M/S. Yanikee Constructions LLP Vs Karnataka Slum Development Board

M/S. YANIKEE CONSTRUCTIONS LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTED UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 441, 2^ND CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK, 3^RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGLAURU - 560 079. REP BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER, MR. K K RADHAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. KEMPE GOWDA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. APPAIAH P B.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

AND:

¶12

KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD A STATUTORY BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SLUM AREAS (CLEARANCE AND IMPROVEMENT) ACT 1973, NO. 55, RISALDAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU 560 020. REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DAVANAGERE DIVISION, KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD,

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:3390 WP No. 48069 of 2019

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

NO. 2370, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, MCC, A BLOCK, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO. 3, DIVISION, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO. 55, RISALDAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶19

DIRECTOR MINES AND MINERALS DEPARTMENT NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVANA RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH B.R.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. RAMACHANDRAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA., AGA FOR R4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DEDUCT ANY AMOUNTS TOWARDS ROYALTIES WHEN MAKING PAYMENT OF THE PETITIONER'S RA BILLS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 30 NOVEMBER 2018 ISSUED BY R.1 TO THE PETITIONER AS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:3390 WP No. 48069 of 2019

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Petitioner who claims to have been awarded a work orders by the respondent No.1/Karnataka Slum Development Board as per Annexures-A, B and C is before this Court with his grievance that, the respondent No.1 deducted the amount from the Running Account bills (R.A. bills) raised by the petitioner on the respondents towards the work completed in terms of the aforesaid work order.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work entrusted to the petitioner involves construction of infrastructure in selected slum areas, which invariably requires procurement of minor minerals. The primary responsibility and liability of paying the royalty is on the licensed crushers, which was reflected in the Mineral Dispatch Permits (MDPs). As such, there is no liability of any nature on the part of the petitioner who is a contractor to pay the royalty charges.

¶31

That despite the licensed crushers having paid the royalty charges, the respondent No.1 without any justification deducting the royalty amount from and out of the amounts payable towards the RA bills raised by the petitioner. Therefore

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:3390 WP No. 48069 of 2019

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

he submits the present petition is filed seeking direction to the respondent No.1 not to deduct the amount from the RA bills and to refund the amount already deducted. Further he submits that the petitioner has successfully completed the work assigned and the respondent No.1 is still due and liable to pay full and final amount in terms of the RA bills raised by the petitioner.

¶36

In response, learned counsel for the respondents referring to a circular dated 22.10.2019 submits that the payment of royalty on the minor minerals is governed under the said circular, which also provides for the procedure, mechanism, and the rate at which the said royalty needs to paid. Further, he submits that if there is a failure on the part of the licensed crusher to pay the royalty amount, it is the responsibility of the contractor, as that of the petitioner to pay the same. It is also submitted that any amount paid in excess can be claimed by the petitioner and seek refund of the same, if there is double payment made as claimed by the petitioner, he can make a representation to the respondent No.4-Director of Mines and Geology, Bengaluru and seek refund of the same.

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:3390 WP No. 48069 of 2019

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by

¶41

the learned counsel for both the parties, this petition is disposed of with the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i). The petitioner is at liberty to make a representation, providing all the details regarding payment of royalty amount by the license crushers and the royalty amount deducted by the respondent No.1 from and out of the RA bills as claimed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶44

(ii). Such representation shall be made to respondent No.1-Board as well as respondent No.4-Director, Mines and Geology Department.

¶45

(iii). Respondent Nos.1 and 4 shall consider the said representation after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and shall pass appropriate orders within 60 days thereafter. If it is found that the respondent No.1 has been paid the royalty charges

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:3390 WP No. 48069 of 2019

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

by the licensed crushers and yet the respondent No.1 has collected the amount from and out of the RA bills, the said amount shall be refunded to the petitioner.

¶50

(iv). On the other hand, if it is found that the licensed crushers has not paid the royalty charges, petitioner from whose RA bills the royalty amount is deducted is at liberty to seek reimbursement of such amount from the licensed crusher or initiate proceedings and avail such remedy as may be available and permissible under law.

¶51

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶52

RL

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

M/S. Yanikee Constructions LLP v. Karnataka Slum Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Yanikee Constructions LLP v. Karnataka Slum Development Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sofia Bi Vs the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Mr Tabrez Pasha Vs the Karnataka State Board of Waqf

Smt Lakshmi K Lakshman Vs Canara Bank

Sri C Kiritappa Vs Smt S Pilomina

Sri. S Manjunatha Swamy Vs the Karnataka Information COMMISSIONER(CH-2)

Smt B.Ratnamma Vs the Government of Karnataka