Karnataka High Court
K T Vasanth Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2009
Author: V.G.Sabhahit
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit
1
IN THE HIGH coum or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE"
DATED TH:is THE 19*" DAY or AUGUST, 2009 f
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. 9.9. DINAKARAIQEHIEE J.usTji¢E._
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JusTIcE.._jr.~<;. sA"B5-§A'H1 'r-,
wnn PETITION NQS.2248?$.449'2Aof 2069
T T
WRIT P§_1"I"¥'_1ON N95. g-43_2f_4§2{£ii§ .'§V'o!"'=if)A{i£?.(GM-MM--S)
Between: 1 .
1.
K.T.Vasanth €e='._um:e'r;.V_ . .
S/O K. Th'fFfi'maiah' ~.::E:,;
Aged about 323/e.ars,, 'V _ _'
Occ: Cor:--tra'ctorr{GVra:de11.),"-__
Manjunathanagar,' ' '
i\Eo.2SS, Jalémangafa _R0ac1',_
Ramanagar Tciwri,
Ram,a_§naga.r Tasuk and District.
.V 'Sr!'S§1Eva'}Ehgari:.1;rthy
Sm 'C£hi§<'E<,a:'m_a, A '
'Age.d abeu"t..3E3 years
O0::"C'0nt?a--C'§9r{1Cir"ade HE),
R/o'--!{_aggaiaha33i, Hagalahaffi Post,
--V Rama'nag"'ar Taluk and District.
, }1arrisha.N"
"E3,/.0. Nagaraju,
_ /3.ge'd~ébout 27 years
" OQCI Contracmr (Grade Ii),
...R-/'0 Vaderahaéii, Kasaba Hobfi, -
Ramanagar Tafuk and District.
Sri Narayari Rao,
S/o Lingoji Rao,
Aged about 54 years,
Occ: Contractor {Grade II),
R/o She-ttahaiii Beedhi,
Ramanagar Taiuk and District.
Kasappa S/o Chikkanna,
Aged about 37 years,
Occ: Contractor (Grade I}, V. .<
R/0 Kaggaiahaili, Hagaiahaiii Post,
Ramanagar Taiuk and District.
Sri N. Nagarajaiah,
S/o Narasimaiah,
Aged about 36 years, ._
Occ: Contractor (Grade I).-. _
Rayara Dodcii Exterision, _
Magadi Main Raced/§:...,.. A
Ramanagar Ta'iLi'i<4_a'n_ciI;Disi:r}c_t." V ' »
P.PuttasWa'rn~=,r.,AV7;»
S/0 Puttaiah,_ ' V
Aged ab'out"5O years,"-... _ _
Occ: Contractor (Grads-.1},
No.98, 4"' B'i-:>_¢ci<,. ' V " A
Bhuvaneshwari $_\iagar,
Rantranagar Taiukarid District.
V .AH'.R_».'Shi{)ara_m}«.._
Srfo tater-Ramegowda,
'Aged abiout.V45 .ve.a'rs,
Occ:"ContractorF'(Grade I),
No.'1..390,v~Maii_eshwara Badavane,
'V Ramanagar Taiuk and District.
. i..V:H.F;...4_\/eeregowda
S10 Late Ramegowda,
2'.._ge'o"about 35 years,
A Occ: Contractor (Grade I11),
= ~ -iosur, Kuthaga! Post,
Ramanagar "Taiuk & District,
10. Bhadregowda S/o Nanjundappa,
Aged about 45 years,
Occ: Contractor (Grade E),
Borehaili, Ganakai Post,
Ramanagar Taiuk 8: District.
11. M.(:. Mahesh,
S/o Chikkalegowda,
Aged about 45 years,
Occ: Contractor (Grade I),
\/iiiage and Post «-~ Makaii,
Maiur I-iobii, Chennapatna Taiuk,
Ramanagar District.
12. S.Sidcfaiah,
S/o Late Siddaiah @ Kariyapp'a,._
Aged about 49 years, *
Occ: Contractor~v{Cr.at¥e I); _ « . --
R/o E<aggaiahaJii, H:éiga_iaha'i«Fi Post, "
Ramanagar Taiu!y:"--&V Dis1,rict-.--.jyf--.. '
--. v. ...Petitioners
-------- .(_i3y. Srii§.Goi;'.indaraj,"A:£vocate)
And:
1. State of Karnata-iga, , . "
Rep. by ijts.iSecret'ar_y to.Government,
__Pubiic W_orksi'Departn:ent,
M15. Buiaéinsygy BangaEoreV--"'S'6O 001.
2. The E>«<ecuAti'\,+.;=:;A"Engineer,
Pub'ic'Woyrk's Depa.rtrri'ent,
V Division';'riRama'naga'r.
The Exeucutiiiiey Engineer,
"-'«.Pubiic Worksbepartment,
" Div\_ruis'ioin..:' Bangalore,
Circle, Bangalore,
' 3.'; "
A District & Taiuk: Ramanagar.
..__'The Executive Engineer,
_ Zriiia--Panchayat,
'Ramanagar Division,
S. The Commissioner,
City Muncipal Council,
Ramanagar,
District: Ramanagar.
6. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation,
Division: Bangaiore,
3ayanagara Shopping Complex, -
4"' Block, Bangalore. 1
7. The Executive Engineer,
Manchanabeie Pro}'ect,
Division: Ramanagar,
District: Ramanagar.
