IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF JULY, 2009 PRESENT THE I-lON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF JusTIcE AND .. ., THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNAK: it WRIT PETITION Nos.21042--43 of-2'o'o9 rgsivi, Between: It i A it A. L' Mallikarjun, S/o Guranna Kollur, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Class~1 Contractor, Residing at Plot No.128, Mahaveernagar, « Gulbarga. _ ' ...Petitioner my Sri xG.._C4-i;Cha.g'Eishetti,§ Advocate] And: , I 1.f."V The o,.i*.t,i<arnataIieCi1tive Enginner, Pancizayath Raj Engineering Division, ,_4Bidar. ...Respondents
(By Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, GA)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents not to dteduct
royalty from the bills of the petitioner & not to insist the petition:e«r_t=o_
produce the royalty paid receipts by their vendors; and etc. 4′ » _ i-
These writ petitions coming up for preliminary hearing
the Court delivered the following:-_ _-
The petitioner in these petitions.is,the registered civ’i!’Vc.ontra_t;torl
carrying on civil works of the Governument _Depa*rtrn’en’t and Local
Bodies. It is contended that ffort the’V’p’u’rposep’Vi’o.f. execution of civil
works, the petitioner is required tollpuirchase_.bu’il.fi:in’g;materials from
the private sources. _.,Itti:S’f.urtliI;er co:n;tended_jithatthe petitioner does
not own any :q_uarr’yAaVnd.Vthat’he~is”n–ot* liable to pay any royalty to the
respondents. l-iowlever,’ithesrespolndents are deducting royalty from
the bills of the petition-erplwithout authority of law. Hence, the petitions
Vno-t&:.to.”‘deduct thevroyalty from the bills of the petitioner in
respei_:.t’V’of”the:’*rnatVeria’l_s procured by him from private sources for
‘ ‘i”ii…e.xecution,_oi’ the ciVi1i_contract works.
–. In sirriil_a_r1~matters, this Court in G.V. KUMAR AND OTHERS v.
*._’_’vs1*_Ai.*ig .oii”~:<ARNATAKA AND omens in Writ Petitions No. 31264~
" "fj;3_1_'2566 or 1994 disposed of on 31" October, 1994 has laid down the
;?k?\
4
iike quarry iease holders or private quarry owners, t.’2’ere-
is no iiabiiity on the contractor to pay any -1′ V
charges.
(0′) In cases covered by paras (b) a,n’J(¢)’ the’~Departn1ent_i”‘VV
cannot recover or deduct any royaity’_’Afro}n the ‘Abiiis it
the contractor and if so deducted,&’th_e”bepartrnventiiwiii ‘
be bound to refund any aniou_ntvso deducted or ‘c_oiiécted” ‘
to the contractor.
(6) Subject to the abaye, _ co_/iect:’on””orv.. ,rp;raity by the
Department or refund thereoffby1the~«i)ep.§n’n?ient will be
governed by the terms of contract; . _
(1′) Nothing’ statédLa’boy’e’ shall be” construed as a direction
for re.’und’iin re§’a.rdany”particuiar contract. The
Qepartrnenit Cautho-.rity._concemea”:shaii decided in each
case, whAether.,royaity.,is”-to be deducted or if any royaity
is”-_aire.ady _deducted,A.._’Whetiier it should be refunded,
keeping in viewthe =ab’o§/e principles and terms of the
_c_ontrac’t:” .
v-iF”The, said decisionbas been upheid by the Division Bench
of this ‘zjase of OFFICE or THE DIRECTOR or
7″‘vt,_AoEpAR’mENT”csé;Mines AND eeoaoev v. M. MOHAMMED
/< .
Vb}-IAJEE in Wm: Appeai No. 830 of 2006 disposed of on 25″‘ September,
5
3. Foilowing the judgment of this Court rendered
No.830 of 2006 disposed of on 25″‘
are also disposed of, No order as to costs,-J ”
Index: Y-ES~/ Ho F; — V
23,2″ r
Web host: YES / NQ –
Inn
ir;~«~~’.nJ:je};. A
September, 2006 ‘fh_:esefpent’it§dne _A
Wfcede %