1
W.P.No.10570/10
M/s Naveen Kumar State of M.P. & others
9.8.2010
Shri Akhilesh Jain, Counsel for petitioner.
Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate for respondents.
Petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
“A. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to refund FDR of Rs.2.48 lacs without the condition
of obtaining of NOC from Mining Department.
B. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to refund all the amount illegally deducted and
detained under the head of royalty of minerals consumed.
C. To issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to implement the judgment already passed by this
Hon’ble High Court.”
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, after completion
of the works contract, furnished its bills for clearance, but the
respondents are demanding royalty payment receipt from the petitioner
and has not cleared the bills of the petitioner.
It is submitted by Shri Jain that the controversy involved in this
case is squarely covered by judgment of this Court. Aforesaid position is
not disputed by the other side.
In Writ Petition No.9167/10-M/s Construction Association
Group Partnership Firm Vs. The M.P. Police Housing Construction
Corpn.Ltd & others decided on 19.7.2010, this Court considering
similar controversy passed an order, thus:-
“Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the controversy
involved in this case is squarely covered by an order of this
Court in W.P.No.1361/09 M/s Chandrama Construction
Company Vs. M.P. Rajya Krishi Vipran Sangh & others in
which the learned Single Judge of this Court considering the
controversy held thus:-
“The petitioner by way of present petition challenges
the action of respondents who are deducting the royalty
from bill of the petitioner despite the fact that he is not the
owner of the Mine and is only a contractor, who purchases
the material from the open market.
2
W.P.No.10570/10
M/s Naveen Kumar State of M.P. & others
9.8.2010
It is contended that the said action of the respondents
is contrary to the law as laid down in W.P.No. 2535/2003
(M/s Ravi Construction Company V. State of M.P. and
others) wherein it was held that contractor engaged in
construction work cannot be insisted to produce “No
Objection Certificate” issued from the Office of the Collector
(Mining), if they are not holder of mining lease and are
purchasing material from open market.
Learned counsel appearing for respondents does
not dispute that the issue in respect of furnishing the “No
Objection Certificate” from Office of the Collector(Mining) by
the contractor engaged in construction work have been
settled at rest in number of judgments delivered by this
Court. Accordingly it is submitted that the petition may be
disposed of by the observation made in W.P.No.6266/2006
(M/s K.P.Singh Bhadoria V. M.P.Rural Road
Development Authority Bhopal).
Having considered the submissions put forth by
respective counsels and keeping in view the judgments
rendered by this court in earlier given cases W.P.No.
2535/2003 (M/s Ravi Construction Company V. State of
M.P. and others), W.P.No.6266/2006 (M/s K.P.Singh
Bhadoria V. M.P. Rural Road Development Authority
Bhopal) and W.P.7954/2008 (M/s Sunil Kumar Jain V.
State of M.P. & 4 others) the present petition is disposed of
with the following directions
“(i) The State Government shall clear the bills of the
petitioner submitted in connection with execution of
the contract in question without insisting upon
producing no dues certificate from the collector or
any other authority with regard to payment of
royalty for the minerals consumed. However, the
State Government can insist upon production of
bills with regard to purchase of mineral and in case
the bill is not available an affidavit indicating the
manner in which and the place or source from
where the mineral is purchased. This affidavit can
be used by the State Government for verification
and for taking further action for clearing the bills.
(ii) Amount of royalty, if any, recovered from the
bills of the petitioner, shall be refunded to the
petitioner on the petitioner filing the bill or the
affidavit as indicated hereinabove. In case
petitioner is unable to produce the bill or the
affidavit as indicated hereinabove, liberty is granted
to the petitioner to represent the matter before the
3
W.P.No.10570/10
M/s Naveen Kumar State of M.P. & others
9.8.2010
State Government pointing out the inability in
producing the bills or the affidavit and it would be
for the State Government to consider the
representation and take such steps as may be
permissible or proper for clearing the bills in the
given set of circumstances as may be indicated by
the petitioners”.
In result the petition is allowed to the extent above. However
no costs.”
It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid order, this
matter may be disposed of finally.
As controversy involved in this case is squarely
covered by the order in M/s Chandrama Construction
Company (supra) and we do not find any reason to differ
with the reasonings and directions issued by the learned
Single Judge, we dispose of this petition with following
directions:-
(1) The petitioner shall either furnish the bills of purchase
of minerals from authorised dealer or an affidavit disclosing
the source from where petitioner purchased minerals, which
were used in the construction work.
(2) The respondents authorities if are satisfied with the
bills produced by the petitioner may process the bills, but in
case of any doubt, respondents authorities may insist the
petitioner to file an affidavit in support of its contention in
respect of purchase of minerals from the open market by the
bills.
(3) In case the petitioner is unable to produce the bills for
the purchase of the minerals or the royalty receipt in this
regard, respondents authorities shall insist the petitioner to
file an affidavit pointing out specifically the manner in which
minerals were purchased, disclosing particulars of the person
from whom the minerals were purchased. On filing of the
affidavit, the authorities shall be within their right to verify the
aforesaid facts. They can also verify the facts from the record
of the Mining Department of the concerned district.
(4) On completion of the aforesaid process, the
respondents shall clear the bills of the petitioner submitted in
connection with the execution of the works contract and the
amount of royalty, if any recovered from the bills, shall be
released in favour of the petitioner.
(5) In case, the authorities are not satisfied with the
contention of petitioner or on verification, facts are not found
correct then they shall pass a reasoned order in rejecting the
contention of petitioner.
4
W.P.No.10570/10
M/s Naveen Kumar State of M.P. & others
9.8.2010
(6) If the petitioner fails to produce the bills/affidavit as
indicated hereinabove, the petitioner may represent his case
to the concerned authority showing his inability to produce
the bills or affidavit and it shall be for the State Government
or authority to consider the representation and pass a
suitable order in that regard.”
As controversy has been decided in Writ Petition No.9167/10-
M/s Construction Association Group Partnership Firm Vs. The
M.P. Police Housing Construction Corpn.Ltd & others, this petition
is finally disposed of in terms of the directions issued in M/s
Construction Association Group Pa rtnership Firm (supra).
Aforesaid directions shall be applicable in the present case mutatis
mutandis.
No order as to costs.
C.C. as per rules.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (J.K.Maheshwari)
C. Judge Judge