Mr B M Krishnamurthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Mr B M Krishnamurthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2009

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit

1

m THE H1:-in COURT or-' KARNATAKA AT BANca4;;;,{+:$r§nE5"j'~»n:AnV

mars!) THIS THE 27*" DAY cs MAY,  V "  
PRESENT      &
ms i~lOl'%'8i..E MR. ma. 
ms H€)N'B!.E MR.3usTI<_{a$r,egLvsnénnah 


Between:

Sri B M Krishnamtsrthy,    "   

S/o Manjappe Gpwda', " ._:  R    V .

Aged about 42.ye-,_ars,"-- » é _ .  =

PW!) C¥VassvI"CphtI'ag;tpI',.,_ " _ " "

Associates Cet}3truc?3;ions,"».V." _

Azad R:9ad_, -Thirt'i:at;a:!l,   ' -

Shimog'aDi$t. .    _.

 .   ,  ' ...Petiti<>ner
my Sr} !'a£_amgaj...N hiaidu, Advocate)

And;

1; ' ~ State -of K._aArnata,ik';-2 __
Re;pre.%sent_e_'d.._by* Rs Secretary
{)epartn1ent«<)f..(_:c;¢:;1'meroe and Industries,

M.S.'3u1!ding  -. *

V V' _Bar:ga¥t3re--S60v 501

W he Exedztﬁvé Engineer,

é {)_'eg;artment of PWD.,
" Shimerga Division,

 '*-«Shitnoga.

' -_ 3;»  TExecutive Engineer,
'  «KUWS and DB

(Karnataka Urban Water Suppiy
and Drainage Board), 

 



Shimoga Division,
Siiimega.

4. The Chief Ofﬁcer,

Town Municipal Council,
Ynirthahaili,   
Shirnoga Dist. : '

l  .ARes§3oi:ﬁ'ents~ . it

(By Sri easavaraj'Kafre;ldy,"'oA)'   
These writ petitions are flied uncietﬁrtieles 226'and..~2327 of the
Constitution of India praying t_o'*t.iire<:t tl1e"reepon.dents not to deduct
the royalty from the petitioner r'unni.ngl_\_~ntk  

These writ petitions COmf'i1g"Uﬁ foi'..preliir:inar;? nearing this day,
the Court delivered t§b.e'foi_iowir=:_g:-g     

 __ by ﬁinekaran, CJ.)
The petitioner in is a registered civil contractor
carrying on .ciyilluiiioritsi.of tl'aeV«"'Gove:*nrnent fkapartment and Local
 ig.,seontended'V'tiiat for the purpose of execution of civil

wolrks, required to purchase building materials from

 prilvetelisonrees. It is further oontended that the petitioner does

'V::'7'~.'n'0t own any..qnarties and that they are not liable te pay' any royalty to

.1 --.i.tl':'e:respcsngients. However, the respondents are deducting royaity

t'iie'"b¥l'is of the petitioner without authority of law. Hence, these it petitions praylng not to deduct the royalty from the inilis of the 3 petitioner in rmmct of the materiais orocured by them fromV_:*-pifioxeate sources for execution of the civii contract works.

2. In sirniEa{ matters, this Coq_rt.. in "

omens v. STATE or KARNATAKA mu o'msks'--.i;i-wnt"9ez;:io;;§ No. 3233431255 of 1994 disposed of-on 31'**.,oe::obe.;,"1$9e;AvV hajis ia;d.:'o.

down the principles neiating to " Troyaliy by the contractors. The same are extroctod (3) Where providing thoV_;n3toti§_{ fﬁubfeoﬂﬁif; royalty) is the msponyoiiiw of £?1e'¢fon£ra5o£or.._and":£:*:e Department pmvidos ,thefC"ontra¢'tof wit?) _ Sﬁeciﬁed borrow areas, for extnactnionh' ighe "coo.-souction material, the :vcon£fraofo;r9.'v:v.r'1f'L1e ii.af§ie.._to. pay royaity charges for the nmatoriaiw (rnirror. extracted from such areas, .in*eépoc£?yfeVV"of'4's1?het2§i;r the conoiact is a item rate

-oontraot or 'on fumo son? contract. Hence deduction of goﬁfaity chofgos....£n' such cases wiii be Iegai. For this

3 ._non-execution of mining {ease is not relevant, V 2 ..a£9he4 'i£a_!2%::.i!£y to pay royaity arises on account of the A' * coooroctofwexoacﬁng material from a Government fend, for 'a.:.so3'in the work.

{brjj Whore unofer we contract the responsibﬂity to suppiy the material (minor minerais) is that of the A Deoartrnonafompfoyer and the contractor is required to provide only the fabour and service for execution of any work invofving use of such matmal, and the unit rate does not inciudo the cost of materaai, there is no iiabiiity / oooooooo Q;

4 on the contractor to pay any royalty. This will be position even if the contractor is required to the material frcm outside the work site, so long unit rate is only for labour or service and 'rzoi?-.._ -1- include the cost of material.

(C) Where the contractor uses material cérrchaeeci' i-n:_"'o;2en_V marked, that is materiai purchased 7 A like quarry lease holders oreprivete c;i_1arr}.r ownergi is no liability on the -con£:r?.f.rtor to" pay rtsyaitjl/i charges.

(d) In cases cevered b3r--paras--.{b};ciiebepartrnent cannot recover or dedaicc an}? rioyaityh" I-she biils of the contraciroiiand ;;r'§§' 'iliepertment wili be to ény€an§oqnvt'so"deciLicted or coliected are ti2e_co2i:ractcr,M 2 l

(e) Szlbjecéi "£lie<V.A'ab_o'i're,"'collection of royaity by the _ Department .c_r'v-refund' by the Department wiii be , governed Ibytiie terms of contract. » F}. _ .'s!o£;*iir:g{;s."£*ated above shall be construed as a direction V rward to any particuiar contract. The i' or authority concerned shah' decided in each

-- caee, 'sviieti7er reyefty is to be deducted or if any royalty . 3:; already deducted, whether it shouid be refunded, A' ' keeping in View the above principles and terms of the .. contract. "

Yhe said decision has been upheld by the Division Bench «this Court in the case of omce or 'me DIRECTOR or 5 {DEPARTMENT or names AND 3501.03': v. M. I§oftfu{§$a§'En HAJEE ﬁn Writ Appeal No. 330 of 2995 disposed of on sé';§té§n.:$ér~, 2095. _Mm__

4. Followmg the juégmentof £vr:g \:'v.¥:a9§t'«.V Appeal No.83£} of 2035, disgxosed of sepx¢;nb¢;, "2966; petitions are disposed of in simiiar tenfws. 'f_4--o'i:sr'<.1er aé' ~ I'; Chief Iusiirzé Sd/-

Judge Index: VLe»sr~;f r~¢o_/ '' _ V' "

%%%%% 'avg-:b "r:::zst:" '(é"s . "

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court