High Court Karnataka High Court

V R Ganganahalli S/O … vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
V R Ganganahalli S/O … vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 March, 2008
Author: K.L.Manjunath
IN THE HIGH coum OF KARNfimAKA.Am BANGAfi§éfi5; ,

namnn wars mam 2o"'nmx-an Manna, idea  " 

B E E o E"

 

THE H'fi'BLE MR.JUsTICEfK}L;mANJu¥%$H'

WRIT PETITION NO.453S"dfij2o08€¢M~fiMfS) H

BETWEEN :

1 v R GANGANAHALLI -_ i" : »,v;ufl»
s/o RAMACEafififififikhffifififiéfiififiifii
AEED ABcUT,34 YEARa* "fu_W§
occ: PWb CLA$S~1_CQNTRAQTOR
ale nEvA§GAuMw5a§=2Q5;'§,*
sINmHIG;"TéLUK.","
E:JAfififi;nIs%§:cT,'

1 1* "*-'%'~ * ... PETITIONER

(Bv 5;;':_NAa£R$JA;fi;NAJnu,ADv. )

»jx,THE-SEAEE OF Kfififififianfi
", 25:, BY $33 sncnnwnay
A"aDEPAREMENT ow COMMERCE E INDUSTRIES(MINE
._M.$.BUILDING '.
"sANGALoRE--56o 001

L,THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ,
_'bEpAamMmNT or MINOR Ianmamxcu
HBIJAPUR DIVISION *
BIJAPUR nxswnxcw

" 1&5

._____..__. -.-an --- cm In

(By sri: M.E.?WHAKAz~:, rev 1 ;



THIS w.p. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE;-a..__"2é:65f;§'*3

22'? OF '1"I-EE CUESTITUTIOE OF INDIA, PEA' '1'-ENG" 

DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT To DED:1c'rj,'t-.Amr-..'i

ROYALTY FROM THE PETITIONER 1;LJ1afNINc:”tézc5:«>;%<.1§ILLs
AND IF ALREADY DEDUCTED 1?:i)YAL'1".{ ~.motr_;;"rr_V
REFUND 01-' THE sAm=.'.. '

an-11s wnrr 1:3-1-x::";tV_<m._ ¢OMi1~!G zsrbn

FREELIMTNARY :r:HIs'*~.D*Y, Ti~:£:_ 'co'.u1a"':f DADE
THE I-"OLLOWING:~– _

c.5~.1:i .D7.F_-

4}

Government Adfipcaté it dutécted to take

notice fat the féapdhdéhtgwt

2; ‘Tha ipatitianers is a G1V’l

contraDtoDn[ .Héfhaa filed this Writ Petitions

to di:ect¥the_De$p6fiDents not to collect the

‘”wDoyéitytir9m the petitioner’s bill in respect

V€Df the WDDR dtder issued by the 2″ respondent

aDd#ito_ fDrther direct the respondents to

“petitioner’s running bill.

3. It is not in dispute that in similar

i*circum5tances this Court in G.V.KUMAR AND

OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNAEHKA in W.P.NO.31264

6/

La-I

to 31266/94 disposed of on 31.10.1994 has-ig1§5§fi

down the princi_;e.a reigning .9 ..he r;.=;..;.f”;.ant..:’ef

rcyalt” by the c’–itr-a*vt’rs. said,

has become final since they sa1fiaV_”‘has
reversed. ‘ V. a

4 . In View of is of
the opinion, the preg§nfi_VV has to
be disposed ta
canister ngfiitioner either
for to deduct the
royalty running bills by

considering pisinniples ladi ‘ down in

.iG;v1KfifiARvANp omnhsfi

.5} ,n,;.+’1mV’_i.~r¢’=’-..*.aa1_1_it_:, tie ‘.’7!_…’.i.t Petitien is

I-nun

H1′ .93.-aged .~ directing ‘cue respondents to

-f;~¢¢nsider,§he case cf the petitioner for refund

‘–of’V’.’ArQy:é’.1ty or not to deduct. the royalty from

bills by applying the principles

“‘-1aid down by this Court in G.V.KUMAR a ownnns

VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & 0251335, ‘£-*:–..i;.1..1.’.–.’!.r.:-ne-2.”

<£~/

is permitted to give fresh representa1;'iai1VV'…1§fi' '4

furnishing 2; ggpy 1;: :2 QLI:lE.*.1_'.* _p.a._;I*':1-'¢.1 ' in

re 'I'D 'l'J'I'f|J1I"I av m.g-rn–nu-r-um -I-rm :!'I!"l'!1ll_'l'§'lfl f\'l'EI '1'-.»'35\13n\11(:g'n-2».-z.Vr-.\'vx V'
u.v..numn.n at u.|.nm.r<n V-1:. a.Ln..I.:;u \..u.-__ A

OTHERS ta enable the respondéimjfis

their case properly .