K. RAMASWAMY, G.N. RAY, JJ.
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), D/-6-2-1992.
State of Karnataka and others, Appellants
Versus
Subhash Rukmayya Guttedar and others etc., Respondents.
Constitution Of India,1950 – Article, 136 - Rule 19,Karnataka Minor Minerals Concessions Rules 1969 - Demanded payment of royalty - Payable by installments - Court also disposed of matters by a common judgment appeals arise from judgment of Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeals respondents contractors entered into contracts with Government to execute work per schedule of contract provided in form- They have to excavate minor minerals either from Government quarry or from private quarry and use them for execution of work- It is one of requirements in contract Clause 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- Calling in question of entitlement Government Rule Karnataka Minor Minerals Concessions Rules short Rules respondent filed a bunch of writ petitions and disclaimed their liability to pay same- High Court by a learned single Judge and Division Bench on appeal accepted their contentions and issued a mandamus not to collect royalty from respondents- question whether they are liable to pay royalty on value of minerals removed from Government land under any other law was left open- Thus State filed these appeals by special -Held, Government permission to enter - Quarries to extract minor minerals remove them and to enjoy same in execution of contract they became liable to pay royalty- Their liability to pay royalty arose from contract question whether royalty is a part of cast component is not ground raised High Court not argued- Court are not concerned therefore with this question in these appeals- learned single Judge of 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 rules- Therefore, he found that liability pay royalty did not arise- Division Bench proceeded on ground that lease does not attract Section Transfer of Property Act- Court are unable agree with High Court either ground- It undoubtedly true that Rules specify procedure to enter into mining lease for winning over minor minerals and in terms to be complied with- But question of liability to pay royalty for minerals removed and consumed by contractor is to be considered in terms of contract- In light of above extracted Rules, terms of contract and legal position court are opinion that respondents-contractors are liable to pay royalty contract- It is next contended that respondents are entitled to refund for minerals used for Government work as contained in contract- This question was also not raised before High Court- Therefore court do not propose to go into and matter is left open - 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 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, octro
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.