- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16240 WP No. 10937 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.10937 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. ESHWARAPPA TIPPANNA GOGI S/O TIPPANNA GOGI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS KPWD CLASS-I CONTRACTOR H.NO. E/16/1/17, THIMMAPURA SHORAPURA TALUK, YADGIRI-585220. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.M. GUFRAN N, ADV.,) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MAJOR IRRIGATION REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA LTD., COFFEE BOARD, 4TH FLOOR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560 001. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KNNL UPPER TUNGA PROJECT DIVISION SAGARA ROAD, AT POST SHIVAMOGGA 577201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAG, AGA FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16240 WP No. 10937 of 2025 OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO DEDUCT ONLY THE CHARGES OF ROYALTY AND NOT TO IMPOSE AND NOT TO DEDUCT FIVE TIMES OF PENALTY ON THE ROYALTY AMOUNT FROM THE BILLS OF THE PETITIONER IN PURSUANT TO WORK ORDER AT ANNX-A DTD 31.10.2022. ISSUE ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REFUND THE PENALTY AMOUNT WHICH WAS ALREADY DEDUCTED FROM THE BILLS OF THE PETITIONER WITH 18 PERCENT OF INTEREST IN PURSUANT TO WORK ORDER AT ANNX-A DTD 31.10.2022 & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel Sri. Mohamed Gufran N., appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following prayer: a) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to deduct only the charges of royalty and not to impose and not to deduct Five times of penalty on the royalty amount from the bills of the petitioner in pursuant to Work Order at Annexure-A dated 31.10.2022. b) Issue order directing the respondents to refund the penalty amount which was already deducted - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16240 WP No. 10937 of 2025 from the bills of the petitioner with 18 percent of interest in pursuant to Work Order at Annexure-A dated 31.10.2022. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.28810/2023 disposed on 28.05.2024, wherein it has held as follows: "In this writ petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: i) “To issue the writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to impose and not to deduct five times of the penalty on the royalty amount, from the bills of the petitioners. As per Annexure-H as per order passed in W.P. No.10331/20, dated 12.11.2020. ii) To direct the respondents to refund the penalty amount which was already deducted from the bills of the petitioners with 18% of interest. iii) 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. iv) To grant the cost of these petitions in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard. 3. In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the order dated 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16240 WP No. 10937 of 2025 covered by the aforesaid order. It is submitted that the present petition may be disposed off 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 petitioners together with the interest. 4. Per contra learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1, as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 10 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 petitioners based on the terms and conditions of the tender document. It is also submitted that the is penalty already deducted from the bills of the petitioners and in the event the petitioners submit a fresh representation, seeking refund of the penalty amount, the concerned respondents would consider the same in accordance with law. It is also submitted that prayer No.2 for refund of the penalty amount cannot be granted in favour of the petitioners and the same is liable to be rejected. 5. A perusal of the material on record would clearly indicate the issue in controversy between the parties insofar as prayer No.1 is concerned is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in G.O.Raju’s case supra wherein it is held as under: “9. In the circumstances, this writ petition merits consideration. Hence, the following: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16240 WP No. 10937 of 2025 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 the respondent Nos.2 to 10 to deduct the royalty amount from the bills of the petitioners 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 petitioners, the respondents would not be entitled to deduct / collect the penalty from the bills of the petitioners. 7. Insofar as prayer No.2 of the petitioners for refund of the penalty deducted from the bills is concerned, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to submit a fresh representation along with relevant documents within a period of two weeks from today. If such a representation is submitted, the concerned respondents shall consider the same and take appropriate steps / decision and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of submission of the said representations. 8. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed off." 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate would not dispute the position. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16240 WP No. 10937 of 2025 5. In the light of the issue standing covered by the judgment rendered by this Court supra, the petition stands disposed on the same terms. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 141