High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Srihari Contructions vs State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Srihari Contructions vs State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 057" DAY OF JUNE, 2009

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, cHIEs.VJij_sTIe}E 

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTI_CE v.e.t1s'AI9sHAHf£fr"»V = I I

 

WRIT PETITION N0.9957 afizoos'"(eM.--VMMésj""' I

Between:

1.

M/s. Srihari Constructions '  ,
Represented by its Proprietorw "  v

Sri H.M. Hatoswamyj"     - 
S/o Late H.M. Pak_I<eiaf1a.!'a  =:   A ' 
Aged about 38 y.ears 5; =    
Residing at No.24, _.6"'vCross  ''
Malieshwaram _  3:,  I

Bangalore - 

Sri D. Sreenivasan _ '

S/o R. Doreswgamy _

Aged about 48 y.ear.s _ ._ 
Residingat J-20,'D.r. 'T.v(.'.M.'-Royan Road

Baga|ore1a--v560 053 "   ..... 



Sfo Suobtrarmnia l'i'E»._ 
Aged about 4?._'-y_ea;rs

, R/o No.51/2,_ .1'ot1-"_ Cross

Magadi"'Road', Sangaiore ---- 560 027

.v,'Sri'Mt.VoManj'u*nath
« T S~/1'0 K.J;"~Mudligiri
"Age.d'abo'ut 46 years
 "R-esidjng at No.141/6,43' Main,
 E A  E.a_st.of Kattriguppe, BSK III Stage
 "Bangatore -- 560085

 



5. Sri Parthasarathi

S/o late Mogali Naidu
Aged about 44 years
R/at No.4, 6"' Cross

6"' Main, 7"' Block,

4"' Phase, BSK III Stage
Bangalore -- 85

6. M/s. Manjushree Constructions
Represented by its Partner   
Sri M.C. Rajanna : '
Aged about 45 years
No.6/2, II Floor, 15" Main Road
Sheshadripuram
Bangalore -- 20

7. Sri M. Mahadevappa
S/o Late Mallappa
Aged about 38 years
r/at No.3622, 9*" Cross
I Main, Gayathrinagar"   _   
Bangalore -- 21  '   2:   A ' 

8. Sri P.R. Ma:J:|ika_rj_unair£Vht.V_   I
S/o Rudraiah '4 ' _  
Aged about 62._years 
'Jyothi' No.2203r,1A .  
23'" Cross, BSK II Stage," K.R. Road
__Banga|or-5; -- 70 " _ .
9. 3.._V.. Constructions"'~«.
Represented"«b'y »its.Proprietor
 Sri  Ven«ka'tes-h_mu;rt'hy
 .v,S/0 Narayana_ppal_ 
 Aged about -43 years
_ I"-.__yR/at 27, I1~.Ma;=:n Road, BSK I Stage
.,',A\/inayakanagar
 ysarrgaloreym 560 050

It It '   Gangaraja

 '  "Aged about 46 years

"3-,lO..D.oddaiah

 



r/at No.3622, 9*' Cross
Gayathrinagar
Bangalore -« 27

11.Sri H.V. Ravi

S/o H.T. Venkategowda

Aged about 42 years

Residing at No.141/6

4"' Main, East of Kattriguppe

BSK III Stage

Bangalore -- 85   

12.Sri G.V. Gopalreddy
S/o Subbareddy
Aged about 40 years
r/at No.3/40, 9"' Cross
4*" Main, Yelahanka
Bangalore

13.Sri Dhasaratha Ram Redciy

S/o Narayanareddy   '

Aged about 56 years_   V     :
Residing at No.8, 10"'§C'ross,'--15"_Main,g'  " 
Dattatreyanaga-r",' Ho_sakerfeha.|_i--i.;,_ B~SK"--III2Stage
Bangalore ~ 85'   " r y   

14.Sri B.T. Ranga_nathaia.|_1  '--   "
5/0 D. Thirukappa . _ A ' A
Aged about 63 years ' ~ *
4_» .Residing--y:at No.I10/4; El_NS_L.ayout
 1'"'*-Mair! Road, KHB Colony'
'=_1'°". Stage, Basa-yes-hwaranagar
B'a_ngal_or e  .560 "O.7_'9..

