DEEP JYOTI COMPANY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The writ Petitioner-Appellant who is government empanelled contractor had challenged the circular dated 6.10.2008 (Annex. 1) issued by the State Government wherein a procedure has been provided for payment of royalty by the contractors who have been given the work contract by department of Government. As per Clause (2) of the said circular, it has been provided that before starting the work, the contractor shall obtain short-term permit and ravanna book from the Mining Department; he is also required to submit an affidavit to the effect that he had obtained the short-term permit and ravanna book. As per Clause (3), the contractor is required to submit a copy of the short-term permit along with the first running bill to the Department wherefrom he got the work contract, failing which, the amount of his bill will not be paid. It has also been provided that if any payment of the bill is made without obtaining copy of the short-term permit, the Department concerned will be liable to deposit the cost of mineral. It is also provided that the royalty shall be deducted from the bills of the contractor and the same will be deposited with the Mining Department within 15 days. However, there is also a clause in the above circular which provides that the contractor, if purchases, the royalty paid minerals and then if he wants to take refund of the royalty amount deducted from his bills then, he is required to submit proof of payment of royalty by the person from whom he has purchased the royalty paid goods within 30 days from the date of completion of work and upon which, the refund can be ordered.

(3.) The writ Petitioner contended that he is a contractor and is not engaged in any mining operations and he is not liable to obtain any short-term permit under the Rules; the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. It is also submitted that the royalty can be demanded only from the person who is engaged in the mining operations, therefore, merely because of the order as passed by the State Government, the Circular dated 6.10.2008 (Annex. 1), no liability for payment of the royalty can be created against the Petitioner and consequentially, no royalty can be demanded and recovered from the bills of the Petitioner by the Respondent Department merely because of said order.