High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Sri Vinayaka Constructions vs The State Of Karnataka By Its … on 12 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Sri Vinayaka Constructions vs The State Of Karnataka By Its … on 12 November, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & Shantanagoudar
HVTKEIHGH(XNHIFOFIQHEMKUHQLKTBANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12"' DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN. CHIEF   A 

AND

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOIIAISI _ 

WRIT PETITION N0.33V2_54-3'3--2_77'3/2099'. A "
WRIT PETITION NO.33352-33422 /20O€3_(t}§§£--1\Ifi3{I--§}

1 M/S SR1 VINAYAKA CONSTRU'C'l'*IO_N._S" A  
R/BY ITS PROP}?.IE'IOR"G~.S:;'SHIY'A SWANIY
S/0 G.K.SHIVARUDRA.-ISH .AGED"A_BQUfT 38 YEAR
occ. c0NRA.C'H§R,_ R/A NO. I5/;3~1, 'I'1"'1\/IAIN

ROAD} MA_1\I'£fI"ilAHALLI;v.'vTiJAYA1\iAGAR,
BANGALORE saoaao. _   '

2 M/S SUNRISE CQNSTRU_.C'l'IONS
R/BY, ITS PRQPRIETOR 
 G.,.s§.:V1NAY KUMAR s/:0 G.K.SHIVARUDRAIAH
'  . AGEDQABOUT 26  OCC. CONRACTOR,
 . R/A NO, I5'/3,~1, 11 MAIN ROAD
  'Iy'[AI'~I.EI*x'AHALLI',. VIJAYANAGAR,
' .BA1\:GAI..'oRE,'5'60040

.   3 K_vINAyiKU.MAR S/O KALAiAH

AGED:ABO'UT 29 YEARS.
 OCC: CONRACTOR
-~  R,/_A NO. 37/4/40, 11 MA1N, GOVINDARAJ
 NAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR,
 ._BAl'xI GALORE



IQ

N.C.SURESH S/O CHANNAVEERAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YRS, OCC. CONRACTOR,

R/A NO. 58, 5TH MAN ROAD, HVR LAYOUT
MAGAD1 MAIN ROAD,

BANGALORE 560079

GBASAVARAJU S/O GANGAVERANNA'~ E  -: Q' «
AGED AEOUT 42 YEARS,   ..  

OCC. CONRACTOR V

R/A NO. 23, 4TH A CROSS  

MARUTHINAGAR, TUMKUR '

M/S ARASAMBA CONSTRUcTIO'Nj"  _

R/BY ITS PROPRIETORIE'I.G.'PURUS~HO'I'HAM

S/O GANGANNA AGE; 30;_YRS;.,.O!3C,' CONRACTOR
R/A NO. 341, 5TH MAIN.R_OAD,,  '   ' ~ 

TANGANATHAPLARA,   
BANGALORE_?56g}-5179.,     " 

M/S GIRI CQNS?I'RUC"I10~N' E_  ' 1

R / BY ITS. PROPR'H§3TO'R G_.JA1mAx;A1AH

S/O G1R1APPA_._AGE; 33 ¥RS._,OCC. CONRACTOR
R/A NO. 2235 {Ewe-._}_ ':3TH--A.C"ROSS, 5TH MAIN,

11 STAGE, KHB cOLjON':z,__ EASAVESWAGIANAGAR

BANGALORE

S.x,I;fjNERASTRUOTURE

' . R';"«BY1TS PARTNERS 'VIJAYKUMAR K. S /O
 .  AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS AND
  'N.DC;SGREs'HD.AGED MAJOR, BOTH
' .Oc_c. CONTRACTOR, NO. 3A, IST CROSS,

II ,MAIN_  M.P.M.LAYOUT MALATHAHALLI
BANGALORE 560056

-- S,H_IVAS£iAKTH1 CONSTRUCTEON
 R/BY ITS PROPRIETOR N.S.ADARSHA.
 _S'/O' SHEVASHANKAR AGED AEOUT 30 YEARS,

R/A NO. 423, 12TH MAIN M.C.LAYOUT,

 " ~-'VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560040



10

ll

12

13

B.N.JANARDHA.N S/O B. NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

R/A NO. 5/B, 9TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE

L.1v1AHEsH S/O LINGAPPA D 0
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,  « 0_ 
R/A NO. 23, BYATARAYANAPURA'-._  . 
MYSORE ROAD, 2
BANGALORE

ANUGRAHA CONSTRUCTIONS  'V
PROPRIETOR SHANMRHA K.,s;"' --  
S/O SIDOAVEERAIAH---.__'j;~ ;   "
AGED ABOUT45YEARS.,; '  i  .
R/A NO. 3, 15/3--1,11MA1R-ROAD, " ;----
WJAYANAGARA,'   _ 
BANGALORE_'56O040.  " 
M.MANJU1*I_A'F1fI;.'_ _  '_  
NO. 70.3.4-,----.7_TI-I *..~,14,.._11 'CROSS;-..,...._ 
M.P.1\«:E.LAYO'UT, KENG13MTE_ --
BANGALORE 56€)0.56.   '

v - p   " PETITIONERS

. _ u33}"sr_:: R RAG§;ND'RA NAIDU, ADVOCATE)

   KARNATAKA BY ITS DIRECTOR
~DE3I?T. 'O1?-.MiN'Es es: GEOLOGY,

KA__NIJA_ BH£C\7AN, RACE COURSE ROAD.
BANGALORE 560001

  DEPUTY DIRECTOR
 DEPT. OF MINES & GEOLOGY,
_   FLOOR, V.T.TOWER

" BANGALORE 500001



3 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. VIKAS SOUDHA.
BANGALORE 580001

4 EXECUTE ENGINEER
PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION   
(URBAN & RURAL) ANANDA RAO CIRCLE. r "  " ~ 
BANGALORE    

5 THE COMMISSIONER A     =
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAIIANAGAR BALIKE  '  
BANGALORE    

6 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER   
MINOR IRRIGATION DEVISION, , ,  
JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOcK,_A_BA'NGALORE"».,. " .

