Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
II. The notification dated 01.09.2009 shall be applicable only when a permit is applied under clause 20B(1) and (2) by the employer department/ undertakings and granted by the forest department under clause 20B(4) of the Notification, which is not the case in the present batch of writ petitions. III. In absence of any contract condition, when a contractor is unable to produce a certificate showing the use of forest produce on which royalty has been collected, the recovery from the bill against forest royalty cannot be made.
5. Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned counsel representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently urged that the contract, more particularly, Condition No.13.2 thereof, which reads as - "Whenever forest produces like sand, stone, timber, etc. are used in the work, the contractor(s) will have to furnish documentary proof that requisite Writ Appeal Nos.258, 259 & 262/2022 5|Page royalty on such produces has been paid to the concerned departments", covers within its ambit forest produce like sand, stone and timber qua which only the contractor is required to furnish documentary proof of royalty payment to the concerned Department. He urged that by dint of the impugned notice dated 08.02.2021, the authorities have travelled beyond the conditions of the contract by requiring the appellants herein to produce the royalty certificates for items which were not covered under the contract, i.e. earth work and boulders. He vehemently and fervently contended that the view taken by the learned Single Judge runs contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Assam & Ors. -Vs- Muslim Ali (Md.), reported in 2013 (2) GLT 945. Mr. Goswami has also placed reliance on a judgment passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Raitani Engineering Works Private Limited -Vs- Union of India & 5 Ors. [WP(C) No.1463/2021]. He thus, urged that the view taken by the learned Single Judge, whereby the grossly illegal notice issued to the appellants was not interfered with and rather, directions beyond the scope of the writ petition were issued, does not stand to scrutiny and the impugned judgment & order dated 30.06.2022 deserves to be reversed.
Writ Appeal Nos.258, 259 & 262/2022 7|Page
9. Mr. Gogoi thus, urged that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Paragraphs 18 & 19 of the impugned judgment is beyond the scope of interference. It was contended that the notice dated 08.02.2021 only requires the appellants to submit the Forest Royalty Clearance Certificates, which is the requirement of law and hence, the legality of the said notice is irrefutable. He further urged that the learned Single Judge has directed the employer to verify the contract/contracts of the writ petitioners and thereafter, if it is found that forest royalty is recoverable in terms of the observations made in the impugned judgment, a reasonable opportunity to produce the proof of payment of forest royalty shall be allowed to the contractor concerned and upon proof of payment of royalty being produced, no recovery would be made and the pending bills/security deposits/earnest money would be released within 6(six) weeks. In the alternative, the authority concerned has been given liberty to recover the forest royalty and in other cases, the employer has been directed to release the pending bills/ security deposits/ earnest money, etc. Mr. Gogoi thus, urged that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants herein because the learned Single Judge has just directed a verification exercise to be carried out in view of the prevailing legal and factual position and hence, no grievance can be raised against such a direction.
12. In this background, the notice dated 08.02.2021 issued by the employer to the appellants herein requiring them to present the Forest Royalty Clearance Certificates cannot be termed to be illegal or unjustified in any manner. Thus, requiring the appellants herein to present the Forest Royalty Clearance Certificates for the components of ordinary earth and boulders cannot be considered to be beyond the scope of the tender document/contract so as to warrant interference. The learned Single Judge has already directed the employer to conduct Writ Appeal Nos.258, 259 & 262/2022 9|Page a verification of the contracts and to determine whether forest royalty is recoverable and only thereafter, the follow up action has been permitted. Thus, the writ appellants cannot claim to be prejudiced by the aforesaid directions, which otherwise also, stand the scrutiny of law.