisiTjs

NOT’ ‘TO DEDUUI ‘ ” .’ “‘I’AL’i’Y FROM THE PETITION?-ER _
B!’ O

‘I R
“AI.-S, JRA T 1 TERIM

¢.

RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE AMOUNT. A_R’.EGAI§VD’l_NV(}—7T}:lE
WORK BILLS or THE PETITIONER ‘~,FoR’rHw:THwlmour

RDER To ., _ THE

DEDUCTING ANY ROYALTY FRoM»r’*r1¢1s SAID VRLI’N’PIiN.Q \éJom<_f.

BILLS.

This writ petition comitia’jo1_1 for ‘B’ “group before
the Court today, Court made folloyVving:..vlV” V

submits that’; e not owner. He does not extract
mines from the aiictheiice he is not liable to pay royalty

to”j.the*A(3overrita.ei1t. Forilthe purpose of carrying out business,

he pLL<'oiia.,es..:;,t.oi;e'ma.en1als ';mm the private sellers. Hence he

"VV._ea11not be«.._ma§:ie iilabie to pay 1T:y"ty

_.-.l..

i it ‘rtiaterialsp he piirohases from the private owners. In sum and

petitioner submits that the royalty is to be paid

Owners under the K M M C Rules 1994 and the

3

made liable to pay royalty because it would amount

collection of royalty which is not permissible ”

To support his contention, petitioner places«

Kumar 8; Others Vs., State, Eexothers held in

para 7(a) to (I) as follows:

“‘7. Hence, thesefi ~petitio11s’ {disposed of giving the
following directions ‘in regaI’d_’to1-royalty payable for the materials
{Tninn rninnrnlg .’ V. ‘ :

-LI-I-J.-I-4\J 41.-I-J-I–I.\JL (all-

a) Where (Subjected to royalty) is
the responsibility of tlie and the Department provides
the contractor with specified areas, for extraction of the
reqtiiifed gfitinstructionlllwmaterial, the contractor will be liable to

pay’~royalty pettergeetor the material (minor mineral) extracted in

u a item rate’co1ittéact,”or a lump sum contract. Hence, deduction

T’ of ‘royalty”~cha_I’ge.s”‘ in such cases vtrill be legal. For this purpose

” -«nvonéexecution of IIli1’.liI1g lease is not relevant, as the liability to

b) Where under the contract, the responsibility to supply

the material (minor minerals) is that of the

,.–5\

Department/employer and the Contractor is required tO”‘p_r,0y’ide
only the labour and service for execution of any Week i
“te dees not

of material, there is no uabuity en the eenufa,_.<;r to pay' any
_-y.J_,i ._.is will be the p0SitLI1 even if t11e"eont1*act_.or, is

required to transport: the material Vi'r_(:vi'1i1_ oL1teide~the.,_werk~ site, so V L'

long as the unit rate is only for 1abour:_or_»_ser'viee does not

include the cost of material.'

(3) Where the pij1'chased in open
market, that is fr-oini iijfirivate sources, like
quarry lease holders others, there is no liability
on the contractor

cdntiraetorsiiand so deducted, the department will be bound to

refuIid__ any eo_1.deducted or collected to the contractor.

g e) to the above, collection of royalty by the

refund thereof by the Department will be

goVeriied–.19§ the terms of contract.

it ' _ " 'fiiiNothing stated above shall be construed as a direction

'Afar re mi in regar to any part cuiar " itrrct. 1116: uep

5

royalty is to be deducted or if royalty is already

whether it shou’d be refun ‘ed, keeping in vie_W{ regime

‘S and t”r-ms ‘f “” -‘”‘””‘**” -‘ ”

2. The learned counsel for the re’spGf1dents.

payment of royalty is to be made hoId,er’:.j11ider K M’ V L’

F

If

3.

iv D-n-.1435 1-so-1 nan +n 1r:-I-u:I-1v14::1- fka

I-‘ n .3; o .

K…» 1\ i’:iuu. a LU W.u.uu1u1,– tu pet1′:.iene;.. _1s a qua1’1*y holds or

not, it is for the Department”to_’ decided by the

decision in G V Kun1etrfSvcas(§referredV’to’_–supra.’

3. In view of ciéroumstances, the matter
is fully covered {G V Kurnar’s case and this

Writ petition i.sddie’posed e terms.

56.!-

dd ” V Judge