RAVI INDUSTRIES Vs. WESTERN COALFIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sunil Manohar, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. S. C. Mehadia, Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Mrs. Neeta jog, A. G. P. for respondent No. 2. Mr. Manohar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners are Government Contractors and purchase boulders, gitti, murum, stones, stand, etc. from the open market for their construction activity. Respondent No. 1 invited tenders for the construction work. Clauses (ii) , (viii) of the General Terms and Conditions reads thus

(2.) Mr. Manohar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the said clause can only be made applicable in cases where the contractor/contractors themselves are lessees having lease hold mining rights to excaveat the minerals from the soil and use the said minerals in carrying out construction activities under the contract entered into with the Government. The said clause cannot be applied to the other contractors like the petitioners, who are not lessees and are required to purchase minerals from the open market for the purpose of construction activities. It is further contended that as per the stipulations in clause (ii) (viii) even the contractors like the petitioners, who are buying minerals necessary for the construction activity from the open market, are also required to produce Royalty Clearance Certificate, issued by the Collector before the final payment is released. It is further submitted that the petitioners are aggrieved by this requirement of Clause (ii) (viii) , which is not only irrational but the same is also inconsistent with the [provisions of the law. It is contended that the Collector, under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and regulation) Act, 1957 as well as the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, is entitled to ask for payment of royalty in respect of minerals removed or consumed by the lessee from the leased area.

(3.) Mr. Manohar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has further contended that the requirement of submission of Royalty Clearance Certificate by the contractors like the petitioners is invalid in law since the Collector does not have jurisdiction to examine and issue such certificate to the contractors like petitioners, who are buying minor minerals from open market. It is, therefore, contended that the said requirement, being irrational and inconsistent with the procedure prescribed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and regulation) Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, may be quashed and set aside. In order to substantiate his conlention, Mr. Manohar, has relied upon M/s prestigious vs. M. P. Rural Road Development, AIR 2005 M. P. 55.