Runway Infrastructure Thr vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr

31/03/2016

N.K. Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mradul Gahoi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Arvind Dudhawat, Additional Advocate General with Shri Praveen Newaskar, Government Advocate for respondents/State.

Heard.

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents to finalize the bills of the petitioner without insisting for production of royalty clearance certificate.

Facts giving rise for filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was awarded the contract for construction of road in District Ashoknagar. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner does not hold any quarry lease and the petitioner has purchased the minor minerals used in construction of the road from open market, however, the respondents are insisting for submission of royalty clearance certificate.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 02/09/2014 passed in W.P. No.5229/2014 (M/s Singh & Singh Constructions Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.).

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate

General has placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Prabha Exim Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Kshitij Garg Vs. Public Works Department reported in AIR 2015 MP 90 and in the order dated 15/03/2016 passed in W.P. No.907/2016 (M/s. Sonu Enterprises Vs. State of M.P. & Others) and has invited attention of this Court to amendment made in Rule 68(1) of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (for short Rules, 1996) w.e.f. 23/03/2013.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to Rule 4 of the Rules, 1996 and submitted that petitioner since has not been granted any permission for extraction of the minor minerals, therefore, Rule 68(1) of the Rule, 1996 shall have no application to the case of the petitioner.

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

The amendment, which was incorporated in the Statute Book w.e.f. 23/03/2013, which is relevant for the purpose of controversy involved in this writ petition reads as under:-

"(1) In the heading for the words " permission for removal of minor minerals for Central and State Governments and their undertakings" the words "permission for removal of minor minerals" shall be substituted.

(2) After sub rule (1), the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:

"Provided that information of in-principle sanction of permit shall be given to the applicant. Applicant shall furnish permission from the District level environment committee, within one month maximum, from the date of receipt of such information:

Provided further that if in-principle sanction is for five hectare or more area, then applicant from the date of receipt of such information, shall submit environment permission obtained under notification dated 14/09/2006 of Ministry of Environment and Forest within a period of six months. After completion of all formalities sanctioning authority shall issue sanction order of quarry permit. Sanctioning authority may permit to enhance the time period, if all formalities are not completed in prescribed time period, on the basis of satisfactory reasons:

Provided also that quarry permit holder/contractor engaged in construction work shall obtain certificate of no mining dues to ensure payment of royalty for the mineral used in construction work, for the mineral excavated from quarry permit area or used by purchasing from open market. Certificate of no mining dues shall be issued by Mining officer/officer in charge mining section, after verification of documents submitted by contractor/quarry permit holder engaged in construction work."

From perusal of the aforesaid Rules, it is evident that

a contractor has to approach the competent authority under Rule 68 of Rules, 1996 even for removal and transportation of the minor minerals. For the reasons assigned by the Division Bench of the Court in case of Prabha Exin (supra) and M/s Sonu Enterprises (supra), we are not inclined to take a different view and concur with the reasonings assigned by the Division Benches of this Court in the aforesaid decisions.

Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Authority as provided in third proviso to Rule 68 of Rules, 1996.

C.C. as per rules.

Arun* Judge Judge

(Alok Aradhe) (Rohit Arya)