7 FINANCE MEMBER ;'  _  - 
BANGALORED Ej:\rELO PMPZNT Aufmomw
BANGALORE"  " 1. "   »

8 EXECUTIVE "F;NQIIJEER ' «. _ _
PUBLIC w'ORKsIf3EPAR"EM'EN"£,
K.1=2.cIRcLE% ' _   
BANGALORE _ '_ '

 RESPONDENTS

A   BEI"E3,Varaj Kareddy, Pr}. GA. for R-1 to 3]

THEsE__ \2vRIT_ .PE:'tj:fioNs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

THE' coNs"1"ITUIj1o'N OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD
i1v4..12:q7 ISSUED' BY THE R1 AND LETTER DTD 24.8.09 ISSUED BY THE R2
*i._'''vI_DELfANNE'>th.e..yl'pri'yate sources. It is
further contended;_"tha;;t:r1.the;ipetitione~rs" d'oes...V.not own any quarry

and that they:._  'pay' any royalty to the

respondents. Ho=.rii»eve'r3;4VVltherrespondwents are deducting royalty

from the bills of the pe'tifVtiVo"ne:rfs'»without authority of law. Hence,

these writ .tpetition.s p.rayiAngV'fiot to deduct the royalty from the

of"'vth'etpetiitionersin"respect of the materials procured by

theml'from_:;:irivat6eV"_j:;ources for execution of the civil contract

l'"'*works.A 

In sirfiiiar matters, this Court in G..V. KUMAR AND

O'iFi{ERS'A".~'v. STATE 0? KARNATAKA me OTHERS in Writ

 'i'-'etiytiursins No. 31264-31266 of 1994 disposed of on 31" October,

 .

§”¥x1___.a””\’

1994 has Eaici down the principles reiaténg to the payment of

royalty by the contractors. The same are extracted herejuinfcE’e:r’:«

(a) Where providing the material (subjected: V’
royalty) is the responsibility. ‘_ it
contractor and the DVepartin_eiit_b’ a, ”
the contractor with
for extraction of the “‘co_nstructiont”§
material, the contra’ctori” to
pay jmaterial
(min or” from such

yareag-} the contract

or a lump sum
._Vcon’tract. deduction of royalty
Charges su”ch”cases will be legal. For this
i. “rjon~execution of mining lease is
nvotvre-.’evant, as the liability to pay royalty
“arises on account of the contractor
extracting material from a Government

land, for use in the work.

(:53)

Where under the con tra ct the

responsibility to supply the materialf’:f.f”–«.V”‘*
(minor minerals) is that of ‘V’.
Department/emplo yer and . .r the . ” it

is required to provide only

service for execution ofany woil<._involvin;g""

use of such material,VAi.–anfd~. the unit-rate.:§
does not include? the _ _ it terial,
there is 'liat§ility' to
pay position

even' 't'l'2(3… convtracto…r_H_is required to

'transport'~'thei ma.te'riai ' from outside the

worl<_<site,V"so'V'.foi7g:'_"_as the unit rate is only

for labour-..or service and does not include

R5)'–.i'

cost of material.

M/huere”[;;V’the contractor uses material

.p-urchased in open marked, that is

” material purchased from private sources

it like quarry lease holders or private quarry

3 ,=
3; “=*’€.A»”‘fl
at/’

(0′)

(8)

owners, there is no liability on the

contractor to pay any royalty charges.

In cases covered by paras (b) and (c) –fi :_. é

Department cannot recover or deduc’t’*»a.ijy » ‘

royalty from the bills of the=.A:con-trafctoar a~no’- 4′ V

if so deducted, the .»Departrrie_n’t

bound to refund any anuiount.Vso

or collected to tii.e”fcontrac;tor; _

Subject to ‘ the a:bo”ye,f; collection ofV’Vroyalty
by the ‘refund ‘ thereof by
the governed by the

terms of contl’a’ct.V””’— ‘

(f).jf<. Alotlzing stated~«'above shall be construed

Tasha direction for refund in regard to any

""tAparticul¢§r contract. The Department or

it authority concerned shall decide in each

it «case, whether royalty is to be deducted or

if any royalty is already deducted, whether

it should be refunded, keeping in view the

/.,

=/V

/,
s

Ilxdexz 'res/No.

above principfes and terms of the

con tract. ”

3. The said decision has been upheld.

Bench of this Court in the case of OFFICE oI=’.TtHtoAE;v.oi§§Ec*ro’Rheh

or DEPARTMENT or MINES A%Nn..e4e’eEoLoG;Y’–t.’y:{]_n2§’.

MOHAMMED HAJEE in Writ Appeal4__.No. ‘8.3_’o~ of 2oo’6VV.#dj:%s:po§;édo of

on 25*’ September, 2006.

4. Following the juud’g’o1en’t__vof:i;hi’§»:.Co§Jrtkrendered in Writ
Appeal i\Eo.83O of V2,”‘UVG’fi’ déisbosefii gfffen 25«f5VV”September, 2006
these writ petitfiorie .aFe:.a–!so:d§_§h-ose.d Vbltoflorder as to costs.

Sd/-

Chiei Justice

‘t -Sd/…

o ~4 JUDGE

V.7e’b.AAI*I0sti–‘Yes/No