so M 'A
Engineer
V' PWVE3-C"& B (North), Dharwad
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5*" DAY or APRIL, 2009
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF JusTIl'§E'55.fj[:~:J I.
AND
THE HON'Bi.E MRJUSTICE V.G.:;»ASAB.l4-{AjvH"IaT 4'
WRIT PETITION No.80435 of 2oo9"rG_'I'~+:«, MM_-S13. I 1
Between:
Mallahar Digambar Rao Biradar V
Aged about 37 years .
Occ: CJass--I Contractor , . _, = ~
Resident of MIG-20, KHB Coftonoy _ , '
Basavakalyana V' '
Bidar District ;_ ._ it
---- , ...Petitioner
By Sri. G"}::j';- eha§j'a1s:h"e.tt'y~,' Advocate)
And: h 4
1.
The State of Karnata _
Repr_ese nted by its Secreta ry–« ”
Department of’ Mines:-._and Geology
M.s-._ BL:.i|’di«ng j ” 1.
Banga.lo1*eI-563001
.'””‘T’he Stateaof Ka~:*nat’a§<a
Represented b"y_its Secretary
'~f:jDe.partment of Industries and Commerce
4. ._M;S”‘..,[§;’u:’lJ’i.ng ”
‘~._Ban’g’a_Icr_e ‘-2560 001
2.. This Court, while disposing Writ Appeal No.830 of 2006,
has followed the decision in the case of G.V. KUMAR AND OTHERS v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P. l\%o.31384–3126’E;:.”‘of
1994 disposed of on 315’ October, 1994 and reiterated the
and guidelines given therein. The said directions and guio’e_i_ines-.re’a2d
as hereunder:
(3) Where providing the materiai (subjected-.to royaitv)’~i.s «.
the responsibility of the contr.aicta_r and the Depairtrrier.t.,_VV
provides the contractor with specifiieci borrowareasi, for
extraction of the required con.s–tr_u’cti’on.. materiai,._thc7
contractor wiii’ ‘bjeL..,’iabie._ toi rovaitv’ ‘vchatges for the
materiai §1’rr;ifr.or5:5ni}_7eQrai¥,.,,._§x.traeted_’ from such areas,
irrespective.’ o.fv:’yvhether–. the «.c:onjtrac§t is a item rate
contractor ‘siin9i~.cToritrac_t;””‘hience deduction of
royaity ~::h’a.r._qes.’i’nAA’such*._cases will be iegai, For this
purpose n’on–e}\’e_cution Vo.€___rn’ining lease is not relevant,
as the iia’o_ifii’ty to -paAy..Vro;<aiity arises on account of the
ccgjntrasctor eX"tra_cting niateriai from a Government land,
'for' uses. in "the W0 rk," """ " i
(t;}_ ,'uw;%hre;é»..gnae;:_V£i;e contract the responsibiiity to suppiy
the (minor minerals) is that of the
ii:-eparjtn1e.nt/employer and the contractor is required to
provide1.oniy the iabour and service for execution of any
A' 'wori< involving use of such materiai, and the unit rate
V' «tines not include the cost of rnateriai, there is no iiabiiity
on the contractor to pay any royaity. This wiii be the
T position even if the contractor is required to transport
,v"Not!?in§;~lst=ated_above shall be construed as a direction
the material from outside the Work site, so long as the
unit rate is only for labour or service and does not
include the cost of material.
(C) Where the contractor uses material purchased in openfv
marked, that is material purchased from private souricehsé ” ‘”~
like quarry lease holders or private quarry owners,-. th’e.re
is no liability on the contractor pay ‘any; ro’yal__ty”,w_ it V
charges.
(Cl) In cases covered by arid’ kc)”–the’:Department
cannot recoverpr dedu.c?t..r’:~’.lT1~< royalty bills of
the contractor' so ded'u"cte.d,"Department will
be boundto deducted or collected
to the Co.'7.tra"g?tOr:": if;
(8) Subject it to Vtheh ‘«.abOxEe,_:’tcolle:tion of royalty by the
Departrr§e«nt or rer1ind._there’of by the Department will be
verried by thetermsoi’ contract.
H 2 liar inivregard to any particular contract. The
iDepa–rtm’en’t or authority concerned shall decided in each
x j case;v..sxyhether royalty is to be deducted or if any royalty
it ‘v_»_is:.’already deducted, whether it should be refunded,
keepflugin wemrthe above pnhcafles and hmvns ofthe
contra ct. ”
3. Fottowing the judgment of this Court rendered V’
Appeal ¥\lo.83{3 of 2006 disposed of on 25*” sep.te.ngber_”é.’d0’5§,’.j,this
petition is akso disposed of in the same terms. Nd”orde”rs tciacosts. ‘V Z
. Chie£ Justice
e~f””
Index: Yégs/No —- : t udge
{rm 3.