High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri M/S Nijaguna Developers And … vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri M/S Nijaguna Developers And … vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 December, 2010
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE i7'm DAY OF DECEMBER 2010
PRESENT " D

THE HONBLE MR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF    ~

THE HONBLE   
WRIT PETITION Nos.372o§}a2oi}'fiT)1Q(i§Tii/i%.i§riT.&S)
BETWEEN: in D D 

Sri M / s.Nij aguna Developers" 
Builders, 13' Cross, 3" S1. '

4m Biock, I~Iav_a.I--1:1AJ1r._Cir;_C1eV 
Basaveshwaranagar _  1 
Bangalore §360"_O7'9'?;__ _ V _ _  
Represented--.V.byJavare Govv<;ia:1"'V   Petitioner

 Sn   ., Adv . [Absent]
AND:  -   

 1. The uSt~ate ofKsTnatT1ka

Repby its Secretéit'y
»  'Depart£I1'en"i.. of Commerce
 DD 82: Ino1"u.strieS {Mines}
- i\/i';.S.B::i'1'Cii1j:g"
B.g_1ng_9.~Eo_rcf..~ 560 001.

 ' " " --  V2  The mipu ty Dire otor

Department of Hortiieufifure {Z.P]

' --. VRa§I1angar Division

V§Ramanagar District.

'4  The Deputy Director

Department. of Hori:i_cL1Ii'.ure
Lalbagh and Cubbonpark Divisions
Bangalore. ...Responde'r1ts

{By Sri R.G.Ko}}e. AGA)



rail

mwmm

SW

\}a~

These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 228
and 227 of the Constitution of Endia praying to 'direct
the respondents not to deduct any royalty from-.y_'tl:1e

petitioner running working bills an.d to V.
respondents to refund the royalty whicli.–a_has”–jbeeny’,
already deducted from the petitioner runiiing _&

bills.

These Writ Petitions coming ion’; for.
Hearing this day, Chief Justice ‘passed thieyvfollowing

order:

ORDER”

J.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Gian:

None for __the Sril,.§fr;pl.;l{olle, learn_ed
Additional respondents,
states, is squarely covered
with tne this Court in Golayya
vs. olfiityllllfiarnataka and others,

w.1?,;ivo.s3os17/éoogfam-MM-s), decided on

i]l02,’b3,v32§)o:s>~….y

of the above, learned counsel for the

respondfen-ts A states, that if the petitioner produces

J’a.uVtl1en’tic material before respondent Nos. 2 <3: 3,

that royalty was paid in respect of the sand

~'bei.ng transported (from a licensed quarry owner), from

whom. the petitioner had purchased the sand, the

3

respondents would refund the royalty charged from the

petitioner.

3. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted

produce material before the concerned ‘

Nos.2 & 3, depicting that royaltyvhafl.

by the licensed quarry owner, “safici

purchased by the petitione1~,..c:TOh ‘”st1ch ll

authentic material, royalty petitmner would

be refunded within fouryvie-e1ts–.

4. The insta_nt ‘disposed of in

Sd/~
Chief Justice

Sd/4
JUDGE

c ‘fndex:+–‘Y/ N