High Court Karnataka High Court

Madhava High Tech Engineering Pvt … vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara … on 19 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Madhava High Tech Engineering Pvt … vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara … on 19 November, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE___

DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2003 L

PRESENT

THE I-ION’BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN,…CHIEF’

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTIf§E.V.G.
WRIT PETITION NO. 69412009′ «. i I V
WRIT PETITION NOS. 33.965-E53956/’a_flQ9T (GM-MM-s)

BETWEEN: ‘

Madhava High Tech E1I1g1ii@;a*eVriI1g« _V
Private Limited, V ‘
No.18. 8″1ACross,V I __
Champa Layout.Exte’IIsioI:;, *
Kempapura, Hvebbai,’ ” , ‘
BaI1gal0re–O24;._ 1. ‘ I ”

Rep. by Mr. D. Madhu
Aged about 33 years.” . ” I
Working as Ma_nagef;’

V PETITIONER
{By Sn’. S. Prziksish, Shetty, Advocate)

, V 1 Bi’11h'(§__t ‘ Mahanagara Palike,

Hudson Ci_1’§:1e;._ <
V; _ Bangétlorexf '
_ '_ _ Rep. by its 'Commissioner

5 IVT)T'ire-c:'£0r of Mines and Geologz,

' ,K'naI1ija' Bhavan.

.__”‘Rac:e Course Road,
‘ B.a.rIgaI0re–560 001.

(b)

(C)

royalty arises on account of the contractor
extracting material from a Government land,

for use in the work.

Where under the contract the I’€SpOI1Sl’bl’lil_y;’-

to supply the material (minor >ryr’iinera;’_,s*;’**»i–s.’::~..it
that of the Department/employer:iyéancijy ”
contractor is required to provide:’–.only the =

labour and service for execution ofany .work

involving use of such material,’ and the

rate does not include the””cos.tj’ *njaterial,’

there is no liability”a’on,’the,_topay
any royalty. urélivber the ;,»gs:ii.pn}:;;e’n if
the contractor, required iran.sport the

material’ site, so long

the ‘un.i5t_vrate_ only forlaiaour or service

does’not cost of material.

Wherelhfl the contractor uses material

iourchasedl in .open. marked, that is material

from private sources like quarry

or private quarry owners, there

no ‘liability on the contractor to pay any

‘Department cannot recover or deduct any

“roy’alty’ charges.

min cases covered ‘by paras (b) and (c) the

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.

(62) Subject to the above, collection of ‘A
the Department or refund thereof. bye the
Department will be governed by-.’the”‘te:i’n1s».of~

contract.

(f) Nothing stated above shall oe”~eor2strued’
direction for refund “to
particular contract. J or
authority coricemed’ “sh}::’illV 1 ‘each
case, or if
any roi it .. whether it
should _ in ‘–.:lceep.tn’g. in view the

at)-ove._ princ-ip1e_s’ _te:-ms 0 f the contract.

v_~”‘5Tfhe__x’said lddeeisionv has been upheld by the Division

Bench “tflis ..(;’o1t11°’t:«’i;1___the case of OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

= .91’? DE”pAiiTMii1§*r’L: MINES AND GEOLOGY v. M. MOHAMMED

Appeal No. 830 of 2006 disposed of on 25″‘

.:s§:p£e;§ngbe1-i,…2oos.

4. Following the judgment of this Court rendered in._Writ

Appeal No.83O of 2006 disposed of on 25″? September, 2O{}5V_:th»ese

writ petitions are also disposed of. No order as to costs. 4′

, em Iuoszgae

Inn/
Index: Yes/No. ____ ‘«1.;:v_ _ ,
Web Host: Yes’/No ” –.. if ‘