8. The Agricultural Produce lVia'rlg_eting
Ramanagar Taluk and District,' ' " V .
Rep. by its Secretary. '-
C C ...Respondents
(aaysrz ,.i{3';i,savé?+a';' K'a.r&reddy'«,'"_Gi\ ' "ror Respdts)
These w'r_it 'petitions;'a.re 'ii'ile'd._u"nder Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India pra.yirr--g'--to"d_irec't that the respondents are not
authorised to deducti royalty 'from._..the petitioner contract biiis, under
notification _dt,.28.05".E..._994.vide Annx--B, or under any notification or
any consequential orders, or directions of the Government and its
ai;|tho=rities,; anid~.etc.,A """
"iihe's'e_writ'p,etit'io'ns coming up for preliminary hearing this day,
the Court'-deliveredthevfollowing2-
JUDGMENT
it 1 (Deiivered by PD. Dinakaran, C3.) u"Ti~.e_petitioners in these petitions are the registered civil 'ifcontractinr carrying on civil works of the Government Department and Bodies. It is contended that for the purpose of execution of civil works, the petitioners are required to purchase buiiding materials from the private sources. It is further contenoed that the petitioners d.o"-not own any quarries and that they are not liable to pay any roya.lty:t'oi'ti1e respondents. However, the respondents are deducting rjoiyaityilfro'i":t_''''i "
the bills of the petitioners without authority~of_law]MHen}fie.'.lth'ese petitions praying not to deduct the royalty fzfoiniv the bills of:V'lt.he7:_' petitioners in respect of the materialsi'pr'o_cured'-by thenftrizxinprivateA sources for execution of the civil contractHWo'rks..VV
2. In similar rriattersii-this "._Co;urt. KUMAR AND omens v. STATE OF §(ARNA}fAi§A..,AiSi_D:oii*H.eréS_in Writ Petitions No. 312s4~3126'6tof_,:i;994':*ci;'sp¢'s.ga- of &5'n"31'5t October, 1994 has laid down the principles' payment of royaity by the contractors. The shame are e>tt'raCte:d* hereunder:
(a) ..'.l--,:.Whei'e proylci'lng____t_he material {subjected to royalty) is in thEe'i:'i'esponsibi'lity of the contractor and the Department prc>,yi'o'e4sivthecontractor with specified borrow areas, for V"H-.__«eirtractlorigoti the required construction material, the A contractprl will be liable to pay royalty charges for the 2 material (minor mineral) extracted from such areas, lrr'e--spective of whether the contract is a item rate "*_.contract or a lump sum contract. Hence deduction of "royalty charges in such cases will be legal. For this purpose non~executlon of mining lease is not relevant, as the liability to pay royalty arises on account of the '""..7?§'\
(b) (C) \V _ Q (dygf contractor extracting material from a Government land, for use in the work.
Where under the Contract the responsibility to the material (minor minerals) is that of. the-, Department/employer and the contractor is ._r'eo'uli'e:d: :5"- provide only the labour and service for e}<ecut:'on': of any, D work involving use of such materibah a'n_d'the lunit rate.' does not include the cost ofmaterlal, there is nca'llabi'.li".U/_ on the contractor to pay anyroyalty. Th-is willibe the position even if the contracto_r___is'requtlred to " transpgort the material from out$j'c'._e the work -s_ite,z'so long as the unit rate is only forhhlaliourhv"aVncl«,does not include the cost of mater--ial.:".
Where contractor'.us'es material' purchased in open marléed, that is "marerialhpurchased from private sources like quarry lease holders 'or, private quarry owners, there is no 'liabilit_v v_th'e._&_co4ntractor to pay any royalty charges,_ ,,In 'cases coveredbyv paras (b) and (C) the Department cahnhothh recover or deduct any royalty from the bills of by fhe.g_contr.act'or and if so deducted, the Department will 't,o"refund any amount so deducted or collected to the tra ctor.
' *-tel cflrbject to the above, collection of royalty by the V ~._Department or refund thereof by the Department will be h u ...{,.f:) governed by the terms of contract.
Nothing stated above shall be construed as a direction for refund in regard to any particular contract. The Department or authority Concerned shaii decided in ea::r1* --. .' Case, whether royaity is to be deducted or if any ro§,*e'i'£'y.' ._ . A' is aiready deducted, whether it shouid be refa;4neie.*J",ie._ keeping in view the above ,orinci'piesmano' terrhs' ' contract. "
3. The said decision has been _U9heit:..At:iY.the Div.imio"n "Beizcfi- V of this Court in the case of oFFIc'E_"oF THE._'uV1s§Eo"r.oVii or DEPARTMENT or MINES Amp GE.0'Lo"Gv""v,. M."'|vio:~+AMMEn HAJEE in Writ Appea: N0. 830 or"2'0_o6 e.is§e:?se§j'eIf~ofi*2V5*" September, 2006.
4. Foii0wil:'r41'€_;|'n,t'he'"'j't£.i_JQme'ntA""of Court rendered in Writ Appeat No.83O 2'5"'7iV«September, 2006 these petitions are disposed of if': similar No order as to costs. Sd/5 Chief Iusticé Sd/5.3 ~ JUDGE 4_"'inCi'e::».<«:' Yes..,/No Yes/ No