High Court Karnataka High Court

K N Prabhakar S/O. S Ningappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
K N Prabhakar S/O. S Ningappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit


down the principles relating to the payment of royalty by the

contractors. The same are extracted hereunder:

(a) Where providing the material (subjected to royalty,3″”is.b_f;._’__:’
the responsibility of the contractor and the Depart’men.tw.V: V’ b
provides the contractor with specified borrow, a;–__e..3;,’roi– .V ‘
extraction of the required construchtioni’-.rnateriai,._the 1
contractor will be liable to pay ‘rQyalty” charges tf»,e.._
material (minor mineral) extravctezd» from Vsiich’is_ereas,
irrespective of whether the c,or:r.:r:.§C,_L'<~,e.ss_ a ,~;ern…'ratQ:
contract or a lump sum_zt;–9ntr-act.§V- . ii'o.n_ce"'deduction of
royalty charges in such casesl'~w:ii.l' be For this
purpose non-exer.ution:,of'mihing' lease notbbrelevant,
as the li'abi'l:fty'ti;,,,,:,jay r_oyalt§/'arises on account of the
contractoreéftractly ma:te.rlal_fro'm"«a Government land,

for use in t=he"'wc1irk.

(b) Where underl’~th:=.._»contract’the responsibility to supply
the bhrnaterial’ __rr”n”nerals) is that of the
Department/emp’ioyer_ancljthe contractor is required to
p.§’ovi’de only the ‘labour and service for execution of any
..invo_lving };)se—–or such material, and the unit rate

1 v does not -include the cost of material, there is no liability

it thefionltiractor to pay any royalty; This will be the
positi’on’l*evei5i if the contractor is required to transport
the malterial from outside the work site, so long as the

unit .f_e~te is only for labour or service and does not

At ‘T include the cost of material.

Where the contractor uses material purchased in open

marked, that is material purchased from private sources

,r’ – m\
{X i ‘ ‘Y! »–«”°”””‘/WM

aw”

in ihir-;£”App_é;a’i’s?’:x:r§:L 830 of 2006 disposed of on 25*” September,

-2§a§,V,

like quarry lease holders or private quarry owners, there
is no liability on the contractor to pay any royalty

charges.

(d) In cases covered by paras (b) and ( c) the Departnfihantéh’ K V
cannot recover or deduct any royalty frorn thehbills-..of:.A_h.V”
the contractor and if so deducted, the”‘Departr_nen_t”
be bound to refund any amount so deducted c’o.llec.te’d ‘ h’

to the con tractor.

(6) Subject to the above, collectionjof royalty
Department or refund thereof by—the”£?e,bartment’ will be

governed by the termsvufcnntriéct. V . ”

(f) Nothing stated above shvallvibe construed’vas”‘a’.”directi’on
for refund in ‘:”egar-“d a;;y_,…paitl’cu’la’r..contract. The
Department’ ovr4_autb.erityeconcerned eihnall decided in each
case, whetherE:.ro;;yalty’ is ;deo’ucte}dVor if any royalty
is already. ,agau&’Eé;a, W-.b,ether«it”‘si1ould be refunded,
keeping ._in Viewtheabove*principles and terms of the

contract. “*

3. Thesaid has been upheld by the Bivision Bench

of this”vCou’i;t.{‘in.)-.the_case”of”VOFFICE or THE DIRECTOR OF

oEPAri’r,_f/z’:=:§’:_*t’,. AND GEOLOGY v. M. MOHAMMED

4. Following the judgment of this Court rendered in Writ

Appeal No.83O of 2006 disposed of on 25″‘ September, 2006 these

petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

/”s

t

Index: Ywffio / \
Web Host: Y;9S//»N”5/=’J€ _ ‘t _ ._

inn