Karnataka High Court
Sri D Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2010
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.Manohar
RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-56000 | 2 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT... VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 3 BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE tO REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER Bo BANGALORE - 560001" 4 BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER | KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE ~ 560 001: _. RESPONDENTS (G.A. SERVER). | | | - eae ee THESE.WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT. THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DEDUCT ANY AMOUNT. AS. ROYALTY FROM THE BILLS OF THE : . PETITIONER IN. RESPECT OF THE WORKS CARRIED OUT BY-HIM FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL BODIES AND TO. REFUND THE ROYALTY AMOUNT ALREADY DEDUCTED FROM THE PALLS OF THE PETITIONER. _ THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY _ HEARING, THIS DAY, SABHAHIT J., MADE THE ~ FOLLOWING: ORDER
The petitioner in these petitions is a regisicred eivil., contractor carrying on civil works of the. Government Department and Local Bodies. It is contended that for the purpose of execution of civil works, the petitioner is fequired to purchase building materials from the private sources. It is further contended that the petitioner does not own any quarries and that is not liable to pay any, royalty to the respondents. - "However. the respondents are deducting royalty from the bills ofthe petitioner without autherity of law. Hence. these petitions praying not io deduct the royalty from ihe bills of the petitioner in respect of the materials procured by.them from private sources for execution of the ~. eivilecontrect works..
2 olny similar matters, this Court in G.V. KUMAR oe AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in = Writ, Petition Nos. 31384-31266 of 1994 disposed of on 31% October, 1994 has laid down the principles relating to the > payment of royalty by the contractors. extracted hereunder:
(aj royalty) is the responsibility cf the contractor and the Department provides the contractor with specified borrow areas. for extraction of the required construction, material, « the contractor will be liable to pay royalty. charges. for the material (minor mineral) extracted. from:
such areas, irrespective of whether the contract is a item rate contract or a lump sum contract. Hence deduction of royalty charges-in. such cases will be legal' For this purpose non- execution of mining lease-is not relevant, as the liability to. pay royaliy arises on account of the coniractor.. extractinig ~ niaterial from a Government iand, for Lise in the work. Where under the contract the responsibility to supply the material (minor minerals) is that of the Department/empiover and the contractor is required, to provide ory the labour and service for-execution of any work involving use of such ~ynaterial, and the unit rate does not include the 'cost of material, there is no liability on the ~~ contractor to pay any royalty, This will be the position even if the contractor is required to transport ihe material from outside the work site.so tong as the unit rate is only for labour or service and does not include the cost of material.
Where the contractor uses material purchased in open market, that is material purchased LA The same are {cl} "Dr from private sources like quarry lease holders or private quarry owners, there is no liability on the contractor to pay any royalty charges. In cases covered by paras (b) and {e) ine ~ department cannot recover or deduct any royalty from the bills of the contractor and if so. deducted, the Depariment will be bound to > refund any amour so deduct ted, or. 'Colleets a to the contractor.
Subject to the above, collection of rovalty "by : the Department or. refund "thereof by the Department will be> governed: by tire" terms of contract.
Nothing stat ed: above shall. be 'construed asa direction for réiund in regard to anv particular contract. The Departmeni. cr authority concerned shall decide in éac h case, whether royalty ts 40 be 'deducted Or-i ary royalty is already "Gechicted. Whether ft should be refunded, 'keeping: in view the above principles and terms of the.contsact."
"83. The said decision has been upheld by the tvision Beniclso} this Court in the case of OFFICE OF THE DIRE SCTOR OF 'DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY vy.
MOHAMMED HAJEE in Writ Appeal No.830 of 2006 . disposed of on 25") September, 2006. _ 4, Following the judgment of this Court rendered ins. Writ Appeal No.830 of 2006 disposed. of on 2518 'September, 2006 these petitions are disposed of wi similar terms... No. order as to costs, saps JUDGE Sa/3 JUDGE
- BNS.