" R' i"A.,...1.S.Sri *r.I:"' Cross, III Main
 y IvII"B|OCk_, T.R. Nagar

" ea.-lg'a»!.o.re ---- 560 028

(By Sri S.N.Kurnaraswamy, Advocate)

...Petitioners

{yr/.;.;u:_
 .. ._ _



the private sources. It is further contended that the petitioners do not
own any quarries and that they are not liable to pay any royalty"--t_o the

respondents. However, the respondents are deducting royaltyflfrovm

the bills of the petitioners without authority of law. Hence; ”

praying not to deduct the royalty from th.e~h2.!.lsAofilthelyupevtitliloneirs ‘incl

respect of the materials procured by thern fr’nrrr’i’prii\;:ateyysotiricesafor

execution of the civil contract works.

2. In similar matters, this,…C*:ourt”‘–»i.n Gl\’i;-..I,(,U,l*:*ElAR AND
omens v. STATE or KARMA-‘.r3Ai<A,_ANo"o1fhEias in Writ Petitions
No. 31384-31266 of 1994 displosedfofvcn".3i5£'_Octob'er, 1994 has laid

down the principl,e§,, rerEating4".to of royalty by the

contractors. T'he"isarn'e arefleattracted hereunvder:

(a) Where pro.vldin”g.qtrleylrnaterlal (subjected to royalty) is
the V’responsibillty,’of contractor and the Department

.– provides the contractor with specified borrow areas, for
eirtracftion “of«vthe.’required construction material, the
contractor will be liable to pay royalty charges for the

— _(n;lnor mineral) extracted from such areas,

‘ :r’r.’=.=.4:;ag.:«.c:fi:z;’e of whether the contract is a item rate
C.on’tract or a lump sum contract. Hence deduction of
‘roy:alty charges in such cases will be legal. For this
ptlrpose non~execution of mining lease is not relevant,

as the liability to pay royalty arises on account of the

(b)

(C)

(0′) a

(e}*-

contractor extracting material from a Government land,

for use in the work.

Where under the contract the responsibilifl’ to supply.__
the material (minor minerals) is that of
Department/employer and the contractor is reqwre–!Nill~ 56
position even if the contractor is required to.vt.Ir’anvsport’*:
the material from outside th_e””worl< site, so,longVas'"th'e if

unit rate is only for labour for service and does} not

include the cost of.ri1k3'«-t._erial;'i' ''

Where the contractor uses .ma€?eri'al_purchased in open
marked, that is rnajterial purchased fron*., private sources

like quarry lease h.oldei5_; or private duarry owners, there

no:1li'ab.ility'"lpn .,the_'vcont'ractor to pay any royalty

charges.'

In cases 'cover_ed~.by"paras (b) and (c) the Department

cannot recover or deduct any royalty from the bills of
' the c'on'tractor"and if so deducted, the Department will

b._e"bound to refund any amount so deducted or collected

. toithe contractor.

subject to the above, collection of royalty by the

” Department or refund thereof by the Department will be

if ‘D governed by the terms of contract.

Nothing stated above shall be construed as a direction

for refund in regard to any particular contract. The

“;”*2,–«

Department or authority concerned shall decided in each
case, whether royalty is to be deducted or if any royalty

is already deducted, whether it should be refunded;–___
keeping in view the above principles and terms of

con tra ct. ”

3.

of this Court in the case of oFFzcE::”o’i=’:”r:s;Es._ oInj’~:etoR””VVoF

DEPARTMENT or Mmes AM) eeotocafy. M;_’v1iAMoHAni’M$b~–t,%

HAJEE in Writ Appeal No. 830 of 2006″-etiiisrposed ofon.2’i3″;a’Se’pte’n1ber,’VV

2006.

4. Foiiowing the judg_rnén_t §:his.’«~.(:f’oo7Vr§:,_tendered in Writ
Appeal N0.830 of 2QO6″;£i:sposed ‘2§””‘-isevptember, 2006 this writ
petition is disposed V

Sd/-

Chief fifistice

Sd/-~
Judge

 Ifid:é,é';'"  .l..;\io.;;:~-'
V '  -     VYi:'ES{/ NO

The said decision has been upheld by thVelI3~iyVisio:r: i3ench_A