IN THE HIGH courrr or= KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12"' am or: AUGUST, 2009 T
PRESENT
THE HON'!-BLE MR. 9.9. DINAKARAN, c1--11Ei=_3i:s.:Tff1*c:!%:"f: "
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.3USTIC.E_ v.G.'sABHAHI1'--".i. "
WRIT PETITION NOS.23563'4«.$:56 of 2005935-d H
W.P.Nos.23878~88/2009 ('GM---MM-S)"«.,,_AA
Between:
Sri N.Shei<ar Shetty, A
Aged about 54 years, V '
S/o late Heriyanna Shetty,' _' ' _
Contractor, residing at" i " _
Kadri, Siddapura Post '&'Vi5!l_i_ag.e," .
Kundapura taiuk, Uidupi-Distriti... '
-. . -- v ...Petitioner
(By Sri H"-.iayi,3ka:fa*--Shetty, Advocate)
And: . 'V i '
1;V,'vT.h§.gtéteiioflcarfiataka ttttt H
Rep. 'by. its Seczreta r-,«__
Dépaftmentv:bf_C'0m,merce and Incéustries(Mines),
M.S Buifding,' B'a.n__ga,iore.
i.'"i"_he Director,-._of 1'-f!i"r'ies and Geofogy,
_ ,Kh,anija Bhavan,
" * Race ,Coursew!7<oad,
'Bangaior'ej01.
Th-e 'AI;'~:-ceiciiitive Engineer,
4", My _i.i.r}upi, Udupi District.
i "Ports and Fisheries Department,
~Dep'a"rtment, Udupi Division,
10.
,iJdupi Di.§trict.
ii
. The Executive Engineer, V ,
Panchayath Raj Engineering Division, '
. The Executive Engine-_er,v._
. The Executive En'g.i,nise.~:'_;.,
. The Chief Officer,
Town Muncipal Council,
Kundapura Taiuk, Udupi District.
. The Executive Engineer,
PWD Department,
Udupi Division, Udupi District.
Udupi Taluk 8: District.
. The Commissioner,
City Muncipa! Corporation,
Udupi, Uciupi District.
Prime Minister Village Sa-dak
Scheme, Udupi,:_Ud'upi 'I.T,_a.i'_uk'&,:District." C
Departmen'it'of*'i'v1incir Irrifgé'tio'r':~.,:"'
Udupi taiuir. & i_District;,,.«.,_
The Deputy 'Forest Offi_cer.,'-- 3
Forest Departrrsent,v. '
Kundapura, i<undap,uraw"€'"aiu'i<
'..The 'i':xecutive Officer,
"i"=aiui< Panici:--a_yat'n,.,_ .
Kunda~p__ura"Taiuk, ,Lidupi District.
. The Se'c__reta:'y, A
Siddapura V'iiiage Pa nchayatth
*-«iifj;-V'~_i<'u.ndapurTeiuk and Udupi District.
' Secretary,
__A_mpar"v'iiiage Panchayath
'Kunciapur Taiuk and Uciupi District.
14. The Secretary,
Ajri Village Panchayath
Kundapur Taluk and Udupi District.
15. The Secretary,
Hosangadi Village Panchayath
Kundapur Taluk and Udupi District.
16. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Varahi Irrigation Project,' _
Siddapura, Kundapura "i"aiui and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to:'direct;th_e'««F§3,_ to 53,6 not to deduct
royalty from the Petition;e.r'runining ="oiiis*an'd"to._..refunci the royalty
amount already ded.ucted?jfr_o'_m*~rhe ;setitior*.er with interest at the rate
of 12% p.a. from the date of. de'clu.'ctionVAt«ill the date of refund of the
entire amount already d€C:i':J"CteL1 .'b\'IvtVhe" respondents; and etc.
These vviiigt petitions~Vco.rning”u.o’for.preliminary hearing this day,
the Court delivered the fol.lovv.ir1gb;4’*«–._>y ” ‘
t<.iunaMa~r
(DeliveredV'iay«P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.)
_"_l"l*ie._petiti'o.ner"in._t'r;.ese petitions is the registered civil contractor
iirvcarryingiioniiécivi_l.'vv'orits of the Government Department and Local
_j:*B_o'dies. It is contended that for the purpose of execution of civil
{ wo'rl§.s",i.theipetitioner are required to purchase building materials from
V.'ill."v.tVhe–.p.–rivaVte sources. It is further contended that the petitioner do not
'anyiquarries and that they are not iiable to pay any royalty to the
respondents. However, the responoents are deducting royalty from
the bills of the petitioner without authority of law. Hence,
petitions praying not to deduct the royalty from the
petitioner in respect of the materials procured by them 'fromjpirivi/ate–.,'i
sources for execution of the civil contract works'; '
2. In similar matters, this_.C_ourt in “GM. K1_mAR’Al§aij;
omens u. sure or KARNATAKA A’i»1,t5′–ioTH£RsV_inie\i;rit”i:?etVinons
No. 31264-31266 of 1994 disposed own” aft” oc.t9per,4:’99tW@s laid
down the principles relating to ‘ tnei’ royalty by the
contractors. The same areextractedv’l’ie’reLj’n«cl’erV: 3 ~
(a) ‘pi*oiyidi’n_o7’i,the_énzaterial istiibjected to royalty) is
the retsponsibi.’ity.,_ohf»thea.col’itractor and the Department
prol/id_es the contractor”withJ’speci’fied borrow areas, for
extraction ortnve required construction material, the
_§cont.raCtor vnwillfllae liable to pay royalty charges for the
Arna–t’eria’i’,.(minorWrnineral) extracted from such areas,
._irrespecti_ve of whether the contract is a item rate
o.r~a~”lump sum contract. Hence deduction of
“”royalty’ectvarges in such cases will be legal. For this
pulgoose “non–execution of mining lease is not relevant,
as,the liability to pay royalty arises on account of the
it contractor extracting material from a Government land,
for use in the work.
it (bj Where under the contract the responsibility to supply
V’ the material (minor rninerals) is that of the
6
3. The said decision has been upheld by the DEvisE0fi”{~3té”nLéiz_’
of this court in the case of osrrxcrs or= THE
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOG)f»_v. 1$si;”‘1\r:i)f’fiA’r«a3\fs.r:fDvs-v_
HAJEE in Writ Appeal No. 830 of 2000 dis;3c:;.sed;_0fA(.§’n ‘2s€hA.s’ept’e&m__er,:,s_A
2006.
4. Foilowing the judgment 0f”_tvf1’ivs__Cqurt hféndejfeglsi in Writ
Appeal No.83{) of 2005 dispoSed_..V::3f’_ svept§m_per, 2005, these
petitions are disposed of in simitar. N0 o’tdeVr'”a.s”t0 costs.
Justice
Sd/~
JUDGE
Inde.xA:’\%es’/VNo.__ ‘
. } Web 2-a0s.t::” Vt/” aifif ..
V f’VSVF3vb)’.”‘