HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma. JJ. Writ Petition (Cl No.2025/2011 Petitioner Habco Buildcon (INDIA) Private Limited, Bhullar Complex, Darri Road, Korba, Chhattisgarh Through: their authorized Director: Jaswinder Singh Bhullar S/o. Shri Harbant Singh Bhullar, aged about 46 years, R/o. Darri Road, Korba, Tahsil & Distrfct: Korba, Chhattisgarh. Versys Respondents Municipal Corporation Korba, Chhattisgarh Through: their Municipal Commissioner, Saket Bhawan, ITI Chowk, Rampur, Korba, Tahsil & District Korba, Chhattisgarh State of Chhattisgarh. Through: Their Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh Wrti Petition Under Article 226 of the Constltution of India Present: Shri Raj Kamal Singh, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri BD Guru, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (19th August, 2011.) The followina order ofthe Courtwas passed bv Sunll Kumar Slnha. J. Heard. 2. The petitioner has executed various works under different ^ agreements entered into between the petitioner and respondent Tslo.1. On account of certain reasons, by order dated 9.2.2011 111 ^3:;fi S^SiSSSfK' .•.IKOWWWSIW •u9Lun)iq aqi jo s||iq leuiDuo pue souejeeio A)|eAoj jo uoipnpojd jeye pied eq iieys ij ys\Q punoj6 94} uo pieqqiiM useq sey jeuoitited 34} p stunoiue BUIMO||OI 'yeqo pres 941 01 Cuipjooov • \, log'g's I. uo yeyo psireiep e p9|y sei| I.'ON tuepuod^J 'I.I.QZ'Z'ZI ps»epjepjo piessjo^e 94} io eousnbssuoo u| 'ioaje^ siieiep 6UIM6 S}OBJ}UOO tusjs^ip jspun jsuo!)!ted syi 0} pied eq 01 si Buipuetsino lunoiue yoniu MOL) 'uojtejodjoo 34t 01 Buipjoooe 'iey} BUIMOIJS UABPUJE leuoiijppe 9|U 01 siuii yoqs JQI psAejd [.•ON luepuodssj joi lesunoo psujeei 'uoissiujqns si^i UQ 'punj jo Ationed 0} snp SPBLU Buisq lou aje aaies 341 )nq 'jeuoiiitsd 941 01 speiu eq 01 SJB stusuAed ureyso 164} paui.LUpe SGM u 'qoiqM ui 'py uoiteiujoiui 0} iqBiy jspun I.-ON tuepuodsej Aq jeuoiijtsd 94} 0} peuiuuqns uoiieiujoju! ue si qoi^M '^/d-sjnxeuuv 01 pejje^sj os|8 SH 'psssejd Buisq si sioejiuoo tueje^ip japun jeuojiitsd sy) o^ lueiuAed 6uipue}S}no 0} 6u!ie|aj jai|9j 'e'! 'S'ON ^sijej 'euisq eiujt syi jo^ ys^ peffluiqns jaqyn^ SH •ejnin^ ui jspun ejeiji U9>|ei uoipe lusnbssqns Aue jo^ pue i./d-sjnxsuuv p 6uiqsenb JQJ uoitiied IIJM siy 01 ii)6y 514 sd39>| jeuoiijtsd sqi pue ^ON ^siiaJ Joj uoiiiisd siyi 6uiss9jd pu st 94 ieqt pBfflLuqns jsuoiued syi jo^ issunoo p9LUB9| 'l.j.oZ'ZZl UQ •e ,/peiUBj6 eq ssB9|d ABLU }y siuasp pnoo 9|q,uo|-| siqi qoiyM ^eiisj jsyto Aue '? isoo 341 eoi, •Auediuoo jsuojtited 34} 0} siusiuAed 6u!puetsino 841 SSB9|9J 0} S)U9pUOdS3J QIQ BujlOSJIp ui i^Bnoue pui>| eq ases|d Aeuj ijnoo siq,uoH 941 Z'Ol •((./d-sjnxeuuv -e-!) peuSndLui jspjo 941 spise Suines uoiiosjip jo }JJM eiqeijns e 6uinss! ui ySnous pui>| sq ese3|d ABLU ynoo 8|q,uo|-| 941 (.-oi,, -:(S) ^9!|3J 6UIMO||OJ 34} JO^ U0!t!}9d IjJM S141 p9jy J9UB9J941 jauoitiisd aqi •p9isi|>|OB|q sem jauoiuisd 941 '(i./d-sjnxuuv) IT/£TOZ'ON(0)-<rA W.P.(C)No.2025/ll 4. Shri Singh, learned counset for the petitioner submits that in various decisions of M.P. High Court, including decision of Keti Construction Limited Vs. State of M.P. and others 2007 (3) M.P.H.T. 433 (DB), it has been held that receipts of payment of royaity of minor minerals used in construction activities for various departments of State Government or its authorities cannot be called upon to be produced by the contractor after execution of the work. The High Court has further held that condition to produce NOC from the Collector regarding payment of royalty is impracticable and inconsistent to the statutory provisions. 5. In the present case, there is no dispute that certain amount(s) have been withheld by respondent No.1 on the ground that it shall be released after the production of royalty clearance and original bill of bitumen. These conditions do not appear to be reasonable for withholding the amount of the contractor, which is admittedly outstanding against respondent No.1. 6. In the above Tacts and circumstances of the case, we disposed of this petition at this stage, with direction to the petitioner to fi!e & representation to the respondents for making payment of tffiSW Sl. No. Agreement No. & Date Outstanding amount. 01. 5/210, 3-12-07 Rs.2,19,462/- 02. 5/211, 3-12-07 Rs. 2,41,070/- 03. 5/286, 31-7-08 Rs. 2,64,060/- 04. 5/202, 6-8-07 Rs. 2,94,390/- W.P.(C)No.2025/ll outstanding amount(s) of the above four agreements. The said representation shall be considered and disposed of by the respondents at the earliest in light of the above observations and also in light ofjudgment passed by the Division Bench of M.P. High Court (supra). 7. Accordingly, the petition is finally disposed of in the above terms. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court once again if the grievances of the petitioner are not redressed, even after filing of the representation. Further liberty is also reserved to the petitioner in relation to relief No.1, in terms of the prayer in order dated 12.7.201 1 passed by this Court. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- RADHE SHYAM SHARMA Judge Bini