Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Agarwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 November, 2016
--- 1 ---
W P No. 7849 / 2016
28/11/2016
Mr. Rohit Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. CS. Ujjainia, learned counsel for the respondent - State.
The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by action of respondents in demanding the Royalty Clearance Certificate from the petitioner. Contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has carried out the construction works.
Learned petitioner's counsel has argued before this Court that the controversy in the present case is fully covered by a judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Keti Construction Limited vs. State of MP and others, reported in 2007 (3) MPHT 433.
Learned GA for the respondents State appearing on advance notice has argued before this Court that the controversy involved in the present case has already been decided in the matter of Tomar Construction Company vs State of MP & others, reported in 2008 (2) MPLJ 40. In the aforesaid judgment the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this High Court in the matter of Keti Construction Limited vs State of MP & ors has also considered.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case, the petitioner is a registered Contractor. The petitioner has completed the works. The respondents have demanded the Royalty Clearance Certificate from the petitioner in respect of Royalty amount. The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand raised by the respondents in respect of Royalty Clearance Certificate. This Court is of the considered opinion in the matter relating to royalty payment receipts or no dues certificate with regard to payment of royalty for the mineral consumed before clearing the bills of the petitioners has been considered in the matter of Tomar Construction Company vs. State of MP & ors
--- 2 ---
2008 (2) MPLJ 40 and in the aforesaid case the Court in paras 8 & 9 has held as under:-
"8. The question raised by the respondents in this petition is already considered by this Court in the case of Prestige G.S. Sole ( supra) and the Division Bench whilek considering this question in the case of Keti Construction Limited ( supra) has considered the same. In this regard reference may be made to paras 5,9,10,11 & 13 of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the Keti Constructions Ltd.(supra) wherein all these questions are considered. Nothing in the Rules, 2006 provides for production of certificate or document for payment of royalty from a contractor and therefore, the Rules,2006 does not make any difference with regard to principles already laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to hereinabove. Therefore, it has to be held that State Government cannot insist upon production of royalty clearance certificate or no dues certificate for finalizing the bills of the contractors. The State Government can insist upon proof with regard to payment of royalty and production of no dues certificate showing payment of royalty onlyin case of such contractors who have been granted mining lease or quarry lease and who have used the minerals from such quarry or mines as raw material for execution of the work granted by the contract agreement.
9. However, the State Government is entitled to make an enquiry from the contractor with regard to place from where the raw material used for execution of the work is purchased and for the said purpose can insist upon production of documents from the contractor with regard to purchase of these raw material i.e. the bills pertaining to purchase of raw material and in case the contractor is unable to produce the bills because of passage of time, the contractor can file affidavit indicating to the State Government the source or place from where purchase of the raw material is made and manner in which purchase was made. On the basis of such an affidavit, the State Government shall clear the bill of the petitioners after due
--- 3 ---
verification".
Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment delivered by this Court as the matter is squarely covered, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of with the following directions:-
(i)The respondents 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 respondents 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 minerals is purchased. This affidavit can be used by the respondents for verification and for taking further action for clearing the bill/s.
(ii) Amount of royalty, if any, recovered from the bills of the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner on petitioner's 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 respondents pointing out the inability in producing the bills or the affidavit and it would be for the respondents 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".
(iii) The respondents shall also be free to verify whether any work order was issued to the petitioner and any sanction in respect of the work order was also issued or not and the payment of bills shall be subject to the aforesaid verification.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(S. C. SHARMA) (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
KR