1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREVT»-.c4_'"..V_
DATED THIS THE 30"' DAY OF JULY, 2oo9__ « ..._: ;_. A'
PRESENT
THE I-EON'BI..E MR. 9.9. DINAKARAZN, CZHEEI-"«.}IU1$fTcI_.:(2EVVV._| __
AND _
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE:V;TG. sAa=.HA-HIT 1'
WRIT P!-;TITIoI~_e N0. 3Aai4'of'~9oo9
GM" MM"-9
Between:
Sri P.Suryanna Shettyv,'V, '_'-
Son of late Narayar:a'--.She'_i'ty._, . '
Aged 58 years, '
P.W.D. Contractor-Qass
Resding at Pras!i"i'an.t;h1Niiaifa,'. , ..
Yedthare, Byndoor-S'75_21_«7'.«V.V
. . . Petitioner
(By Sri Prat/e'eri'..£i<«.Aa_an.d rs.75,592--00
(Collected as per Annx--B) and Con.sequentl',{; and etc;
These :vv'ri'tlVp'eti'iiions':ii:oin:i'ng:'up forupreliminary hearing this day,
the Court delivered the~"F:-il.Iowingv:g __ -- -
, 'QJ'*i.J' NT
(oeiavg-red by no. Dinakaran, c.3.)
p.eti'ti'onVer.,_in thesempetitions is the registered civil contractor
of the Government Department and Locai
'i"iA...«'i:'~odies. isV.con't.en'ded that for the purpose of execution of civil
.._l,i'_jv,:ori<s, the petitioner is required to purchase buiiding materials from
'j._'_"theprivatevsources. It is further. contended that the petitioner do not
it any qnarries and that they are not liable to pay any royalty to the
respondents. However, the respondents are deducting royaity from
/2″‘: ‘”-3
5
1?
the bins of the petitioner without authority of law. Henc.e;».th-es’eA
petitions praying not to deduct the royaity from
petitioner in respect of the materiais procured by them”v’fr:ovm””privatet_”
3
sources for execution of the civil contract wo=,,r_ks_:.._, A 3
2.
omens v. STATE OF KARNATAKA Aviiinwojfneitzs ‘\iilritVV}Petitions
No.3126-4-31266 of 1994 cfisposed orfiani.sv:€F_V_o,¢t–ober, 2594 has laid
down the principies reiating to ‘T-thveh’.”pvafym.e.nf»A.’gf__’_i’oyalty by the
In similar matters, this’: Court in_’VG.\VI.
contractors. The same are “extracted h.ereuh’dejr:,
( a)
Where. prg-yidin”p””tl7.e4″n3i’;.re.rial.:_{subjected to royalty) is
the respohsibilityiofthencontractor and the Department
provides the”co’n,tractor,,_yyi’th specified borrow areas, for
extia_ctio_n of. the” .’eij’uired construction material, the
_contractor”i1iili’Vbe l-fable” to pay royalty charges for the
material {minor mineral) extracted from such areas,
‘irrespective of Viiyiihether the contract is a item rate
contract. ‘or.._a lump sum contract. Hence deduction of
,r’oyalt,y charges in such cases will be legal. For this
V purpose non-execution of mining lease is not relevant,
4’ asthe liability to pay royalty arises on account of the
contractor extracting material from a Government land,
V for use in the work.
Where under the contract the responsibility to supply
the that of the
Department/employer and the contractor is required to
;”‘i””.:><r::«
i '
material (minor minerals) is
(C)
(0')
am
provide only the labour and service for execution of any
work involving use of such material, and the unit rate':_
does not include the cost of material, there is no li'abiiity
on the contractor to pay any royalty. This will '
position even if the -contractor is required to in
the material from outside the worktsite, so flongi 'as-T';mé"
unit rate is only for labour or iserviceg and}does'-.not*…_ D
include the cost of material.
Where the contractor uses material purchased open”
marked, that is material purch_ased_ ii’on1 pri’vatevsourr§es
like quarry lease holders or jprivate q_uarry.owners, there
is no liability on the J contract’ol” to pay ‘any royalty
charges. _
In cases paid; (b)_4Vand’ (c)”‘the Department
jiannlotrlrecoverfnoi de’duct any royalty from the bills of
the co’ntractor”-and..bif”‘deducted, the Department will
be ‘bound to refund ari;(__’airl’ount so deducted or collected
to the “contractor. ‘
Subjec_t to the—–above, collection of royalty by the
Department or refund thereof by the Department will be
= gVo’veriied..by.. the terms of contract.
No£’hing.- stated above shall be construed as a direction
..for.,reVfund in regard to any particular contract. The
Department or authority concerned shall decided in each
H 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 the
~,:r°%
contract. ”
5
3. The said decision has been upheld by the DivisiQnVV_:Be»m:_h
of this Court in the case 03″ OFFICE OF THE DIR._£’c:’rt)_R–.:__e:?_:_”~_
DEPARTMENT OF muss AND GEOLOGY v.
HAJEE in Writ Appeal No. 830 of 2006 dispzlfiisediidf pri=__25″‘f -s_iep:;e.rr;ibia_p,T”f
2005.
4. Foilowing the judgment Cou’r’t.V_rendere’d Writ
Appeal No.83() of 2006 dispo5ed.V_ of ci.~i””25¥.j*”jSé’p.tempei¢”2006, these
petitions are disposed of in similaf terms–fl’|\£o Qi’d.e”_r..a”s»to costs.
-Chief Justice
Sd/-
Judge
Index; Yee ” ij
Web Host: “Yes / VNun7f_ it
‘Ida 1