AWASH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order communicated vide letter No. 973 dt. 16-8-2000 issued by respondent No. 4, the Assistant Mining Officer, Jamshedpur where by he has directed the petitioner to deposit royalty and penalty in respect of the materials purchased from different sources for construction of buildings and apartments.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that he is engaged in promoting and developing the residential and commercial housing complex in the town Jamshedpur. It is stated that at no point of time the petitioner was engaged in any works contract with the Department of either the State Government or the Central Government or any other undertaking for any construction work. The Minor minerals like sand and gravel is used by the petitioner-firm for construction of the buildings are purchased from different sellers in the locality. Those sellers/suppliers are either the lessee, sub-lessee, agent manager or permit holder. The petitoner is neither a permit-holder nor a lessee in respect of Minor Minerals. The petitioner used to purchase these articles from open market. It is, therefore, stated that the petitioner is not a works contractor as defined in Rule 40, sub-rule (10) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1972.

(3.) The respondents case in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner-firm is engaged in construction of building/Apartments and sale the same to the purchasers. The petitioner used bricks, sand, stones, morrum, soil and stone-chips in bulk quantity for construction of building. It is stated that the Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, vide letter dt. 17-12-1997, decided that in the construction of apartment, minor minerals are used without paying the royalty and the Government is to lose a huge amount of royalty, so the transport challan is demanded from the builders only with a view to get it assured as to whether the royalty has been paid for the minor minerals used in construction of building and the contractors may not be allowed to escape from their liability to pay royalty on the materials used by them to the State. The respondents further stated that the petitioner while making construction of building illegally transported the minor minerals and consumed the same for which the State is put in loss and that is why the Department demanded the transport challan only to verify as to whether the materials used in construction, royalty has been paid or not. Lastly it is stated that the State Government has full competence to prescribe a suitable rule or procedure to give effect to the purpose for which such provisions are made.