High Court Karnataka High Court

Sidram vs The State Of Karnataka & Others on 3 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sidram vs The State Of Karnataka & Others on 3 June, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
113 THE HIGH 0033'!' OF KARIIATAKA A1' 

nxmn nus was 3:6 mm or JUIIE  f  ~ 

mmssrrr   Q
run nownm nm. 9.9. n:xAKARg§;ii,':¢::_n§_F   
ma'. I-IOIPBLE   
WRIT 92:1-1'r1o1mo.soea314&_ as s1'6é§5gésggod§' gaufpunu)

Between:

Sidram, _   ;_  _  - 

S/0. Shiva!ingaPP3 Belkéifi,    " _ 

Aged about48 yeyars;  * 4; A'   .

OCC: Class-I  é 

Resident of |~_i-Ni3,._ I1§81i*$;»,,__ , «V "

Basavanagaz, ~   '

Gutbarga. 

...Petitioner

'A      Advocate)

 The fitéetei {sf  »

._ R'.-3.-prfinw b'y~_l_ts Secretary,
 ~of4.Mis'1_es & Geology,
M.S.._Bui§dir-.9,"  5.
Bangalore 4 550 [£101.

  The  

 by its Secretary,

   of Industfies & Commerce,
'*M.S. Euiiding,

 _'_ .__B'en'g&ire -~ 550 am.

 '.rr».é Chief Engineer,

 y .. Guibarga, 

 Irrigation Project Zone,  /3,

y-.\



4. The Executive Engineer,
I.P.Z. Division,
Bidar.   

5. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works, Ports 8: Iniand
Water Transport Division,
Gulbarga.

6. The Executive Engineer,
M.I. Division,
Guibarga.

7. The Executive Engmeéer'-,_  V   ' 
Zllia Panchayath Envision.      
Guibaraa.  .   --.    »

8. The Exe6.:tis«evErigifie'e§3_ ..  '  '
i<.:w.L. csandarvinaza, 1'; L M i
Mahagaon'-__Cross..    T'
Mahagaomg . .   
Taiuk&Dist: Guibarga.  . 

9. The Executive Engmear;

 " K_.N. N, natom Diviskm,

 Hebtqai;  " 

""!_"ai:.:_k':* Ctiitiapura  ._

District: Gu_im_r'¢_;a;~ _ 

   'Ti1e'CoE magi,

City 

  Ggslbarga; _ ':. ...Respondmt:s

_ ' '} A_ (by Sri aasavaraj Kamddy, GA)
'   writ petitions are flied under Articia 226 and 227 of the

Vv.v_'V(;».'::§e§fi?5titI1tion of India praying to direct the nespondents not to deduct
._iii«--._ir'oya|ty from bills of the petitioner and not ta insist the petitioner to
 produce the royalty paid receipts by the vendors. Direct the

/

 



respondents to refund the royalty already deducted  

the petitioner.

These writ petitions coming up for

the Cmlrt delivered the foilowing:- T
(Delivered by sap. L

The petitioner in V registered civil
contractors carrying Department and
Local Bodies. It to of execution of civii
works, the building materials from
the private V that the petitioner (low
not own any_quarrl”es not liabte to pay any royalty to the
_i?io2yeverh,””ti~.e…respondents are deducting royalty from
tl1e’3;llis{oi’ without authority of law. Hence, the petitions

royalty from the biils of the petitioner In

procured from them from private souroa for

l of the civil contract works.

i =§.””:1n sirnllar matters, this Court in ex. mum mo omens v.

stirs or KARNATAKA mo omens in Writ Petitioas No. 31334»

31266 of 1994 disposed of on 31′ October, 1994 has Eaid down the

principles relating to the payment of royalty by the

same are extracted hereunder:

(a) Where pmviding the material tnll’mjéeslzy).. is
the responsibility of the cnn:r_aczor”‘m_d”me
pnm/ides the contractvr will)”-sbeeifled berfbweemaé,
extraction of the ;equiredV._¢;$f;seua;;on :’11aee::frjalV,ft1~ae
contractzar will be viieble tofgpay: feyja-l1:j/’*– charges for the
material (miner mleefeij wch areas,
irrespectiveyof the l,a” item rate
conb’act:or’e lumpizsum deduction of
in” -..;=ases:.’w.lll_ be legal. For this
pumoée pélnlng’V’leese is not relevant,
as the. lléwlitfffl’ D3y”myal§fafiées on account of the
fmm a Government land,

(13) v.9!/here”‘i;n;§ler.t;he éohéect the responsibility to smply

.» material’. ___{_r_’nlmr minerals) is mat of the

A V Deéarfirnenyemployer and the cantractvr is required to

A * pla§_?io’e.”e{aly’-.;rre labour and service for execuaion of any

_ “”.__Ve«w5r:}”_’inyol#ll7g use of such matenal, and the unit rate

A __ include the cost of matwial, there is no liability

the contractor tn pay any ruyalty. ms will be the

.A posilzon even If the contracmv is required are transport

” material fram outside the work site, so long as the

“iznit rate is only for labcur or service and does not
include me cost of matmal.

VV (C) Where the contractnr uses material wmhe in open
marked, that is material purchased from private swrces

K,”

like quarry lease holders or private quarry ownerfie ‘ ‘» * -1-

is no liability on the contractor to pay
charges.

(d) In cases covered by flaras (£7) afef
cannot recover or deduct.«§m3_( myéiég/_ t’.«1é $31!; pf
the contractnr and if so the wfl?

be bound to refimrf eny amoqnfjsa ‘cr.¢oIigétad
tomeeonzrector.

(e) Subject to the above” ceiéeeaien “re;-av-.-ir’¢;x by the
Departmen;?e§:r–ref*zu§;d djrefeof will be
governed. by bf _con{:ra*:t.ft, V’

(D NQt;’;Ing’~ as a diracfion
(Err any fierfiwiar contract. The
Departinento}f’a;j£f°.<:§?if;{ ' shah' decided as each
we eeeee eye,-e 'e-_é:'e "be deducted or if any myalty
is azre'eay".:edeeze.:, 'enema: it should be retimed,

, keepirrg the wave principles and terms of the
….. ..

3. has been uphed by the Division Bench of

V7K “th§s coa.¢% in, of orrxa or me mnacron as

ee%Te’g§éAum£NI%’DF muss AND esmoev v. M. not-Human

En:>M?it Appeal No. 830 of 2006 disposed of on 25″‘ September,

/ V-3″”

4. Foifowing the pdgment of this Court rendered in A’

No.33!) of 2006 disposed of on 25″‘ September, 20% T’ 1

are disposed of in simfiar terms. No order as to é_

Sub]
Index: Yes] ‘
Web Host: Séeéfflo’ _