High Court Karnataka High Court

Abdul Hameed vs The Karnataka State Rep By Its Secy on 1 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Abdul Hameed vs The Karnataka State Rep By Its Secy on 1 December, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH comm' or KARKATAICA,'   _  

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY c;'1é9i)EcEMEER§:§':E0§.\§" _ 

BEFORE   T
THE HON'!-3LE MR. Jus'rrGE>RAM Mc_)mE E3156?
wm' PETITION  16998 «ii? E006 {GM;MzvI'}s)

BETWEEN
ABDUL HAMEEE'   V    
S/O. MssHEIK?;:BB:x   f  ' 
AGEDABOU"I"441YEeARS._--...__  "  '
FWD CONTRACTQR  »  E_  
SURALPADI, :;;<11mI&;AMB-L_A.. 
MANGAL0R'E"4+j5'74'151.,  -

 a ' .  " .    PETITIONER

(BY SR1. Nz1§}ARAJA. h§_ N£§1.DU, ADV)

AN!)  "

 'L1  'n?:E EAENATAKA STATE

~ E  RE1--fi.*EY .1_'r--:-: SECRETARY
._  ,D"EP;ER'mENT op' MINES GEOLOGY
A? ' M s.E:.Jf1LD1NG, BANGALORE.

 % TEE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

,  K}ii?NATAI{A STATE SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD
" V "'-«NO. 1, DIVISION, SESHADRIPURAM
V ' -- --<BAN GALORE - 560 020.

V'    THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

KAFENATAKA STATE SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD
MYSORE EHVISION, JAVA ROAD
NEAR HIGHWAY CIRCLE, MYSORE
MYSORE DISTRICT. 
M



4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

PANCHAYA1' RAJ ENGINEERING URI-3"A'N" * ::'_~:W    

DIVISION, SHIVANANDA CIF-;"CLE'"  
BANGALORE.  =

5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER  I

PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERINGI D{\¢TISIff)'.N   

MANGALORE, D K I)Is'I'.____'*-

6 THE EXECUTIVE  "  I
MANGALORE TALUK; PAHCHAYAIS A _ 
MANGALORE, lZ)IA{...DI;'-3--'}'.'-.A  I ~ 

7 I THE Exi'Eci;IrI*II.*I3*.'«I)PI§'ICEI? " 
DEPAI(m,E'I~:fI*.-9}-'«.I»III~IoR-- IRREQATIQN
4TH IaLoC:__B:.; STE' FIICIGR "  
JAYANAGARE :;§:oM.PLEX ' ~  .  

JAYA?;'~lAGAR',AI,II3Ab¥GALORE 1-1-1.

3 THE CHIEF OFF.'ICE'R   
TOWN MUNICIPAL Q " . ..
MOODABIDPI, MANGALORE
I).,I~_::. DIs'rRIc*Ir_ _

    """ "  RESPONDENTS

(BY=vA$RI.fP’ R}I’iII§I)¥§A;.. ADV FOR R2 85 3)

(BY SR1:-‘I§%.DIEvAI)A$;”AGA FOR R1, 4 65 5)

THIS w:R’I’I* I5ETI*IIoN IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

227 OF’ ‘}’HE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

“DIRECT- THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DEDUCT ANY

2 ‘–._”‘ROY_IA.L’I’Y””~FROM THE PETITIONER RUNNING WORK BILLS
Any)

“f ….*I5HIs PETFPION, COMING on FOR FINAL HEARING,

I I ~ frHIs DAY THE coum’ MADE THE FOLLOWINGLE

If

N

The petifioner is a civil contmc:’ tor.

and executed certain civil worigrs t.’.m,em *

Govt and local authorities the sought
to deduct certain on certain
material for V works, more
appropriately,;_” by the petitioner

fiom mdepvendent Sought for a mandamus

to me

2; the panics submit that the

quegiionei. that aifiéies for decision making in this petition is

by the decision in G V KUMAR AND

I Xi7_S.u.i’_’Si’I’ATE or KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in

W.iP’;«Nos’,’3’i-‘,iAZ€54~31266/ 1994 disposed on” on 31.10.1994

the following principles:

” “a) Where providing the material (subjected
to royaity) is the responsibiiity of the
contractor and the Department provides the
contractor with specified boxrow areas, for
extraction of the required construction

matefial, the contractor will be liable Vt”
royalty charges for the

mineral) extracted such?

irrespective of Whether the cofitract is a A’

rate contract or a surfing S

Hence deduction __of roya_1tjf’e11z&z1fges .i11’st_1elV1_:§

cases will be Fer non-

execution of    as
the  ' tp  V-on' 
of the from a

Goveifizngezgt .:1nutt1e”tvork.

, ~WVhe1?eV-_V.. the contract, the
mspefisibfiifi? the material (minor

_mine1ia!s)” is ” that of the
.. «.3€.E)e;)aartzne1″1t,l eggpioyer and the contractor is

to provide only the labour and

A fQf_j.execufion of any Work involving
Vase ofgztteh mammal’ , anti the unit rate does
not iriéiude the cost of material, there is no

on the contractor to pay any

fi=_.mya.1ty. This will be the position even if the
‘ contractor is required to aansport the

material fmm outside the work site, so long
as the unit late is only for labour or S€IVi¢C
and does not include the cost of matezial.

C) Where the contractor uses n %
purchased in open market, that-is m’ate_n’éi-V ‘.

purchased from private

lease holders or pnyrate 1 2
them is no liability on

any royalty charges.

d) In cases coverefi (c()
the Department feccxrer 10:: “deduct
any ‘ ccntractor
and ‘eiiepeéigtinent will be
bounaeewcfn z£fs;nd”az;y azgiguni so deducted

(is: coiiected ti.-;.e

_e_) Su}:5je-::t”– above, collection of
by u{ii’1e…[)e13a1’tzneI1t or refund thereof
will be governed by the

‘V

tfiothing state above shall he

cdnetrued as a direction for refund in

‘ H to any particular coniract. The

Depmtment or Authority concerned shall
decide in each case, whether royalty is to be
deducted or if any royalty is aheady
deducted, whether it should be refunded,

M

keeping in View the above p1inciple;$._,#j:1z1Vv ‘
terms of the contract.” ‘ ‘

Applying the afo1’esaidjVp1’iz1§§i;r)Al(:é£=., the _

directed to approach the msp’o §eients§autj§o:a¥;aes;”lggfiemnd
of royalty if deducted gut’ biils, and if
not the authorities pctifioncfs
ciaim, and in judgment, pass
appropriate of four weeks
therefrom. V’

The wagon disposed ofl’.

Sd/-‘-E
Tudge