High Court Karnataka High Court

Gulam Hussain Khan vs The State Of Karnataka & Others on 3 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Gulam Hussain Khan vs The State Of Karnataka & Others on 3 June, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
  Public works Dejégzfment,

'M.s. ' .' 
*._g aa3.ga1ore--s5o.;)o 1.

; 2. The Stats: of Karnataka,
 "--Rep1t;3en.tcd: by its Sccrctaxy,
4 "V.1)ep£qrt1;;1cnt of Mines 6; Gcobgr,
  
* Banga.k)re~S6O O01.

. 2 ' V %   3. h 'The Executive lilngineer,
'Public Works Department,

1

IN mm man eourrr or KARHATAKA A1' 
mmn 11113 mm 3": DAY or was  % j-I J  _

PRESENT

THE Honrnm mm. 9.1:. nrnA1mI£§n,:.¢i;aI§:sé  é  3
THE HOIPBLE MR.ws1?1ca§_"

WRIT Barman !l0,3 l'}1 95 
BETWEEN:    

GULAM HUSSAIl'H{I-i__A;N " *
Aged about 48- yeaia;   

Occ: Class--I:VCo:1t1'é1ci;;>r,   
Resident of Karadx  %   

}3IJAPUR«585l01. A ~ . ..PETITIONER

(By Pzashanth  Afivocatc.)
     %%%%% 

_.;--..m..--..- ;.

1. 'IThe.:Stat¢ of
Rcpnisented byéts 

Bijapur Divisian, Station Road,

   



works, the petitioner is required to purchase  

from the private sources. It is further conterseejelteatyy * 

petitioner does not own any quarry are! that

pay any royalty to the respondents-...__ However,' tiae'

are deducting royalty from the bilvle«.V’yof.Vthe” without
authority of law. Hence, thieirrrit~’_Voet:tion_’;ufay_ing not to deduct
the royalty from tnebilis of ‘respect of the
materials procured priizvate ieources for execution

of the civil contract._Wdr§t_;,_ , ‘V

2. In sirri£la’i’.1_rnatter$,:_”t«h:le..:Court in cm. KUMAR AND
omens v. s19Ai’reyorét ktsnriarnn mo omens in Writ
l?e’t’i~tions._’I§i3e. ;§;13BA4~3hi25*%**«of 1994 disposed of on 31″ October,

“!ale.:_:ciowin the principles relating to the payment of

a…y__;gyaIty”i>y”the coetréictors. The same are extracted hereunder:

y_ Where providing the material (sub7ecmd’ to

V’ flroyalty) is the regoonsibiiity of the contractor
and the Department pmvides the contractor
with specified borrow areas, for extraction of
the required constrmion material, the

contractor will be liable to pay reyalty chargx
<1;

(ii)

for the material (minor mineral) extracted
such areas, irrespective of whetneaf” tire:
contract is a item rate contract or a_ %
contract. Hence deduction”oi”‘i*cayfalty A
in such cam will be legal, For
non-execution of mining.__ieeSe._iS’ not i

as the liability to pay royefiry ariseson –3coount
of the contractor. extracting “in_.’§terieI”froin a
Government lan:’i,– the work.

Where iezsiionsibility to
sapply:’–tl41e’;jinatef_iel1-(ininot minefeis) is that of

_the_ bfernployetiiend the comractor is

reqairedte only the labour and service
for execution of work involving use ofsuciz

3 “material; and the unit rate does not include the

i metetiai, there is no liability on the

. to pay any royalty. This will be the
” positioii;= even if the contractor is required to

trensbort the material from outside the work

“site, so long as the unit rate is only for labour

or service and does not inciude the cost of

‘((3)

material.

Where the contractor uses material purchased
in open marked, that is material purchased
from private sources like quarry___lease holders

, 2 I ‘ . – ‘

We

in the case of OFFICE OF THE DIR£€T0ll OF

or private quarry owners, there is no iiaL=Il’ii’;’.If”L:’–e:_4
on the contractor to pay any royalty cna.@es.~ _

(d) In caaes covered by paras….(b) ano’h”(k::,i’;V
Department cannot mcover or.’
royalty from the bills of the if so
deducted, the will be to t
refund any amount so or to

the contractor. A

(e) to:fi*l2’_g;-2 royalty by
the flrafunof “thereof by the
ifiebartfnent::§iwlll”‘be*-goyerneo by the arms of
awntraci-.rl*<li'jfl' r

(0 Nothing stateor.abo'Ve shall be caanstrued as a

V' ._i"direction' in regard to any particular

\' fl'céntra'ct. Department or authority

kt Ty decided in each case, whether

to be deducted or if any myalty is
already abducted, whether it should be

x J refiénded, keeping in View the above principles

H v {and terms of the contract. "

. ffhie said decision has been upheld by the Division Bench of

‘t)EPARTMENT OF MINES AN!) GE0l.0GY V. M. MOHAMRED

_./x

I-IAJEE in Writ Appeal No. 830 of 2006 disposed

September, 2006.

4. Following the judgment of thIs;’Court&_r§endoE§d._§:fi’*:W}t;i:
Appea! No.83!) of 2005 disposed of on 255??’ sagpterhigg-gr,ozoosthasoooo

writ petition is also disposed of. No~v.o’r:*£er ahé

” Chief Fusizice

Intiox: Yeafficyg’ ..

Web” Host: No’ « . V V _}~