E
IN THE §'IIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4"' DAY OF JUNE 2009
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF JlJ_S_:"I.'.Z'If('."E_'vj--.i r.-
AND
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE V43. sasktejiikmijf
WRIT PETITIQN Nm49g,g. of zoesj-_e, M~MM-z-:1'
Between :
CHANDRASHEKARA GOUDA, .
SHIVANAGOUDA RAMANAGOUBAR, _ I
Aged about 43 years,
Occ: Contractor '
R/o. Thimmanahaiti Village-,._
Post Anandavana, V .
Haven' Taluk and Bi'stri<:t.*».~7:--_V '
...Petitioner
'(Bey 'Sufi 'K Pujar, Advocate)
1;", State ofi}(a,.FF}ata}<e H """ " "
'~.Re,;3'reserateci.At:y' ftsvsecretary,
Department. of Commerce and
In"c.'a_str_ies "(vM'i':1es)."_' v V
M.S. Bu'E!ding,'v.'j_
O _BANGALOR,E 4-580 001.
. " -fE'heASecret'a_r':§/,
. ' A;P.M'.C._,
Hezyeai. Haveri Dist.
H 'V:t.V'_~3'.~~.'VA':IV"he Secretary, 6
'V V ~._A."P;'M.C. Byadgi,
A 'V £;l)/'g_,w_f_W,,_,o,.. ..... .,
Byadgi Taluk,
Haveri District.
4. The Executive Engineer,
Department of P.W.D. Division,
HAVERI.
S. The Executive Engineer,
Department of Panchayat Raj _
Engineers, Division, :
HAVERI. HAVERI DIST.
Re»sp~ondents' ~_
(by Sri Basavaraj Karreddy, GA for R1--;_iS;<i C.S."Patil,Aid?/oVcate'foVr R2 it
and R3; R4 and RS._sd._)V
This writ petition is filedfllnder Articleisy 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying todirect t_th;e} respondents not to deduct
any royalty from the petitioner “running: w.o.rk’–i.i}’iv!l_s’–~ and direct the
respondents to refund the roya’|’ty”a.niounti..as already deducted from
the work biils of the p~et’iti.o,raer as perv=the«sc’heciulefof rate mentioned in
the notification as per’-‘..An3fiexut*e: B. .,
This wrvi’t’;5etitlon coi€i3ing”‘tlp’–for p’r’eii–nn:inary hearing this day, the
Court delivered the foiioywiVn’g.:- 2 _
A, ‘e;Q§fiMENT
4:’ ~ Dinakaran, C.J.)
in thvlislipetition is a registered civil contractor
of the Government Department and Local
TV ‘;>VBodies. A It isficinltended that for the purpose of execution of civii
the “petitioner is required to purchase building materiais
‘..tt:e..i”private sources. It is further contended that the
‘Vipetit.io.rier does not own any quarry and that he is not liable to
fwfi
3
pay any royalty to the respondents. However, the respondents
are deducting royalty from the bills of the petitioner without
authority of law. Hence, this writ petition praying not to cleciuct
the royalty from the bills of the petitioner in res_p*ect.,’,V’af’lithe».
materials procured by them from private sources_for,exec.utior: of ._
the civil contract works.
2. In similar matters, this’ Cuourt”‘in”G.V.
omens v. STATE OF KARNATAVKA’ A,No”‘ofHlERs, in Writ
Petitions No. 31384-31266 a,f’_”:99<idgégicsea-or, on 335* October,
1994 has laid down the priAn.(:i,p_les.'relati'n~g._Vtopthe payment of
royaity by the extracted hereunder»:
(a) Vvl”/here material (subjected to
royalty) isVlltheiresponslbility of the contractor
‘and the’ Qepadlnent provides the contractor
V with specifiedllllborrow areas, for extraction of
‘3 ,.’re:qtrired construction material, the
will be liable to pay royalty charges
for material (minor mineral) extracted from
A T areas, irrespective of whether the
contract is a item rate contract or a lump sum
‘ contract. Hence deduction of royalty charges
*'””””f,l’.'”*/”33
(b)
to
tin :”op_en]emarked, that is material purchased
in such cases will be legal. For this purpose
non–execution of mining lease is not relevant,
as the liability to pay royalty arises on accountrty
-of the contractor extracting material from
Government land, for use in the work.
Where under the contract the”responsibiility.to
supply the material (minor in&ine_ra~is) is that 7-if
the Department/employer andthe contractor
required to provide onlyhvthe»laboui’.an’d..seri{ice
for execution of an y work’ .inyolv*;ing use of such
material, and the””unit ram ‘o?oes{‘no’£’ include the
cost of mAaterial,,…there :>inc’i”-viia’b’iiity on the
contractor ‘pay any:.e~toya:lty;~ V. will be the
position”_e,ven”:”__if ‘«con’tra,cto_r is required to
tVranspori._–.Vthe.’material from outside the work
site, so iongvVfas’l’t*he*- unit rate is only for labour
or ser}/i’ce ‘and._vdo,és not include the cost of
3 material; ~ V
id:/here:V”th_e contractor uses material purchased
A from private sources like quarry lease holders
~.or’«;private quarry owners, there is no liability
A’ ‘ on the contractor to pay any royalty charges.
In cases covered by paras (b) and (C) the
Department cannot recover or deduct any
royalty from the bills of the contractor and if so
deducted, the Department will be bound to
refund any amount so deducted or collected to
the contractor. ” T
(e) Subject to the above, collection of
the Department or refundmthereotwiibyfjvthe
Department will be governed b:_ythe3ternis it
con tra ct.
(f) Nothing stated above sha’l!:lbeVV construed as a
direction for refiJ’na_”_ in _i*e§ard to ” any particular
contract. The is authority
concerriedvshall decided Vin_’eaeh’_ whether
royalty O ‘_bev::deé1u&Vte’d . ‘if y royalty is
aireadyiii, wli_eth’er it should be
refunded; View the above. principles
andwterms ‘of ..cb–ntract. ”
3. ..4}g’§”h’e said”‘det;_ision has been upheid by the Division
of the case of OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
or= l”DE:’r$.AR’F’i4?l’ENiif”””OF MINES AND GEOLOGY v. M.
V71__M(iHAMt9EED~iiAj’EE in Writ Appeal No. 830 of 2006 disposed of
{ september, 2096.
6
4. Foltowing the judgment of this Court rendered in Writ
Appeal No.83{) of 2006 disposed of on 25″‘ September,
wrEt petition is aiso disposed of. No order as to costs. e .,..: :_.
t d
Tud§3
Index: Yes/ No V
Web Host: Yé~xN§>f”
Ia