Subash Suvarna vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 June, 2009

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT aANGA1._ -oR:'EE§"'V;~  

DATED THIS THE 24"' DAY or JUNE zeaé  

PRESENT   -

THE HON'BLE MR. ma. DINAKARAIN, C:'.:!A-_ii'EFiLl§T»ICEV  

AND '

THE HON'BLE MR.3;1L:sTIcVE..\.}i;c';.  S~A.BHAfiHIT 

WRIT PETITIONS NO.16517491.65_2'.§;vof"'2Vi}_Q})"' {GM-MM--~S)

Between:
Subash Suvarna,  _  

S/0 Sunciara Suva:'na,j"-.V 

Aged about 35 years,  17

Occ:: Contracto'r',"E'   '  _

R/at. Mucidarma compo-".'mv;i_,"'~T   ' -
Hosamane, Pervajeé, ' =    --

Karkaia -- 574104..,_ .

UDUPI DISTRICT. 

"*-- ..... @' ."Pefifioner

    Eswarappa, Advocate)



 The Statekof Riarfiataka

_ ,  Director,"
_ ._Depua.rt"mer}t of Mines 8: Geofogy,
V,KanI'j.a Bljayan, Race Course Road,

_VBanfgar'Qre-O1.

 V ,2'. Exe"cut'ive Engineer,

'EEa_"'P»a_r1.chayath Raj Engineering Department,

 



S

(C) Where the Contractor uses material purChased.__in.VV"'*:7. 

open marked, that is material purchased_;i';rom« is

private sources like quarry lease holders or.._o_ri"v'ate-.V:' .
quarry owners, there is no-"'li'ability'.. on _kthe_, 

contractor to pay any royalty che&rgesf;'n A. 

(d) In cases Covered by ,5-;§ra--.;_ (b)A*-and   
Department cannot recoverkvhorpideduct 'anyf:ro'yalty
from the bills of the,---C.ontra&cto'i aindhhifiso deducted,
the Department Quill. Tbe '--_boun:d" refund any

amount so deducted or collected: to "theVCVon.tractor.

(e) Subject to"th'e[.t,aboi/L?, c3"oiiection_Vof"ro*y'alty by the
Departrnent_««.or'v-refund,jjthéreof by the Department

will be govteln V by the jternis. _ofV_con tract.

(0 Nothing -- state.ci-"shall ' be construed as a
direct=.ign" for  reoard to any particular
Contract."-, line Departrnént or authority concerned

s.-fvali decided linhieachéycase, whether royalty is to be
deducted' ..or if  royalty is already deducted,

' trim/he*thershould be refunded, keeping in View the

"-abo ye «prlnc':'pies and terms of the contract. "

 3. We saidkkhhdecision has been upheid by the Division

 theirs' com; in the case of OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

 4i3.iEF°.lVXRTi\dENT or MINES AND GEOLOGY v. M.

g'.«/:W'"E{MWMHW4



6

MOHAMMED HAJEE in Writ Appea! N0. 830 of 2006

on 25"" September, 2005.

4. Foifowing the judgment of this C0uttfj~

Appeai No.830 of 2006 disposed dfon 2'55'septezdrgefi2006'
these petitions are disposed of in s§rfé'i'i»a:.r"te_rms:  '0rd<s§r as to
costs.   

 _ t  

Index: Yes 

Wdb-.H0st':e fed  __

1.

, la

d_is0o»séd “cf” ..

re’a»d’e;’ed £’r’.’v\_;_ri~t:, ~