1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1309/2009. (M/s Deep Jyoti Company Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) DATE OF ORDER : March 04, 2009. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ____________________________________ Mr. S.L. Jain for the petitioner. BY THE COURT : The petitioner, who is A-Class contractor and has been awarded contract for construction of link road by respondent No.2, is challenging validity of notification dated 06.10.2008 issued by the Mining Department, whereby, certain conditions have been imposed by the Mining Department for collection of royalty. As per the said notification, the contractor is required to take short term permit (STP) of mine for the purpose of raw material for construction of the road. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been awarded contract after issuance of the notification by the Mining Department dated 06.10.2008. He contends that the condition imposed in the said notification for obtaining STP and submitting of affidavit and ravanna-book are 2 wholly unreasonable and arbitrary because the material used for the construction work can be purchased by the petitioner after payment of royalty from the market, therefore, such condition is arbitrary and illegal; and, so also, the order issued by the Mining Department to comply with the said instruction by respondent No.2 is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board is independent department and no interference of the Mining Department can be made and, so also, no condition can be imposed by the Mining Department for allotment of construction work by respondent No.2 Marketing Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court towards judgment reported in (2001) 3 WLN 92 and submitted that as per the notification dated 06.10.2008 the petitioner will require to deposit royalty twice, therefore, in view of the judgment cited above the said notification deserves to be quashed. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, the facts of the case cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are totally different. Here, in this case, reasonable restriction has been imposed by the Mining Department that in the event of purchasing raw material for construction of road and building the material is required to be purchased after payment of royalty and, for that purpose, it is provided that contractors are required to take STP from the 3 Mining Department. In my opinion, such condition imposed by the State Government is in public interest and if the petitioner wants to pursue the work of construction as A-Class contractor, then, he cannot be permitted to take work upon his own terms and conditions. The contractor is required to follow the terms and conditions prescribed by the State Government. Therefore, there is no ground made out for interference in the matter of adjudicating legality of the notification dated 06.10.2009. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.