JUDGMENT Satyabrata Sinha, J. The petitioners in this writ application has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief : "(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to give any -effect or further effect to the Government Memo dated 26.9.1995, 27.11.1995 and to act strictly in accordance with law. (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith release all pending bills of the members of the petitioner no. 1 submitted before the respondents in accordance with law without claiming any penalty, royalty, cess in terms of Memos made annexures "B" and "B-I" herein, (c) To issue a declaration declaring the arbitrary imposition of clause for payment and/or royalty at the time of issuance of Tender Forms and/or work order as made in annexure "B-I", declare the same ultra vires Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India as well as s. 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 read with Entry 54, List-I, Art. 246 of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India and Rr. 12 and 19, 30 and 31 of the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules, 1973. (d) Writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to transmit and authenticate the records of this case to this Hon'ble court so that conscionable justice may therein be administered by quashing the illegal claim and condition imposed in annexures "B" and "B-I" pursuant to the Government Order dated 26.9.1995 and for quashing of all order pursuant thereto by the respondents". 2. The members of the petitioner no. 1 are contractors and had undertaken various jobs under the P.W.D. (Roads) and (Irrigation) Department in the district of Midnapore. The sole contention raised in this writ application is that the order dated 26.9.95 issued by the Additional District Magistrate & District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Midnapore, as contained in annexure 'B' to the writ application is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. In terms of the provision of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Rr. 18 and 19 of the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules, 1973 the liability to pay the royalty and any other dues is on the lessee or the holder of the quarry permit. 3. In terms of the provision of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Rr. 18 and 19 of the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules, 1973 the liability to pay the royalty and any other dues is on the lessee or the holder of the quarry permit. The petitioners who are contractors and purchased various minor minerals are not personally liable for payment of royalty or any other dues to the State arising out of or in connection with the minor minerals or the quarry permit granted by the State of West Bengal to the other persons. In this view of the matter, by reason of a D.O. Letter the District Land and Land Reforms Officer cannot create any liability upon the petitioners and/or the members of the petitioner no. 1 wherefor they are not liable under the Statute. If the Statute has imposed the liability only upon the mining lessee and the holder of a quarry permit, the purchaser of minor minerals cannot be saddled with any other liability farless any liability to pay the same to the principal and that too at the rate of 4 times of the royalty and/or cess in default of furnishing the royalty clearance certificate. 4. Rule 18(1) of the W.B. Minor Mineral Rules, 1973 reads thus:- "18. Payment of royalty and rent, etc.-(1)(a). The holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concession granted on or after the commencement of these rules, shall pay royalty in respect of minerals removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee or contractor at the rate prescribed in the Schedule I : Provided that the State Government shall not enhance the rate of royalty for more than once during any period of four years. (b) The lessee shall also pay, for every year yearly dead rent at the rate prescribed in the Schedule II : Provided that the lessee shall be liable to pay either the dead rent or royalty in respect of each mineral, whichever is higher, but not both. (c) The lessee shall also pay for the surface area used by him for the purpose of the mine, surface rent at the rates fixed by the District authority and specified in the lease." 5. (c) The lessee shall also pay for the surface area used by him for the purpose of the mine, surface rent at the rates fixed by the District authority and specified in the lease." 5. A bare reading of the aforementioned provision makes the position absolutely clear that the holder of a Mining lease is only liable to pay royalty in respect of the minerals extracted, removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee or contractor. The petitioners has stated that they are merely purchasers. Even the terms of contract reads thus :- "2. Moorum. The moorum to be used shall be natural moorum (best quality of local variety) as approved by the Engineer-in-charge. The moo rum shall be free from organic or other deleterious constituents. It shall be well graded. The moorum should not contain more than 5% clay (finer passing 75 micron) and should not have P.I. value more than 6. Before taking up the work, the contractor shall submit sample of moorum (5 cft approximately) from the quarry wherefrom he intends to supply, to the Engineer-in-charge, within 7 (seven) days from the date of acceptance of the tender. Engineer-in-charge will set the specimen tested in the Departmental Laboratory. On getting results, the contractor will be allowed to supply. In case unsatisfactory test result the contractor will supply fresh samples from other quarry for testing. The contractor wil1 be allowed to take up the work on written permission of the Engineer-in-charge. The charges on this account will have to be borne by the contractor and so separate payment wil1 however be made in this account". 6. In terms of the aforementioned contract, therefore, the contractor is required to fulfil the conditions laid down therein. The members of the petitioner no. 1 have entered into a contract with the P.W.D (Roads) and Irrigation) Department. Parties to the contract are bound by the terms and conditions thereof. The State therefore cannot direct the petitioner from paying royalty and/or cess payable in terms of the provision of the West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules, 1973 unless they are contractor of the mining lease and/or have extracted minor and minerals under a permit issued by the State from the lands owned by it. 7. Such being not a position here, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. 7. Such being not a position here, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Tarakeshawar Sio Thakur vs. Bar Dass Dey and Co. reported in AIR 1979 SC 1669 and State of Karnataka vs. Sub hash Rukmayya Guttedar reported in AIR 1993 SC 860 . 9. For the reason aforementioned, this writ application is allowed and the impugned orders dated 26.9.95 and 27.11.95 as contained in annexures "B" and "B-I" to the writ application are quashed. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that unless there exists any other reasons, the respondents cannot withhold the payment of the pending bills in terms of the aforementioned letter and/or orders. 10. The writ application is allowed. Writ application allowed.