Madhya Pradesh High Court
Roopchand Jain vs Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipanan ... on 10 September, 2010
W.P.no.12325/2010
Roop Chand Jain State of Madhya Pradesh and others.
10.9.2010.
Shri Amit Singh, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudesh Varma, Govt. Advocate for State.
This petition is directed against orders Annexures P/4 and
P/5 ( two in numbers) dated 22.5.2010, 8.7.2010 and 8.7.2010 by
which the petitioner has been directed to furnish royalty receipts in
respect of the mineral used by the petitioner in three contracts.
From the perusal of the file, we find that three orders of
different contracts are under challenge in this petition. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the course
of the day additional court fee in the petition shall be paid by the
petitioner. Prayer is allowed.
By the impugned orders, respondent no.1 has demanded
royalty receipt from the petitioner in respect of various works which were completed by the petitioner under the respondents. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in W.P.No.9167/2010 and similar directions may be issued in this case. In W.P.No.9167/2010, this Court directed 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.W.P.no.12325/2010
Roop Chand Jain State of Madhya Pradesh and others.
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 W.P.no.12325/2010 Roop Chand Jain State of Madhya Pradesh and others.
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) 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.W.P.no.12325/2010
Roop Chand Jain State of Madhya Pradesh and others.
(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 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 the controversy involved in this case is identical, this petition is finally disposed of in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.9167/2010. The aforesaid directions shall be applicable in the case of the petitioner in so far it is applicable in all three cases.As this matter is decided at admission stage without notice to the other side, liberty is granted to the respondents to seek review of this order in case they feel aggrieved by the aforesaid order. In case of filing of review W.P.no.12325/2010 Roop Chand Jain State of Madhya Pradesh and others.
petition, Shri Shashank Shekhar and Amit Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, shall accept notice and in that regard their Vakalatnama shall survive. No order as to cost.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (J.K.Maheshwari)
Judge Judge
JLL