Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 537 (KAR)

H. R. SHIVARAM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2006-07-03

N.K.PATIL

body2006
ORDER The petitioners in these petitions have sought for a direction, directing the respondents to prohibit from enforcing the deductions of royalty from the petitioners as per Notification dated 2nd June, 2003 bearing No. CL-278 MMN.2001, Bangalore, circular dated 26th July, 2003 bearing No. DMG/DD/(MAJDCB/NRR/2003-04 vide Annexure-B and circular dated 9th September, 2003 bearing No. e;fu.~o./(~/~!).~.~:e5;::J~o':o.g).:ffi)oiJ~/20(J:H)4/3671. vide Annexure-C. Further, petitioners have sought for a direction, directing the respondents not to collect any royalty from the bills of petitioners and to refund the royalty of petitioners, if already deducted. 2. These thirteen petitioners claim to be the registered Civil Contractors carrying on civil works such as constructions and repairs of canals, buildings, roads, drains, etc. In order to execute the said works, these petitioners are purchasing the raw materials from the licenced quarry owners and other private quarry owners and the materials purchased by these petitioners have already suffered royalty. It is the case of petitioners that, in view of the impugned notification and the circulars issued by Government, as referred above, the officials are trying to deduct royalty from the running bills of these petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said action of the jurisdictional officers, petitioners herein are constrained to approach this Court by filing the instant writ petitions, questioning the impugned notification and circulars referred above. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 4. The principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioners is that, inspite of quashing of the notification and the circulars by this Court in series of matters, the respondents are trying to deduct royalty from out of the running bills of petitioners. When the request for refund of the amount deducted towards royalty is made to the authorities, the said request of petitioners is also not considered and the authorities are threatening to collect the same from the running bills of petitioners. To substantiate the said submission, learned Counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 21122 to 21135 of 2004 and connected matters disposed of on 18th June, 2004, wherein this Court had directed the respondents not to deduct royalty from out of the running bills of petitioners, wherever building materials are purchased by them from private source. 21122 to 21135 of 2004 and connected matters disposed of on 18th June, 2004, wherein this Court had directed the respondents not to deduct royalty from out of the running bills of petitioners, wherever building materials are purchased by them from private source. Therefore, he submitted that, appropriate direction may be issued to respondents not to deduct royalty from out of the running bills of petitioners, wherever, building materials are purchased by petitioners from private sources and that wherever royalty has already been deducted from out of the running bills of petitioners, the Competent Authority may be directed to refund the same. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents, at the outset, submitted that, the prayers sought for by petitioners in the instant writ petitions are misconceived one. He submitted that, the petitioners, to substantiate their prayers, have not produced any authenticated document to show that, the concerned jurisdictional officers of the respondents have already deducted royalty in their running bills nor have made any application before the authority requesting them to refund the royalty in case any deduction of royalty is made. Only on the basis of assumption and presumption, as stated by themselves at paragraph 2 of the writ petitions, the Government is empowering the Department and local bodies to collect royalty from the bills of contractors and by the impugned notification and circulars, the authorities of the State are trying to deduct the royalty from the bills of petitioners, petitioners have approached this Court. The statements made in the said paragraph clearly go to show that, the authorities have not yet deducted royalty from the running bills of petitioners. Therefore, he submitted that, on the basis of mere apprehension, petitioners cannot maintain the instant writ petitions, assailing the correctness of the notification and the circulars. He further submitted that, the judgment relied upon by petitioners is neither applicable to the case on hand nor the same has any bearing on the subject-matter. Therefore, he submitted that, the writ petitions filed by petitioners are liable to be dismissed as misconceived. 6. He further submitted that, the judgment relied upon by petitioners is neither applicable to the case on hand nor the same has any bearing on the subject-matter. Therefore, he submitted that, the writ petitions filed by petitioners are liable to be dismissed as misconceived. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents, after careful perusal of the material available on record, after considering the rival contentions urged by both Counsels for parties and after evaluation of the material available on records, it is manifest on the face of the material on record that, petitioners themselves have admitted in their writ petitions that, the respondents are trying to deduct royalty from out of the running bills of petitioners and they have not produced an iota of document in support of their case that, royalty has been deducted from out of the running bills of these petitioners. Even if it is the case of petitioners that, royalty has been deducted by respondents, petitioners have not made any application to the authority requesting them to refund the same in view af the order passed by this Court, by producing a copy of the writ petitions referred above. Except making oral statements and taking grounds in the writ petitions, and relying upon the order passed by this Court, referred supra, no substantive material is coming forth from the material on file. After careful perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 18th June, 2004 made in Writ Petition Nos. 21122 to 21135 of 2004 and connected matters, this Court has directed the respondents not to deduct royalty from out of the running bills of petitioners and in case respondents have already deducted royalty from out of the running bills, petitioners shall make necessary application for refund of the same and if such application is filed, the same shall be considered on merits and in accordance with law. But in the instant case, petitioners have not produced any authenticated documents or at least any such application, requesting the authority to refund the royalty collected from out of the running bills of petitioners nor have they produced any document to show that, royalty has been deducted in the running bills of petitioners. But in the instant case, petitioners have not produced any authenticated documents or at least any such application, requesting the authority to refund the royalty collected from out of the running bills of petitioners nor have they produced any document to show that, royalty has been deducted in the running bills of petitioners. Therefore, the statements made in the writ petitions that, inspite of the order passed by this Court in several matters, respondents are trying to deduct royalty, cannot be accepted until and unless, documentary evidence in support of their case is produced. Therefore, interference by this Court in the impugned notification and circulars is not justifiable nor I find any good grounds to entertain the writ petitions at this stage. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. However, it is needless to clarify that, it is very much open for petitioners herein to make necessary application before the Competent Authority requesting them not to deduct royalty from out of the running bills and in cases if at all royalty is deducted, petitioners are entitled to file application requesting for refund of the same. Even then, if the request of petitioners is not considered, it is open for them to redress their grievance before the appropriate legal forum, if they are so advised or if it is required. 7. With these observations, the writ petitions filed by petitioners stand disposed of.