HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASRJR W. P. (S)No.1944of2007 Petitioner Govind Ram Agrawal, Railway Contractor, S/o Late Sri Navat Kishore fiQfawal, ^ed about 60 years, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhatb'sgarft. Through The Secretary, Khanij Sadhan Departenent, Mantralaya Raipur 2. The Coffector, Janjgir Champa 3. Union of India, Throi^h the General Manager, South East Cenira) Raihvay, Bilaspur(CG) SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnjhobi, J Shri Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Advocate for the p^ifioner. Shri UU<arsh yerma, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Smt. B. MaiUiy, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER (Passed on this 2nd day (rf April, 2007) 1. The p^tioner, who is a raihray confractor, engaged in Uie business of supply, delivery, stacklng and spreading of ballast, has fiied this petffion challenging fts letters dated 18.8.2006 (Annexure P/1), 7.10.200e (Annsxure P/2). issued by the AcUffional Collector, Janjgir Champa and tte circuiar dated 18.102001 (Annexure P/3) issued by the State of &t)hattiss,)arh. 2. On perusal of fte papers, afvended to the petffion, it is apparent that vide Circular dated 18.10.2001 (Anne<ure P^3) the State of Chhattsgarh directsd ths concemed deparftnents, dealii^i witti the matters of mines and minerals to see that payment is made te the contractors by all the conremed departments, ater oblaining Ro^lty Clearance Certificate, to be issued by the Collectori concemed, in all matters where construction work is ckxie, using major minerafs. 3. Vide letter dated 18.9.20( the AddMional Coltector directed the pstitioner to submit transit pass, issued to him towaKte the supply <rf ballast so ftat royaity cisarsnce cerfi'ficate is fssued to the S.E.C. Raihway. It is apparent ttiat when even after many remincters, ttie petitioner has failed to produce the required documents. the Additional Coliector, Janjgir Champa. in reference to the letter dated 28.9.2006 of the S.E.C. Raihray, directed the Senror Divisfona! Engineer, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur to take iniSatives for recovefy of Rs. 8,28,511.20 towards exca^tion and supply of 12,553.20 cubic meter ballast from the Akaltara mines. 4. Learned counsei for the peffioner has miserably failed to state as to whefcher the petifionsr has produced any of the documents, as required by the Additional Cotlector, Janjgir Champa in his letter dsted 18.9.2(X)S, or the petitioner has submitted reply to ttie letter ttat he is not in possession of such documents. 5. tn view of the above, there is no merit in this petjtion, which dessn/es to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. 6. Accordinsly, the petitton is dismissed. However, the peffioner is at iiberfry to approach fte rsspondent No.2 and fumish his repiy and documente, if any. :—;~g(V- ^SatishK.Agniliotri Thakur • - Judge - i »' 'S^sSSStlt^v4^:l*3^S