Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Ranjit Buildcon Limited ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 October, 2017
-1-
Writ Petition Nos.6331/2017 and 6328/2017
10/10/2017
Mr. Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner(s).
Mr. H. Y. Mehta, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent / State.
Ms. Chitralekha Hardia, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 to 6 in W.P.No.6328/2017.
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No.6331/2017 are narrated hereunder.
The petitioner before this Court, a public limited Company, has filed this present petition being aggrieved by order dated 11/08/2017 passed by the Additional Collector, Indore in appeal No.38/Appeal/2016-17 by which the stay application filed by the petitioner Company in a revenue case has been rejected.
The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner Company was awarded a contract for widening and reconstruction of certain roads and proceedings were initiated against the petitioner Company alleging illegal mining activities without there being legal permission.
The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) in exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 2006 has passed an order on 07/04/2017 holding that the -2- petitioner Company is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- and in another case an order has been passed imposing a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as fine.
The respondent / State, thereafter, as in spite of demand notice the amount was not being paid by the Company taking shelter of the provisions as contained under the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, has initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Code. The revenue authorities after following the due process of law has passed an order regarding attachment. The petitioner, thereafter, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer has preferred an appeal and the application of the petitioner for grant of interim relief has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards letter of the Naib Tehsildar dated 29/09/2017 and the same reveals that Tehsildar who is recovering the arrears as land revenue has observed that the bills of the petitioner Company can be finalized and the payment can be made, however, a sum of Rs.1,55,00,000/- be deposited with the State Government out of the total bills.
Learned counsel has argued before this Court that so far as remaining amount is concerned in light of the order of the Naib Tehsildar the other bills should be reimbursed and in respect of Rs.1,50,00,000/- the Company is ready to furnish a bank guarantee.
-3-
This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, is of the opinion that as the appeal of the petitioner Company is pending and the present petition is only against the order rejecting the stay application, there is no necessity to adjudicate the controversy regarding payment in respect of mining and minerals and the same has to be decided by the appellate authority / revenue authority.
So far as release of payment is concerned, the Tehsildar himself has observed that entire amount of the petitioner Company can be released after deposit of Rs.1,55,00,000/- with the State Government and therefore, once the revenue authority has held that the remaining amount can be released, the same can be released as the Sub Divisional Officer has held the petitioner Company liable for payment of Rs.1,55,00,000/- only.
In the considered opinion of this Court, as the matter is still pending before the authorities, the question of interference by this Court with respect to the impugned order does not arise. The M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 contains a complete mechanism in the matter of revision and appeal and the petitioner Company shall certainly be free to prefer a revision or appeal in accordance with law.
This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 11/08/2017, however as the revenue authorities themselves have passed an order dated 29/09/2017 -4- for releasing the remaining balance amount, the same can be released by the respondents.
So far as other writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.6328/2017 is concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court the impugned order has rightly been passed by the Tehsildar on 14/09/2017 and 15/09/2017 directing the M. P. Road Development Authority to withhold the payment of the petitioner as the State of Madhya Pradesh has to recover Rs.1,25,00,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- respectively in two cases which have been decided against the present petitioner Company, however, the fact remains that subsequent order dated 29/09/2017 has been issued by which the MPRDC has been permitted to release all payment barring the payment of Rs.1,55,00,000/-.
This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondents. Accordingly, the admission is declined in both the writ petitions.
(S. C. SHARMA) (ALOK VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej