Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Shri Manglam Buildon Thr vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 6 August, 2015
1 WP.No.4346/2015
M/s Shri Manglam Buildcon
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & others
06/08/2015
Shri Ajay Bhargav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents/State.
Heard.
On behalf of petitioner this petition is preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ against the authority of respondents for following relief:
"In view of the facts mentioned in para 6 above the petitioner prays that a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, direction may kindly be issued and following relief may be granted to the petitioner:
(i) That, the respondents be directed not to make recovery of royalty from the petitioner for the mineral purchased by him directly from the suppliers.
(ii) That, the respondents be directed not to make the recovery of royalty from the petitioner on the Selected Soil, Sand Murram, Kankar & gitti etc. used by petitioner for construction of High Level Bridge across Asan River on Khargpura -Anho Road Distt.
Morena. The respondents be further directed not to insist the petitioner to produce the royalty receipt at the time of payment of dues.
(iii) That, any condition, stipulated in the contract, to the effect that the petitioner 2 WP.No.4346/2015 should pay the royalty amount, before payment of his bills, being contrary to law be also set aside.
(iv) That, if any amount of royalty illegally collected from the petitioner be directed to refunded back to him with interest @ 12% p.a.
(v) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.
Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, after perusing the papers placed on record according to the running bill 'C' filed on behalf of petitioner with the index of 23-07-2015 authority has proposed to deduct a sum of royalty of Rs.21,969/- from such bill. In such circumstance, this case squarely covers with the order dated 07-02-2013 passed by the Division Bench of Principal Seat of this Court at Jabalpur in writ petition No.21946/2012 (M/s Shastri Construction Company Vs. The State of M.P. and others).
Consequently, we deem fit to dispose of this petition on the same terms and conditions on which the abovementioned writ petition was disposed of by Principal Seat. Pursuant to it, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction:
(1) The petitioner shall either furnish the bills of purchase of minerals from authorized dealer or an 3 WP.No.4346/2015 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 a 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 4 WP.No.4346/2015 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 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 within two months from the date of receipt of the representation.
No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(U.C. Maheshwari) (B.D. Rathi)
Judge Judge
Anil*