G.D.SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition prays for the relief to quash Order P/6 dated 14. 05. 2002 as being void illegal and arbitrary and for refund of sum of Rs. 2,50,000 collected from the petitioner as royalty for excavating clay with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.

(2.) PETITIONER submits that petitioner is a registered contractor and is engaged in business of Government Contracts. In the year 1983, the petitioner undertook a work for the railways for scattering of clay for maintenance of railway siding near Itarsi ; the earth was excavated from adjacent lands belonging to private individuals on consideration agreed to with them. Petitioner applied for quarry lease for ordinary clay under the provisions of M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1961. The application was submitted on 23rd January, 1984 for excavation of clay for railway work from lands situated in village Mehragaon. On 01. 02. 1984 Collector, Hoshangabad sanctioned the application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease for an area of 6. 10 acres for a period of one year. As per the conditions, the petitioner will be liable to pay royalty/dead -rent/surface rent as per the Minor Mineral Rules, 1961. Petitioner agreed to the conditions put forth by the respondent No. 2 and executed an agreement that he was liable to pay royalty to the State Government for the amount of clay extracted. The period of the quarry lease was from 16. 02. 1984 to 15. 02,1985, royalty was payable on the quantity excavated. Royalty was quantified at Rs. 4,37,317. 93 paisa and petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000, remaining was balance due against the name of the petitioner. After paying some part of the royalty, petitioner came to know that he was not liable to pay the royalty at all in view of the circulars P/1, P/2 and P/3 dated 12. 121975, 08. 08. 1977 and 11. 10. 1983 respectively. Petitioner relies on the opinion P/4 of the Law Secretary of Law Department dated 26. 09. 1983. Petitioner prayed for refund of the amount of Rs. 2,50,000 paid as royalty. Petitioner earlier preferred a writ petition No. 3885/1987, same was disposed of, Order P/5 was passed on 13. 07. 1999 to approach the Collector. Petitioner approached the Collector, Collector has passed an Order P/6 on 14. 05. 2002. Collector has held that petitioner is bound by the terms of the agreement and is liable to make the payment of the royalty.

(3.) SHRI A. K. Choubey, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that in view of the circulars P/1, P/2 and P/3 and opinion P/4, it was not open to the State Government to demand the royalty from the petitioner. He has further submitted that royalty is not payable under the M. P. Minor Mineral Rules. Hence, the agreement is illegal and void and not enforceable.