SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(SC) 199

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY, G.N. RAY, JJ.
State of Karnataka and others, Appellants
Versus
Subhash Rukmayya Guttedar and others etc., Respondents. 861
Civil Appeals Nos. 590-629, 630-646, 647-648, 649, 650-654, 655-690, 691-700, 701-702. 703-705, 706, 707-734, 735-743, 744-759 and 760 of 1992 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 5295-5334 of 1991, 4533-49, 4940-42, 5031, 9280-84, 12184-219, 13100-09, 4654-55, 4658-60, 4657, 12120-47, 11050-58, 12249-64, 16278 and 5930-49 of 1991)
Decided on 6-2-1992.

Advocates:
R.K.MEHTA

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 136 – Karnataka Minor Minerals Concessions Rules 1969 – Rule 19 – Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 – Section 2 – Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976 – Section 4 – Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 – Section 9 – Transfer of Property Act – Section 105 – Competent Authority – Inclusive of Royalty – Appeals arise from judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeals – Respondents contractors entered into contracts with Government to execute work as per schedule of contract provided in form to excavate the minor minerals either from Government quarry or from private quarry and use them for execution of work one of requirements in contract Schedule that they are liable to pay royalty on material so removed from Government quarry for execution of work – Government have demanded payment of royalty question of entitlement of Government respondent filed a bunch of writ petitions and disclaimed their liability to pay – Held, Learned single Judge of the High Court proceeded on footing that rules provided mode and mechanism to enter into mining lease and since mining leases were not executed in terms thereof they are not leases under rules found that liability to pay royalty did not arise – Division Bench proceeded on the ground that lease does not attract unable to agree with High Court on either ground undoubtedly true that Rules specify the procedure to enter into a mining lease for winning over minor minerals and in terms to be complied with – Question of liability to pay royalty for minerals removed and consumed by a contractor is to be considered in terms of contract of above extracted Rules terms of contract and the legal position, we are of opinion that respondents-contractors are liable to pay royalty in terms of the contract next contended that respondents are entitled to refund for the minerals used for Government work as contained in contract – Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

 Leave granted.

2. All the appeals raise common question of law and the High Court also disposed of the matters by a common judgment. These appeals arise from judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeals. The respondents contractors entered into contracts with the Government to execute work as per the schedule of the contract provided in the form. They have to excavate the minor minerals either from the Government quarry or from private quarry and use them for the execution of the work. It is one of the requirements in the contract under Clause 35 of the Schedule that they are liable to pay royalty on the material so removed from Government quarry for the execution of the work. The Government have demanded payment of the royalty. Calling in question of the entitlement of the Government under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concessions Rules 1969 for short the Rules the respondent filed a bunch of writ petitions and disclaimed their liability to pay the same. The High Court by a learned single Judge and the Division Bench on appeal accepted their contentions and issued a mandamus not to collect the royalty from the respondents. The question whether they are liable to pay royalty on the value of minerals removed from the Government land under any other law was left open. Thus, the State filed these appeals by special leave under Art. 136.

3. Admittedly, the appellants had granted right to the contractors to extract minor minerals from the quarries owned by the State. Clause 2 of the Schedule D to the contract provides the liability to pay royalty of mining: -

"The unit rates quoted by the contractor are to be considered as inclusive of royalty in respect of various materials viz. granite/- trap/shahabad stone boulders metal mand, marum etc. supplied by the contract for execution of the several items of work irrespective of source whether Government quarry or private quarry from where the materials are obtained by him. The Government shall deduct. from the bills payable to the contractor, such royalty from the bills payable to the contractor, such royalty payable by him at the rates prescribed in the Government Order No. PC/22/BAP/69 dated 862 7-10-84 and latest amendments thereto or instructions thereon. The rates shall also be inclusive of all other taxes that may exist leviable and payable by him to any authority."

Rule 19 of the Rules provides the rates of royalty as under; -

"Rate of Royalty- Royalty shall be leviable on minor minerals quarried from the leased area at the rates specified in the Schedule. After the expiry of a period of four years from the commencement of these rules the Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, amend the schedule so as to enhance the rate at which royalty shall be payable in respect of any minor mineral, provided that the rates in respect of any minor mineral shall not be enhanced before the expiry of a period of four years from the date with effect from which the rate in respect of that minor mineral may have been last altered. Provided that the Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, reduce or exempt the royalty payable by a co-operative society as defined in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Karnataka Act. No. 11 / 50), all the members of which

(1) are bonded labourers freed and discharged in accordance with Section 4 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976 or

(2) belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes as defined in the Constitution of India.

Clause 35 of the schedule to the Contract provides: -

"All quarry fees, royalties, octroi dues and ground rent for stocking materials, if any, should be paid by the contractor, who will however, be entitled to a refund of such of the charge as are permissible under the rules on obtaining a certificate from the Executive Engineer or other competent authority that the materials were required for use on Government work.

All quarry fees, royalties, oc








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top