Judgment:
W.P.NO.606/13 18-03-2013 Shri Sudhir K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt.
Advocate for the State.
Seeking a direction to the respondents to make payment of the pending bills of the petitioner without demanding 'No Objection Certificate' from the Mines Department, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
The petitioner was granted a contract work for construction of Likhad Lohara UMr.Bamahanwada Length 11 KM, in a sponsored scheme.
The work has been concluded and not the payment of work done has to be settled.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not settling payment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner should submit royalty receipt or 'No Objection Certificate' from the Mining Department with regard to the royalty consumed by the petitioner for execution of the contract.
Inter alia contending that the payment of royalty and submission of 'No Objection Certificate' is not required in view of the law laid down by the Division of this court in various cases, this writ petition has been filed.
The controveRs.involved in this writ petition has been settled by the series of judgments and on 04-01-12 in W.P.No.21872/11 (Mahendra Pasi Vs.State of M.P.and others).a division Bench of this court has decided the said question.
Earlier the matter has been considered in various cases and after taking note of the judgment rendered in various cases, the direction issued by the Division Bench in the case of Mahendra Pasi(supra) reads as under: “The petitioner shall either furnish the bills or purchase of minerals from authorized dealer or an affidavit disclosing the 2 source from where petitioner purchased minerals, which were used in the construction work.
The respondents authorities if are satisfied with the bills produced by the petitioner may process the bills, but in case of any doubt, respondents authorities may insist the petitioner to file an affidavit in support of its contention in respect of purchase of minerals from the open market by the bills.
In case the petitioner is unable to produce the bills for the purchase of the minerals or the royalty receipt in this regard, respondents authorities shall insist the petitioner to file an affidavit pointing out specifically the manner in which minerals were purchased, disclosing particulars of the person from whom the minerals were purchased.
On filing of the affidavit, the authorities shall be within their right to verify the aforesaid facts.
They can also verify the facts from the record of the Mining Department of the concerned district.
On completion of the aforesaid process, the respondents shall clear the bills of the petitioner submitted in connection with the execution of the works contract and the amount of royalty, if any recovered from the bills, shall be released in favour of the petitioner.
In case, the authorities are not satisfied with the contention of petitioner or on verification, facts are not found correct then they shall pass a reasoned order in rejecting the contention of petitioner.
If the petitioner fails to produce the bills/affidavit as indicated hereinabove, the petitioner may represent his case to the concerned authority showing his inability to produce the bills or affidavit and it shall be for the State Government or authority to consider the representation and pass a suitable order in that 3 regard within two months from the date of receipt of the representation.”
As the question of settlement of bills for the work identical in nature and the question of payment of royalty and 'No Objection Certificate' already stand settled in the light of the directions issued as indicated hereinabove, the respondents are directed to settle the claim of the petitioner also in the light of the directions as already issued as indicated herewinabove .
The present case stands allowed and disposed of in identical terMs.C.C.as per rules.
(S.A.Bobde) (Rajendra Menon) Chief Justice Judge hsp