Sri N.B. Hiremath vs The State of Karnataka and Others

J.S. Khehar, C.J.—None for the Petitioner. Sri. R.G. Kolle, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondents, states, that the present controversy is squarely covered with the judgment rendered by this Court in Golayya v. The State of karnataka and Ors. W.P. No. 80817/2009(GM-MM-S). decided on 02.06.2009

In the light of the above, learned Counsel for the Respondents states, that if the Petitioner produces authentic material before Respondent Nos. 2 to 7, showing that royalty was paid in respect of the sand being transported (from a licensed quarry owner), from whom the Petitioner had purchased the sand, the Respondents would refund the royalty charged from the Petitioner.

Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted liberty to produce material before the concerned Respondents Nos. 2 to 7, depicting that royalty had already been paid by the licensed quarry owner, on the sand which was purchased by the Petitioner. On production of such authentic material, royalty paid by the Petitioner would be refunded within four weeks.

The instant writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid.