E. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL(}RV!V_S%_:TT~.s_ DATED THIS THE 10"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER, zcjas Q .;. T PRESENT THE HOWBLE MR. P.D. 9INAKAsiAH,'V CHI,EF'JU'STiCEw._r _ AND' THE HON'BLE MR.3usTIcE:'v.»G. s'AaHA.HiT S WRIT PETITION NQS. ;7.344--2-7--:~i:4'_§4/";2;op9(g_§M--vMM:-5) Between: T T' T H T A. Shivaji, S/o Rama Chavan, . Aged about 40 years; 1 _. . Occ: Class E Contna'cto'_r, .. BeerE(B), Tafuk: Bn.aikii., T ' Dist: Bidar. -------- _ 'V:-_ . _ -- f ...PetEtioner " (By '3r§~I,R»._Biradar, Advocate) And: " ' = " 1.
The Stateof Karha_taka
_ Rep. by_%_ its Secretary, V
“E’.eparv*:n*ier;_ts.of Mines & “Ge’0’iogy,
?,M.VS;.l3uéldir’1g, Bangatore-1.
2. The State 0f}<ernEita*ka,
Rep} .by'*its Secfetéry,
DeparE~ment'of.Izfidustries & Commerce,
'MS. Buiirjirig,
«. jg-f__Bangaiore 1.
The Vfixetutive Engineer,
_ P’ra’c1_h”an’a Mantri Grameena
.._”Sacia;kh Yojana DivEsion,Bidar.
4
unit rate is only for labour or service and does
include the cost of material.
(C) Where the contractor uses material purchased. «
marked, that is material purchasedfrom .briL(ate..sourr:_esV ‘
like quarry lease holders or privat’e__quarryeowisers; there ‘
is no liability on the contractor to pay any.)-oyalty
charges.
(0′) In cases covered by paras (b) the Department
cannot recover or deduct any 3-re:>Vyalty».Vfrorn the bills of
the contractor and if scddeducte-be’, the’-ile3_~epa’r_tment will
be bound to refund ai’1y’arn’oun’i’ .so_deducted or collected
to the c0£?tr;?’5;t.§5r’. 2: = = ”
(e) Subjeet ,;:oliec’tiori€ of royalty by the
D.epartrnent oerirefund. thereof”‘b;nt:’74e Department will be
go verned the” terrns ‘of, contract.
(f) Notiainp istaetedeaboi/eh. “shall: be construed as a direction
for reefundV’in_regai’?d to” any particular contract. The
l)Vepartmen’t”or«authori’ty concerned shall decided in each
& ‘case, Whether royalty is to be deducted or if any royalty
i’s»_al’ready’ deducted, whether it should be refunded,
thl<ee_oinp infview the above principles and terms of the
V contract'. '"
The’1~said decision has been upheld by the Division Bench
t’hfi’s.VC6’u_rt in the case of OFFICE 05 THE DIRECTOR OF
he”7-1:”e”.’jn_seARi?MEN’r OF MINES AND GEOLOGY v. M. MOHAMMED
5
HAJEE in Writ Appeal No. 830 of 2006 disposed of on 25″‘ sep’téfm5e.:,
2006.
4. Following the judgment of tljis”‘Co~,njt”.<rer}defed_
Appeal No.83O of 2006 disposed of on 25"? s:§§;5tém5eir,;' zoos
petitions are disposed of in similar ter'm_s';….No order asVto~vco'sts;'
in Sd/~.
EUDGE
Index: Yes ma. — ‘-
Web Host: Yes/ No’;
W 3.. ll ' ..... .. 'V