Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S B.P.S. Builders S2A Thr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 April, 2017
1
WP No. 2383/2017
(M/s B.P.S. Builders Vs State of MP & Others)
12/04/2017
Shri R.B.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents/State.
The issue involved herein is as to whether royalty charges can be deducted from the current /final bill submitted by the petitioner before the respondents in regard to civil construction undertaken by the petitioner on behalf of the State despite the petitioner not being a quarry / mining lease holder.
Petitioner's counsel after taking us through the petition and papers placed on record argued that his case is squarely covered by the full bench decision rendered by Principal Seat at Jabalpur vide order dated 10.05.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 4547/2016 (M/s Phaloudi Construction Company Vs. The State of M.P. and Others), and prayed to dispose of this petition on the same terms.
On the other hand, State counsel did not have any objection in disposing of this petition in the light of the aforesaid cited cases on the same terms.
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions, as issued by the Principal Seat in the aforesaid cited case:
(1) The petitioner shall either furnish the bills of purchase of minerals from authorized dealer or an 2 WP No. 2383/2017 (M/s B.P.S. Builders Vs State of MP & Others) 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 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 3 WP No. 2383/2017 (M/s B.P.S. Builders Vs State of MP & Others) 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.
That apart, in case, any SLP has been filed by the State Government against the decision of Full Bench in the case of M/s Phaloudi Construction Company Vs. The State of M.P. and Others, this order shall be subject to any order that may be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP proposed to be or filed by the State Government.
No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Sheel Nagu) ( S.A. Dharmadhikari)
Judge Judge
Prachi*