PRESTIGIOUS Vs. M P RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common questions are involved, the order in this petition shall govern the disposal of writ petitions No. 8541/03, 8571/03, 8622/03, 8652/03, 8734/03, 8740/03, 8962/03, 9041/03, 39/04, 461/04, 645/2004 and 1196/2004.

(2.) PETITIONERS in all these petitions are establishments carrying out activities of construction work for various departments of the State Government or the authorities, who are arrayed as respondents in this petition. Petitioners have been granted contract in accordance with the tenders submitted by them.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, for the purpose of executing the work of construction awarded to them petitioners are required to use certain minor minerals like sand, holders, gitti etc. which they have purchased them from the suppliers of these materials and the suppliers in turn have purchased from various mine owners and quarry owners. Grievance of the petitioners are that while settling the bills of the petitioners respondents are insisting upon production of No Objection Certificate from the mining department to show that royalty on the material has been paid as a condition precedent for finalisation of the bills. Inviting my attention to Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, it was argued that the incidence for payment of royalty arises the moment mineral is extracted. Royalty is to be paid by the mining lease holder and the mineral extracted cannot be removed from the mine area or the quarry area, as the case may be, without payment of royalty. Instead of taking action for recovery of royalty at the place where the mineral is extracted, insisting upon production of No Objection Certificate from the petitioners, it is said to be illegal. In support of their contention, petitioners rely on a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M. P. Contractors' Sangh Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1987 Jab LJ 743) : (AIR 1987 Madh Pra 74 ).