W.P.No.6215/2010
Rahuldev Usrete State of M.P. And others.
20.7.2010.
Shri R.S.Saini, counsel for the petitioner.
Smt. Sheetal Dubey, Dy.Govt. Advocate for respondents 1
to 4.
Shri Shailendra Samaiya,Counsel for respondent no.5.
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.
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
W.P.No.6215/2010Rahuldev Usrete State of M.P. And others.
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 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)
W.P.No.6215/2010
Rahuldev Usrete State of M.P. And others.
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 authorized 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.
(6) If the petitioner fails to produce the bills/affidavit as
indicated hereinabove, the petitioner may represent his case to the
W.P.No.6215/2010
Rahuldev Usrete State of M.P. And others.
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.
No order as to costs. C.C. as per rules.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Sanjay Yadav)
Judge Judge
JLL