S N Somashekara vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 October, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

S N Somashekara vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 October, 2009

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

IN THE HIGH COURT or-' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14*" DAY or OCTOBER 2009 

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. 9.0. DINAKARAN, CHIEF .3;'¢}sTf1'C?'E  1-

AND  

THE I-:oN'E.LE MR.3usTIcE MoHANSHAr{rAN_AGjb:§izéjxk'71

wan PETITION Nos.2996o¥2996siE1:«1oa9 (VECEAM-*M.M§S)

BETWEEN:

1. S.N.SOMASHEKARA
S/O S.T.NINGE GOWDA

AGE: 36V'Y"E}\RSV ..  -
occ: CO:NTRA.CT€1R«1.._"'»1   E
R/AT No.'912,_ 1'6?" l"~'!A1N'   
3"' BLOCK, »RA3AJI'NA'<3AR  E
E5ANGA1_ORE--'i0." V   

1.~'a;-S_.N.€?iF§§;*\F<§§\S:-I1.      
 S/O.'S.T.NIVNGE«,_GOWDA

=Ac3.1=.:" 38 YEARSA' ' 
orgczf cAo1r1T&AcT0vR
R/AT No.11;  CROSS,
SRIR}1..MPURAM'

 _ ',BuANGALOR:E--21.

 3.1,H1K'.cH1AvADEv:

"W/E3) s.N.soMAsHE;<ARA

E':'».!.1\(.'-.E: 26 YEARS
'aocc: CONTRACTOR

1 R/AT No.11, 2"" CROSS,

 



SRIRAMPURAM
BANGALORE-21.

(By Sri K.M.ESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE)»  V 

1 STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS DIRECTOR,   .
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
KANIJA BHAVAN   . 
RACE COURSE ROAD I    
BANGALORE -~ 560 001; 'L  *

2 STATE OF I<ARNATAKA;''''' :  I  »
BY ITS SECRETARY  =:   A ' 
PUBLIC wO.RI<S D._E.F?A'RTI\{IE£\JT  
VIKAS SOUDHA; II  

BANGVALORE}-5 56¢ 

3 THE E>'<ECU_TIvE ENGIIN.EE--R"V.CT
PUBLIC WORKS 'DE'PAR,TMENT
NO.I & 2 BUILDING DIVISION &
SPECIAL DIVISION FOR ROADS

~ -  &._B"L*.ILDIN,G, K.R.~C.I.RCLE
" BANGALORB
I  "     " --A ...RESPONDENTS

  SR1 BASAVARA3 KAREDDY, GA)

'.VTHES4"E..V§Ii§?;IC.TI'3'ETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &

i'2'2._7 OF THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO DIRECT THE

Q-RES'POND-ENTS NOT TO DEDUCT ANY ROYALTY FROM OUT OF

  THE' :BI'.'L.LS OF THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THE WORKS

I CARRIED OUT BY THEM FOR THE GOVT. & LOCAL BODIES AND

 * "TO. REFUND THE ROYALTY AMOUNT ALREADY DEDUCTED FROM
 THE BILLS OF THE PETITIONERS.



 PEIITIONEIRE- II  



THESE WR1T PETITIONS COMING up FOR PRELI,Mii§_l'l€«RY

HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLO'W'I"N'G_;?-~,,

ORDER

(Delivered by P.D.DinakaraIi,----C.J.--') té 4 The petitioners in these petitions regrysteredr erg;iris:_ contractor carrying on civil works Government:Dep'a'rtanent " E and Local Bodies. It is contendiedwthat-».._i'or.'t'he.._ptirpose of execution of civil works, thellpeltitio-neyrsg to purchase building materials from the' It is further contended that quarries and that they are 'royalty to the respondents.

However, royalty from the bills of the petitionerslxwithoupt auAtho'i*i.ty of law. Hence, these petitions praying deductV"the...royalty from the bills of the petitioners

--vof'~rt'i'.~e:°materials procured by them from private sources for exlectition of the civil contract works. ,2. "1.rj'3~simiiar matters, this court in G.V. KUMAR AND 4'~--.Vt"o3"H'i::2s' 'f:u. sure or KARNATAKA AND omens in Writ . Petitions No. 31264-31266 of 1994 disposed of on 315' October, 1994 has laid down the principles relating to the payment of royalty by the contractors. The same are extracted hereunder:

(a ) Where providing the material (subjected to royalty)"

is the responsibility of the contractor a_ni;l the :"

Department provides the contractor with..speciﬁ'ed ._ borrow areas, for extraction'A"Vof<.th'e required construction material, the contrac't_oir~°wiil'~be' liable..V'ii"---firTA to pay royalty charges' for the,materialfminor mineral) extracted from Sachs-iareas, 'irrhespe-::tiveV'of ' whether the contract is rate contract or a lump sum contra.c.t;'M«. Hence V1'dedu_ctlon of royalty charges in such casesi.'vvi.'l iegal;h"F'orVtiiis purpose non~execu'tion ofiimininlgl lease, isvhnothrelevant, as lithe liability topa.,v':pyalty.arises on account of the V'con'trac'tor"extracting rnaterial from a Government land, for use in.Vtir.e "Work.

(by). it Where the contract the responsibility to V V" Esuuppilyythe material (minor minerals) is that of the "Department/employer and the contractor is provide only the labour and service for execution of any work involving use of such ~ material, 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 the material from outside the work site, // I so long as the unit rate is only for labour or service and does not include the cost of material.

(c) Where the contractor uses material purcha--sed'in'tj'L*--.. 'V' open marked, that is material purchas_ed'--i.fro:m é private sources like quarry leaseholders or.pri'vate quarry owners, there is no l_'iabllity'»._on_"' contractor to pay any royalty charges"

(cl) In cases covered by paras (b) fit) 'the Department cannot.' recover Orideduct any'"rOy'alty from the bills of theikcointiracjtof so deducted, the Department .be.v'V__Vboun'o'~.v.'to:f;refund any amount so: deducted orcollected. to ' the con tractor.

(e) VvSubject':i5tO tlie"'above, collection of royalty by the 7Depa'itment'i-orerefund ._ thereof by the Department will__b'e ygo've_rned~ terms of contract.

(f) "l'lothing'-.sta'ted 'above shall be construed as a direction for"refund in regard to any particular .c_Ontra_ct.v _ The Department or authority concerned s.h'a(l: in each case, whether royalty is to be deducted or if any royalty is already deducted, 4' a whether it should be refunded, keeping in view the above principles and terms of the contract."

The said decision has been upheld by the Division it téersclilwof this Court in the case of OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT' OF MINES AND GEOLOGY v. M. if §- '=3;

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court