Sri. Ananda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Ananda vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2010

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

 AND:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 187" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010

PRESENT

THE HONELE MR. J. S. KHEHAR, CHIEF  -

AND  

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE  S.' 13SO.pA»1§1I-x:NIDD.DIf

W.P. NO. 35449/IQOLO (Gixzi-MMJS}  
W.P. NOS. 35898--90V2.--;'2Q-10~».£CrM~M1V£eS}'

BETWEEN:
SR1 ANANDA   " - _  - 
S/O ARJUN RAO 'LPIiIR" *  
AGED ABOU-T40   "    »
R/AT HOUSE 1x::O;,13"'« » 

HUDCO'C'OLONYRR"::'A:"  
D1STR1vcT:_BIDAR_.VV"      ; ...PETITIONER

{BY SRI SRANTESR 
SR1 RAGHAVENDI'~lA I{.F§T'1'IMANI &
Sm' K R SREENWASA PATAVARDHAN, ADVS.)

1'; THESTATE OF KARNATAKA
 RER by ITS SECRETARY
' DEQARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
M._S". BUILDING

" ' BANGALORE -- 560 001

-    "THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

PUBLIC WORKS PORTS AND INLAND
WATER TRANSPORT DIVISION
BIDAR DIVISION

BIDAR



3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PANCI-IAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING
DIVISION, BIDAR

4 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DIST. URBAN
DEVELOPMENT CELL
D.C. OFFICE, BIDAR

5 THE COMMISSIONER I     _ 
BIDAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORI'TY*~-
BIDAR   'I ., -

6 THE COMMISSIONER  
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL'~.._ ' _
BIDAR    'I

7 THE CHIEF' OFFICE}I'- , 
CHITTAGUPPA   _  
TALUK     _ 
DIST. ''     ...RESPONDENTS

{BY SR1 R O:7KOLLE;}AOA:;§,)

THESE 'WRIT '*PE'TI'IIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226  227",'-OF'v_TI?iE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYINC;__;fTOn. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO
D'EDIJC'Iv-'.LRO':(ALTY FROM---THE BILLS OP THE PETITIONER
&*.NOT~.TO IN.SIST~._THE PETITIONER TO PRODUCE THE
ROY7ALTY'"P_AIvD" RECEIPTS BY THEIR VENDORS; DIRECT
THE RESPONQEN"I"S'TO REFUND THE ROYALTY ALREADY

 'z_,DVEDUC TED FROM THE BILLS OF THE PETITIONER.

H :_"'THESE"v--PETIIIONS COMING ON POR PRELIMINARY
  R__'HE_3ARING'"~«.THIS DAY, CPIIEE JUSTICE MADE THE
"~.,".«. FQI;_LQWING:



J"

3

ORDER

J.S.KI-IE1-IAR, C.J. (Oral):

Sri Shantesh Gureddi, Sri Raghavendra and Sri KR. Sreenivasa Fatavardhan, . the petitioner. Sri R.G.Ko1le,.»~~1earn_e.dm' it Government Advocate for respondent:._AN"o:s.Ito"

2. Learned Counsei vrivai stare it agreed, that the presentpppcontro\fei'sjf'is sq1.iare1y'V:Covered with the judgment Court in Golayya vs. he ..V_.__Kfarnataka and others."W;R.jYo.V§i§8i:"?[20dQ""'(C%M--MM-S), decided on

02.06.2069.' r' it V' K

3. xIn_vddtheVV'1igiht.V diofithe above, learned counsel for

-'V._the.fr3espondents"'states, that if the petitioner produces material before respondent Nos. 2 to 7, _'th:at..r:;royalty was paid in respect of the sand "being trafrisported (from a iicensed quarry owner), from the petitioner had purchased the sand, the respondents would refund the royalty charged from the petitioner.

4. Accordingly. the petitioner is granted Iiberty to produce material before the concerned respondent Nos. 2 to 7, depicting that royaity had already been paid by the licensed quarry owner, on the sand purchased by the petitioner. On production authentic material, royalty paid be refunded within four Weeks.

The instant writ petitio'ns."are disposed"'.:of"inVterms of the aforesaid.

5d,"-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court