RAJAT KUMAR BISWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the action of the Opp. Parties in deducting royalty from the running account bills of the Petitioner on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary & contrary to the rules. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are that the Petitioner is a special class contractor registered under rule 6 of the P.W.D. Contractors Registration Rules, 1967. On being duly selected as a successful bidder, the Petitioner was awarded with different packages of work for "Construction & Maintenance of Rural Roads" under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana in the district of Mayurbhanj vide Annexure -2 series. On receipt the work orders & entering into agreement, the Petitioner proceeded with execution of the three packages of work bearing number OR -21 -197, OR -21 -199 & OR -21 -200 & around 70% of these work have already been completed by now. But, when the Petitioner submitted running account bills, the Opp. Parties deducted a substantial amount therefrom towards the cost of royalty on the materials used in the work & demanded for submission of Form -K under Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004. Aggrieved with the aforesaid action of the Opp. Parties, the Petitioner has come up before this Court with the present Writ Petition.

(2.) THE contention of the Petitioner is that for execution of the aforesaid construction & maintenance work the Petitioner was to collect materials, such as, chips, metals & moorum as per the terms & conditions contained in the tender agreement. The Petitioner collected such materials from different leaseholders of mines/quarries from whom the Government have already collected lease value, surface rent, dead rent & royalty as provided under rule 24 of the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004. The Petitioner contractor being not a lessee or a quarry permit holder is no way concerned with payment of royalty to the Government & is only concerned with the payment of cost of the materials collected from the quarries. Royalty is collected from the quarry permit holders, who are obliged to pay the same to the Government under rule 24 of the aforesaid Rules. Hence, it is not permissible under law to demand royalty from the contractors like the Petitioner & to deduct the same from their bills. Further contention of the Petitioner is that in a batch of cases (Akuli Charan Das, etc. etc. v. State of Orissa & others) the issue relating to reimbursement of royalty paid by the contractors was raised before this Court & by interpreting Rules 23 & 24 of the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 this Court held that the Petitioners are justified in claiming reimbursement of royalty inasmuch as there cannot be payment of royalty twice, i.e., by the leaseholder so also by the contractor in respect of the selfsame material. The deduction of royalty from the running account bills of the Petitioner is highly illegal as the Petitioner is neither a leaseholder nor a licensee of any quarry & the Petitioner is to purchase the materials from different quarries which are legally operated by the quarry leaseholders. It is not the duty of the Petitioner to submit Form -K under Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2604 which relates to the application for quarry lease & its renewal under Rule 26(2) of the said Rules. Such arbitrary demand of the Opp. Parties for submission of Form -K by the Petitioner & deduction of royalty from the running account bills in respect of the work in question is illegal & arbitrary. In support of his contention, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon a decision reported in : AIR 2007 Orissa 97 (Akuli Charan Das, etc. etc. vrs. State of Orissa & others).

(3.) IN the background of the above factual matrix & the stand taken by the respective parties, the following question is formulated for consideration by this Court;