NAVANEET SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the action of the State Government/respondent - corporation in insisting upon producing no dues certificate from the Collector or showing proof for payment of royalty for the minerals consumed by the petitioners in execution of the contract in question, petitioners have filed this petition.

(2.) PETITIONERS have executed the contract in question and for the purpose of doing the work awarded by the contract certain minerals are to be used as raw material. According to the petitioners the minerals and other raw materials are purchased from the open market from various authorized and licenced dealers. After the contract is executed now when the bills are to be settled, grievance of the petitioners are that respondents are insisting upon producing royalty payment receipts or no due certificate with regard to payment of royalty for the mineral consumed before clearing the bills of the petitioners for payment.

(3.) REFUTING the aforesaid contentions, Smt. Ami Prabal, learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel representing the Corporations submit that with a view of check illegal mining operation of minor minerals, the aforesaid step is taken by the State Government. It is emphasised that in the light of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 and M.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1996 and the Rules, 2006), the State Government is entitled to seek production of no dues certificate or other documents. It is argued by the respondents that in the cases relied upon by the petitioner as the Rules, 2006 is not taken into consideration, the judgments in the earlier cases will have no application. Referring to sub -rule 14 of Rule 50 of Rules 1996 and Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 2006 so also the definition of 'carrier' as indicated in the Rules, 2006, Smt. Ami Prabal submits that petitioner cannot be permitted to transport the minerals without a valid transit pass and in insisting upon a royalty clearance certificate, respondents have not committed any error. Accordingly, she submits that action of the respondents is proper and no interference can be made in this petition.