High Court Karnataka High Court

Doreswamy M N vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Doreswamy M N vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2010
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGE COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 10"" day of November 2010
PRESENT

THE HONBLE MR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF' JUsTt(i:1i.f"%;<~,r:.o

AND _ _ A  S
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE A.S.BQ.P;.ANNA"--.:: .
we Nos.5002-sooé/2o«1oo¥, ' ' V

& WP Nos. 32806-825/291G;"(GEv£--MMAS§"'   'A

BETWEEN :

1.

Sri. M N Doreswamy
S/o.Ninge Gowda,-V"  ¢
Aged about 44 yea~rsf '_
R/o.C.C.Road   .
Chikkasandra Villages» _  '
Bangalore,--_  'A "

M/S   

7 .
Re-p-tad, By It Eroprietor Pushparaj
S:/O £,a'te7S C 'Shar1thappa--
A'ged'«39.Years, *   _  ' '
No;«1/2., I M.ai1":._;V' 1 1*h.__C'ro~ss
Gangondanahalli " _ 

.MYSoré"R,0ad.,J-- " 
,, .}_&Bar1gaIore  V
. 3.2 M/S. ?ragathi Enterprises

_ S' ' Reptd. By its Proprietor S S Joshi
  rs'/ofs _C'~S'rianthappa

, V Aged 37" Y ears

 No.19?"/A, 9"' C Main

Pipeline Vij ayanagar

, -' Bangalore 40.

~ 'M / S Ashika Enterprises
Reptd. By Its Proprietor Anthon Raj
Aged 40 Years.
No.29, IFloor, 2"' Main,
7"' Cross, Chamarajpet
Bangalore 18

M / S Suhas Enterprises
Reptd. By Its Proprietor
Anusha N R Ramesh

No.551, 9"' B Main. 2"'-* Stage



Yelahanka New Town.
Bangalore.

[By Sri Y R Sadasiva Reddy, Adv.)

AND:

1.

ix.)

' {By an: R6. Kol1e,AGA)

The State of Karnataka
Rep. By Its Secretary

. .. Petition ers

Department of Commerce andinldusiiriles .y C

l\/E.S.Buildi.r1g. 
Bangalore. '

The Commissioner
BBMR, Hudson Circle
Bangalore. '

The Commissioner' ll _  ;
BDA.,  _  V

Kumara I?a.rlk-Wesjt

The--Suf)e_rin't::n.de'nt  l
Bangalore' CiI'oIe,._  
Bangalore' _ * ' 

VThe Coi:ti_nis.sione.r 
y,  Slum Clearance Board,
-  llsheshaxdripuram '
2 , Baiigalore.

 
 Drffiajkumar Road,

Rajajinagar

 as  Bangalore 10.

. Respondents

These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and

 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the

respondent authorities not to deduct any royalty from the
petitioners work hills and grant an interim order to direct the
respondent authorities to release the amount regarding the
Work bills of the petitioners without deducting any royalty.

These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, Chief Justice made the following:



Sewer

3
O R D E R

J .S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral) :

Sri.Y.R.Sadasiva

Reddy, Advocate ‘

petitioners.

Advocate for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel :rnral agreed,
that the present covered with
the judgment _i’endered”‘:’py:: Golayya vs.
The and others,
W.P.1\T_a.8(_)A8.l’_::’1’ decided on

o2.oé1.t2oo9§

_ .3,XIn ‘light of above, learned counsel for the

. .,.¢.,yepspondients__ states: that if the petitioners produce

rnfaterial before respondent Nos.2 to 6.

showing’ royalty was paid in respect of the sand

pvphheing .t’ra.nsported (from a licensed quarry owner), from

the petitioners had purchased the sand, the

respondents would refund the royalty charged from the

petitioners.

4. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted liberty

to produce material before the concerned respondent

we _

Sri.R. G.Kol1e, Additionai’ » ” =

4
Nos.2 to 6, depicting that royalty had already been paid

by the licensed quarry owner, on the sand which was

purchased by the petitioners. On produetior1″:o”;%

authentic material, royalty paid by the petitioners:

be refunded within four weeks.

5. The instant writ petiti”‘(:11f1s:..A_’ are

terms of the aforesaid.

"    1;: t  Chief Jasiice

          Sd/5
 i V .     Judge

mv*
index: Y/ N