Karnataka High Court
Dilli Babu vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2009
Author: V.G.Sabhahit
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit
IN' THE men ovum or-' KARHATAKA AT ~ _ DATED THIS mm 28" DAY 01:5 gm? fiwéf > * PRESENT V ' ' mm HOIPBLE am. 9.». nIz¢.ai<A;zAx}s;:irm:1=' qfiarlgg :1 mm Hozrnm MR;Just.i¢§'.§.a,sA3mn1T mm' rmxrxoxvnos139§2-M;3§5§'/aobé' {GEM-KRIS) szmvmx:
Dilli Rabi} ' » r u V Sfo. M. Vcnicatapa "
Aged abou?;V46[Vyea;£s, ' _ PWD cxassvx Cgatraiiifiif, V No.63, 5th Iviain, "
15*" Cross, M3316:-..waxam'," . V Bangaiom-560..()S5._' . ..PETITK)NER _~ -jay: N. Naidu, Advocate.)
-............._--...--.....V . 1) W :2-zgéta of a¢af'kV a
2 Repmsmxtcd, -by Secretary Mines as" Gciaslogy Eepamnent % i .. Ms. 3uim;gz __"E§;g1§I(3i;!,{)RE. - 1.
The Engineer and Chief
-.I_3févelopm;:m Ofiircrer, .l;){*:pa'1maent of K.i.A.D.B., V " ._ 1%. 14/3, 2nd Flaor, RLP. Building, N.P. Road, Bangakare - I. A "'fF:é'--C¢nstitutiun' cf India praying to direct the rmpondent not to «ifieggjuct any«--..royaIty from the petitlonar running work bins. uitha' Court made the foIEowing:-
3) The Commissioner, Department of B.B.M.P. M (Bruhat Bangalore Mahaxlagara PaIike)_,,.... _ ' Bangalore. " ' .. "
4») The Commissioner, V Deparmcmt of B.D./A. (Bangalore Development Authori '}~,_ Bangalore. ' . _
5) The Commissioner, ' Mysore City Corporation, __ .
6) The Commissioalét, 'V Mysore U1'ba:t1:!)ev<:_:Ii3p1né.nt¢_fiT;11'tP;c51°iiy V Mysore. _ ____ _ ' '«1.;:::_ ' '2'} The Chicfvsfifingfinccr; . ' ..
Kamataka Housing "
Cauvery Bhavagi; V 7 = ' 5'31' F}<)()r,_ K.G. _ Bangalqsit ~ ..
L T_ _ T. " JEESPONDENTS Kamdeiy, GA.) trnesé wfi: gmtitions are flied under Articies 226 and 22? at' writ petitions coming up for preiimlnary hearing this z'"""""/"rm.
E (C) (0') (6) so long as the unit rate is only for labour or ' and does not include the cog' of material. "
Where the contractor uses matérial«pu:rchaa§-of. open marked, that is material, private sources like quarrysiaage holdérs o.+v:p.%ia'ato quarry owners, there is liabiiitf' an the contractor to pay any:«*royaity'Cl3a_i3;1és,, ._ i In cases covered by? (c) the Department cannpt royalty from the aiu}; iréo deducted, the 'Will to refund any amotintso tl§sduEt'~a€.* to the contractor. .Subject«to of royalty by the Departmént orVre:+fLin_cH.'l§ereof by the Department will_{bé governed by the terms of contract.
--Not.nir:g'«.atated above shall be cxmstrued as a ré-fund in regard to any particular contraot; rag Department or authority concerned shall dacided in each case, whether royalty is to be or if any royalty IE already deducted, it jéviaather it should be refunded, keeping in View the " V' above principles and terms of the contract." 2% T' -_'§'fib,I ' ' " 'w:=:b-- .I{(';53t; Yéémo
3. The said decisian has been upheld by the of this Court in the case of orrzce or TI-IE axefacree' DEPARTMENT or names AND Gsontaév-mt V HAJEE in writ Appeal No. 330 of 20.65 eh September, 2006.
4. Foilowing the judgmeet'~%..ofvL"¢guV§?t'«.rende}e§i in Writ Appeal No.830 of 2005 dispQVsed..VVoi*V__Veh 25§"'b~:Se§3tember, 2006 these writ petitions ;a'refef$Vc~ efispaqsed ':NG~gf}36F as to costs. L _ ' _ Justice 3 Sdfgw Iudg"'e Viegdexg Yes]