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
NC: 2024:KHC:29430
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:
NC: 2024:KHC:29430
"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
