Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Per Sanjay Yadav, J.

BACKGROUND Writ Petition No.4547/2016 is concerned with the challenge to Third Proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 68 of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Minor Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as '1996 Rules') and the consequential relief of direction against the respondents to release the amount of royalty withheld by the respondents. The need to challenge the validity has arisen because the matter involving similar relief filed before the Indore Bench and Gwalior Bench are being dismissed without following the dispensation specified in M/s Chandrama Construction Company v. M.P. Rajya Krishi Vipran Sangh : W.P. No.1361/2009 decided on 22.4.2009, though the same was followed by the Division Bench at the Principal Seat (Jabalpur). This led the Bench hearing the matter to admit the petition on 29.3.2016. An interim relief was granted in similar terms as per the dispensation specified by the Division Bench at the Principal :: 4 ::

"4. The answering respondents submit that coordinate Benches of this Hon'ble Court at Indore and Gwalior have been pleased to dismiss the writ petition of similar nature in view of amendment inserted by way of proviso to Rule 68 which has come into force vide gazette notification dated 23.3.2013 and have therefore justly distinguished the proposition as laid down in the case of M/s Chandrama Constructions Company on account of alteration in the position of law after 23.3.2015. The coordinate Hon'ble Division Benches of Indore as well as Gwalior have assigned reasons for distinguishing and not :: 5 ::

6. This order/circular came to be challenged in the case of Indore Civil Works Contractors Association v.

Government of M.P. : Writ Petition No.252/2003 before Indore Bench of this Court decided on 28.10.2003, upholding the circular, it was held -

"7. A clause in an agreements can be struck down only when it is held to be against the public policy i.e., against section 23 of contract Act or against any provision of statute governing the :: 11 ::

27. Considered thus, we are of the view that the opinion expressed by the Division Bench at Indore in Prabha Exim Pvt. Ltd (supra) and the Division Bench at Gwalior in M/s RSA Builders and Construction : W.P. No.1547/2016 that the decisions in M/s Narsingh Construction Company v State of M.P. : W.P No.4658/2012 decided on 13.4.2012 and M/s :: 29 ::
W.P. Nos.4547/2016, 6977/2016, 7029/2016, 7108/2016, 7370/2016, 7398/2016, 7496/2016, 7517/2016, 7581/2016 and 7733/2016 Chandrama Construction Company v M.P. Rajya Krishi Vipran Sangh : W.P No.1361/2009 and M.P. Contractors Sangh, Indore v. State of M.P. 1987 JLJ 743, M.P. Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam v. Abrar Construction Company & Ors., 2005 Arb WLJ 379 (MP), Keti Construction Ltd. v. State of M.P., 2007 (3) MPHT 433 (DB) : (AIR 2007 (NOC) 2586 (MP)) and Tomar Construction Company v.