High Court Karnataka High Court

M Venkatesh vs State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M Venkatesh vs State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2008
Author: N.K.Patil
{N THE HIGH C€}{}R'f OF KARNATAKA AT BA!'-3G ALQRE W.P.NQ. 14648 of 2068
.3,

av ms HIGH cowr or xaam mm ATBANGA§QiVF?:§'_~.V§  
mama was was 2511! new or xovEnsnE 2§;'2£1%§$8j__j?'  

BEFGRE

we aonrszs am. .103 A:,;:9Am;%   Y   '  , J 7

wmxzo. M648 OF200$"---{Ci'M--MM~?~§j':'_vA'  

BETWEEN

1 9.»: VENKATESH
szcs fss%.MUNiYAPPA . 
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, . _
PvVDCLAS.S£COrNTRACTOE_L . _ , _
Rm CH£KKNAHALLlVlLL_A_GE, __ ..  ..
vuepum PO33; *3EVANAHALL£ TALUKV - ~
BANGALORE P;L.;R_z\L oasrgm;  

__ _   _ _ _ V PETFRONER
{By Ssi. NA{.3_ARA'+.i.§ N iéiigau .¢gt}*J§£3ATE..,}W 

AND :

1 STATE 05 KARMA'-?AiKA  ~~
REPRESENTED' av iTS'-SECRETARY,
' f:f.>EP'€£ 05 COMMERCE ma annusmas,
 (Mlf§!$S} M.s.aunLaia:~«~'

.V  AV Wagfiaimfig'
''i. 'es; :=«w'L>":3:v:s1c>r~e,
* . s3H!CK&F:i.;jLfi.PURA AND KQLAR
'«..4D£V§§3S-GNS{2H£CKBAi_LAPUR aesmm.

7.3 THE EXECUTSVE ENGINEER

' AA _i)EPT: 0F FWD DlV¥SIOi'~£,
' 'RQADS 8; BUiLD£NG$,

    mnsxa Bm:_a¢:xaR.mN,<_«: TC; mREc1- Ifeag RESPQNSENTS NOT
T0 DEQUCT ANY ROYALTY Fact»? "rHE.vP:-;:*:f:f:NER*s P_.UNNiNG wow:
B£LLS'     --   "
This Writ petiéion c:bmit2g_9__n-.fer__ P're:«é:'hinary Hearirrg
this day, the Cc:urt';:'r.ade'--.§3£3_ fo¥Iqw.¥ng" 

       y%%%J;4¢msR; %

Th.§ 3   peffition has sought far a

direstion té   to deduct any amount as

_ V reyaltyfrtsm thé  iifiilis of the petftiaoner.

  :3?'atf§i:iz3§§ar §$ a Class-£ rwistered Civii

Cénthaatdf 'ééfid  is executing the civii works such as

 ' agnstmsfiég of canais, buiidings, roads and drains etc.

 ;§§:rf31ri§.ng H to State Government and other boa?

  F:.2rfi1er case of the pefitéonar is that he has

V   hksuteretf inta agreements with the respondents fer carrying

“””””””””””””””‘–“–*—–we-u
IN HE HIGH CQUKT QF KARNATAKA AT EA§4Gé£LORE WP=2*«¥O. 14643 of 2&8

as Tim mag cream ‘ 14648 af 2993

-4.

4. After carefifi pemsai af the gmunds

petitioner, inciuding the prayer aeught far

emerges that, petitiuner has subm’iit§=3§§fiVv:’V”‘:: ” 2

representation Vida AnnexL:re–~F :.;ia’ted_”

the resporzdenm, requesting”V._v:f*h_em”Yifift tau alny

royalty fram his rumfng “saéd
made by pefiticner by the
respandenta. any opéniun
on the the writ petition
fiiad by _:;fV§§%rmifling the petitiener
ts representation before the

jurisdhficmai éfitrthority of the respcndents,

* é§an;V;”‘ documents like, copy ef the

between petitioner and respondents

Z for héiving’:é:c s§’::Auted the work and the detaiied statement

ewes tram; which the royaity has been deducted by me

% gaiafiérfied autherity, within three weeks item the date of

T “–4:£?a’At:i;=§ipt of 3 copy of this order.

:1»: ma mar; COURT or KAILNAYAKA 5′? am mans wmxo. 14543 of am

3%: 11$ men comm’ <31? KARNATAKA AT BANG $51,035 wméog 14643 of zees

-5»

Further, awe ccmce.-med authority of the resg:e%n€} :§is;=n.ts

are directed to receive the game and pass __agr§prr;;3£fjifiz¢:§’_ _

erder:-2:, in asccrdance with law and the light ~_th’é:orde; ” u

gassed by this Caurt in simiiar

same, expeditiously.

Learned Addéfigzjai (§as;éz’nmgAnt hfidvocafe is
perrnitted to fife meme gespondents-1

to 3 and 6.

 ~~~~     A  Sd/-9
         % Iudgé

. A HEGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.NQl 146:-‘:8 cf 29%