Karnataka High Court
Sri Subhas Chandra Shetty S/O Mahabala ... vs Office Of The Director Of Dept Of Mines & ... on 2 December, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
1
in ms man coumr or KARIIATAKA. I'
% mm!) rats was 2nd my efi§'nEs.:i£1unEi§;T_
Tm: Honrnm MR. VVieV ¢i5D§
wan' mrmonk mp. 175235 ":31? '(Gas-main/3)
BETWEEN
--........._....
SR1 swarms :3r£2*;r§DR.é_ sHi~:*i'r*i' .: % "
s/0 MAHAB-ml-A "
AGED mom' 44%,YE2ues'%--T%.'i%V%A
pvm QONTRACTQR " "
AKASHVNAVAGIRI rszA~:;AR
HODA¥3E'PPU"PQ5.T."«KU,LAi . %
MANG1é.LORi&'. .131«:.:3%w{$:%, _
PETITION ER
(By NEWAIDU, ADV )
1 "'oFFm2a: 01:' THE DIRECTOR OF
DEPARTMENT on MINES & GEOLOGY
e::'rA:rE op' KARNATAKA
KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
"=BANGrALORE-01
'THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
(MINES) MS. BUILDING, BANGALORE. ':4
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF P.W.D DIVISION I
UDUPI AND MANGALORE
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER I . " '
DEPARTMENT OF' PAN'CI:{AYATH RAJ
ENGINEERING DIVISIOREIEL»
UDUPI AND MANAGALORE, -
5 THE EXECUTIVE...ENGI-EH3? " ,
DEPARTMENT oF'MINoE.IERIQA'IéIoII_
UDUPIAND
5 THE EXECFETIXIEZ-.ENGINEER
AND _MANA%:}IEG I)jIRE.c'mE,_' H »
MANGALGEE REP_A5?VI~M'P£u"FR0LEUM LTD
(M,_R.P; 1,.) NEANGALORE BIVISION
MANGE:;QEE';;_ I
7 _TEE EXECUTIVE 'E__NE3INEER
DEPT OE NEW" MANGALORE PORT TRUST
_UDUP£~v_ANDVMANGA'LORE.
* " ~ ._ RESPONDENTS
:'(53fi%I'SmII.I§'é SEEQJINI N MUTHANNA, AGA FOR R1~3 85 R5) . ITfIIIS.,W§IT':'PEFITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AEE-227 on THE CONSTITUTION op INDIA PRAYING To _DEOLAR__E'TI~i'E CIRCULARS AT ANN--C THE cop? on THE [VCIRCULAR I)T.26.5.2003, ANN~D, copy 01? THE CIRCULAR 'Df{'.3(}.3;v?.e?)O4, ANN»-E copy 0? THE CIRCULAR I ..jm'.2<:I,5.mo4, ARE NULL AND VOID AND ETC.
The petitioner is a civil and executed certain civil Ki Govt. and local authorities tiae' V' to deduct certain amojtint " certain material used for works, more appropriately, iliofse 'by the petitioner from for quashinz the V"25;5}i:éiot'3;iiVVV3€>.3.2oo4 and 20.5.2004
2." ébt!,1i§§eli'iJr the parties submit that the qiltmstvrioni for decision makzing in this petition is fairly decision in <3 v KUMAR AND iV'vV::'iib'l'}_iERS or KARNATAKA ANI) OTHERS in i""§V..'APtV1§c3.3'12:6£E~«-31266]1994 disposed ofi on 31.30.1994 V aawéme following pxincipies:
" Héfii) Where providing the material' ii (subjected to roya1ty}_is the responsibility iii V. fmixxoif '..j'mi1ier_a1s) is that of the A' l " éniiployer and the required to provide only and service for execution of 4 of the contractor and the % provides the borrow areas, for extri.1ct:i:;'>1T1. :' bf,' required constructioxg Ifiafiérial, 1 3 contractar wifl be charges for the:_.mate1f;e£V:.'(f_nii:9r mitxeralf extracted finm sutth auxaas. i1=TE:sp~\-°:ctive of Whether the rate contract Va ' I Hence dedu_ction in such cases will be nor» execution of ieéisé as the liability td pay on account of the cdnfi-actér material.' for use Where contract. the 'supply the material any vfiork involving use of such material, V" the relief for quashiag of the circulars C, D and E does not arise and the petifioner is directed to approach amount so deducted or collected 1:./.11' H. contractor.
e) Subject to thev'égb=Qye, royalty by the of thereof by the'.
governed by the f:e1f_1'11$
1) be a refund in The i34epa1'ni1e:it.. ' fizatfizerity concerned sum' em-:a¢eemj case, whether _ myalfy -£0 'be'."..deducted or if any _ is deducted, whether it _'Vs3j_v011id:Vé"tie._refunded, keeping in View the e gxincipxes and terms of the X wm'ra£f§"
the light ef the aforesaid observations of this the 1vespon.<:lents--aut.horit:ies for refund of myalty which has sew 7 been deducted from out of the nmning make necessary applications, ivtfig» \ directed to consider in judgment and pass orders four V weeks therefivom.
The petition is Judge csg '_ _