V.Narasimhan vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 5]

Karnataka High Court

V.Narasimhan vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2009

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

IN THE HIGH CGURT OF KARNATAKA A'? 

DATED nus THE 06*" mm or novrmwa 2069     _

PRESENT

THE HoH*nLE MR. I-".D. nlxmmﬁ,  .§'zA:s?:1'Ic:E_ _" 'V J 1:'

mm, % V
THE aownna MR..ms'r1cE Mougnz. 8HANT¥£H.*$G€$'é}B;§R
wnrr rm-rrron No5.32z§5-325259;  (G13-érstlii-8)

BE'FWEEN:

Vaﬁaiasiaxhan, _   

S/0 Venkataswamy  . "

Aged about 50 yeaﬁs,"   V" 

PWD Ciass I COI1i1E§Cf3}I'; 

R/:3. MM. Covmpouﬂd,  .   
Tariksrrc Road, Bahéi:i1:1vaVii}1i'Fa1'uk, _ _'
Shimoga Dis'£i*ict.'-- ' V "    

' V . V ...Petiii011er
  €33;  RS, Advocate)
;§'  v%2i1{g¢  cf
Rep. shy its "Sget::§e%ary,.

De;;ara;w:n~t« (Sf. «'35 Gtzolagr,
. Ms. ;3u;:1diz1g,'' 5; 

' ' " BANGA2;0R.,§:;5€;0e0 1.

' " 'EL 4"?h1é' fﬁommi;-smioner,

 C,.M.C§ Shimoga,

 s1;i;m;oga_.mstnct.

  Eﬁﬁmoga District.

3 ' *Z'i1ii1¢v ﬁommissioner,
'€1,M.C. Bhadravathi,

 



4. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Infigation,
Shimoga Division,
Shimoga Dzistrict.

5. '?he Executive Engineer,   
PW!) Shimoga Diviﬁion, V '
Shimoga.

5. The Executive Engjncar,
PRE Divisima,
Shimcga.

6. The Executive Engineer, V
PRE Division, Shirnoga,   ;   
Shimoga District.      ";.v.',"RfffSp(}I3.€i€I}.tS

" 'Iggy. Sn i3!3i"i/é§é1~;;;:';$éi;'A';:G.A.)

These writ peti5;i_Qns é're._fi'ii:=.i_c.i ;irsder'gArticles 2.25 and 22? of
the Constituti.on.i,of"India::;p.raying_ ta ciivrect the respondents net to

deéuct royalty fromjthe fiaiiisé cf the petitianer and not to insist the petitioner to producei ».tﬁ'e._"'myaity paid receipts by their vendors; and ettz; ' " , These. writ §&ti_iionS €5:"¥1Vii"l:g up forpreiiminary hearing this day, the Chiurtimade rm fgiipwing: -

V{.§é:i;viered by PD. Diriakaran, Cgi.) piatiiienar in these petiticns is a ragistemd -civii '.g;;¢;;1_tii§:;te:ir'.if;arr'yin§ on civil works cf the Government Department it V*és';:*:§m'LoV<':?ai Bodias. it is contended that far the purpcse sf 'eX,eu'£;'ution sf civii works, the petitioner is required to purchase "2 ' ii I buiiciing materials from the private sources. It is further contended that the petitioner does not own any quarry andtmat he is not liable to pay any royaity to the respondents. the resoondents are dediscting royalty from the H petitioner without authority of iaw. i~ieni-3," tlzieséiw.r¥tAlV'i3é-,tiVt¥o§:s praying not to deduct the royalty from of t>hvo5A.petiti§._i§eriVV':

in respect of the materials procured byL:.'ti.im from p--ri\i'atéféour€:es for execution of the civil contract wo§rl'<'s.-

2. In slméiar ttiis KUMAR AND ornsns v. s1".a.*:'::rV-: Rrmo OTHERS in writ Petitions No. of on 315' October, 1994 has laidVV'A'+:l_oﬁi;i.tnV reiating to tho payment of royaity by the oontiraotorsli; Tiieléome are extracted hereunoer:

a)= .. iiftréreionoviding the material (subjected to A it the respoasibiiity of the '' .__44'ViContr'a'iif.§fo}' and tire Qepattment provides _ it tfiéipontroctor with speciﬁed borrow areas, it 'A s 4_ fofextraction of the required construction " v nzateriai, the contractor will' be iiabie to pay royaity charges for the material {J (5) (minor mineral) extracted from such areas, irrespective of whether the contra§:t---- L' is a item rate contract or .3 Jump _% Hence deduction' of '4 charges in such cases will ie_gaif,3Fo,e._this' ' V contract.

purpose non-execution; of mmyig Ieaseiis 2 not relevant, as the iiabiiityre to pay. reya.ity?'g H arises on account of... the"L;:ontractor.9§ extracting materia} fr9om;_V a " ~--..<_3oiiernment land, for use in the wori:';'_'V { " "

Where the .eo}it:*eet _ the respoosiijiiity 7, ftize material .is~.....VVti'iat of the £?eparfti3§e§;t/empioj?er_ and the contractor Isa'requiredVVto'I_ipro'vro'e. oniy the labour and servicrefor exeeeitieoit' of an y work in voiving J Lise. of such' vV_materiai, and the unit rate V" doee trim: include the cost of material, it " ilabiltty on the contractor to .*-pa)!' é'i}y?A'o;'oyaity. This wiil be the position even = if' the contractor is required te transport the material from outside the {work site, so long as the unit rate is only ' "fer labour or service and does not include the cost of material. 9*' VVVVVV (6) (Ci) (6) Where the contractor uses material purchased in open marked, like quarry lease holders or private > V' owners, there is no liabilitjr ' or':

contractor to pay any royalt}?'c;l2é:-roves. '~ . 2 " K In cases covered by par'ae";'b) arm' Department cannot reco-ver"L_or"deduci" any-V: royalty from they 4'2iil3_of'_ we ;con§rec.'*tor and if so deducted, be bound to « refund lenyl eme.e:é'f_'~so___e'eeucted or ce:fle<ff'e_cr5fo';'._{he.gtoetraéftor. »

--a£:ove,:, eoilectlfon of royalty of we VDé,oer:tmee_tf:'or' refund thereof by the .Vl3epar£*me.rf2t governed by the terme" 'efvcantracféz V' "

Cﬂotfrirsg statedweoove shall be construed *~Ve3..4e'rr,iirec:tion for refund in regard to any pérfir':;:la'rV"eontract. 'me Department or aamerfty concerned shall decide in each case, whether royalty is in be deducted or I if any royalty is already deducted, whefher '' "it should be refunded, keeping in View the above principles and terms of the contract. " ,5» material purchased from private sourees

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court