Karnataka High Court
B K Srinivas vs State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29430
WP No. 19408 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 19408 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
B K SRINIVAS
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGE 59 YEARS
PROPRIETOR
SRI. MARUTHI ELECTRICALS
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR
R/O MELUR AT. PO. MELUR - 562 102.
TALUK SIDLAGHATTA
DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPUR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NEGAWADI BASAVARAJAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed
by 2. THE CHIEF ENGIENER (ELECTRICITY )
LEELAVATHI S TENDERING AND PROCUREMENT KPTCL
R
Location: HIGH
KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL
AT. PO. DISTRICT DAVANGERE - 572 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S H RAGHAVENDRA, AGA)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS NOT TO DEMAND MINERAL DISPATCH PERMIT
AND NOT TO DEDUCT FIVE TIMES OF PENALTY ON THE ROYALTY
AMOUNT, FROM THE BILLS OF THE PETITIONER.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29430
WP No. 19408 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
i) To issue the writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to demand Mineral Dispatch permit and not to deduct five times of penalty on the royalty amount, from the bills of the petitioner.
ii) To issue any other writ orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of this case in the interest of justice.
iii) To grant the cost of these petitions in the interest of justice.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order dated -3- NC: 2024:KHC:29430 WP No. 19408 of 2024 12.11.2020, passed in W.P.No.10331/2020 in the case of G.O.Raju vs. State of Karnataka and Others in order to contend that the issue involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the aforesaid order. It is submitted that the present petition may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. It is also submitted that necessary directions may be issued to the respondents to refund the penalty amount already deducted from the bills of the petitioner together with the interest.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that while there is no dispute as regards applicability of the order passed by this Court in G.O.Raju's case supra to the facts of the present case, the respondents are entitled to collect the royalty from the petitioner based on the terms and conditions of the tender document.
5. A perusal of the material on record would clearly indicate that the issue in controversy between the parties insofar as prayer No.1 is concerned is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in G.O.Raju's case supra wherein it is held as under:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:29430 WP No. 19408 of 2024 "9. In the circumstances, this writ petition merits consideration. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(a) PWD Department is granted liberty to deduct the royalty amount as agreed in Clause 20 of the Agreement vide Annexure-A.
(b) It is made clear that any deduction in excess is impermissible in law.
Petition is accordingly disposed off."
6. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to deduct the royalty amount from the bills of the petitioner only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender documents and in terms of the order passed in G.O. Raju's case supra. It is needless to state that except deduction of royalty from the bills of the petitioner, the respondents would not be entitled to deduct / collect the penalty from the bills of the petitioner.
7. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 113