ORDER : Motilal B. Naik, J. The petitioner claims to be a Class I Contractor. He executes works such as construction of building etc. According to him, he became the lowest bidder in respect of the works relating to construction of main building. West and South wings of SKIT at Srikalahasthi and entered into an agreement with 1st respondent vide Agreement No.1 of 2001 dated 5-10-2001. As per the terms of the contract, the petitioner has to execute the works in accordance with the instructions issued by the first respondent. While executing the work, the petitioner required to use the sand, which is minor mineral, subject to levy of seigniorage fee. It is stated that in order to ensure and rationalize the collection of royalty and seigniorage fee, the 2nd respondent had framed certain rules in G.O.Ms.No.537 Industries and Commerce (MI) Department dated 11-10-2000 and under the aforesaid rules, the person holding a mining lease or quarry lease granted under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, shall obtain registration as a dealer. Under the said Rules some other requirements are also complied with. 2. The grievance of the petitioner now before this Court is that after completion of the work when the bills were presented to the first respondent, the first respondent refused to take cognizance of payment of seigniorage fee and clear the bills. Though the petitioner has placed sufficient certificates issued by the Municipal authorities as well as the sand contractor to the effect that the seignorage fee has already been paid, the first respondent refused to take notice of this. It is in this background the petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate relief. 3. On the basis of submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and a reading of G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 5-3-1999 issued by I and CAD (PWCOD) Department dated 5-3-1999, that under clause 6 (v), the contractors will no longer be required to produce clearance certificate from Mines Department and seigniorage charges would be deducted by the concerned works department from the bills of the contractors for the material used on the works. Counsel also takes us to the special conditions for seigniorage charges, where Clause "C' of the conditions stipulates that the seigniorage and cess charges will be recovered from each running bill and the amount will be kept under suspense account without paying it to the Government as is being done in the case of recovery of F.S.O in the Part Bill. The amount recovered towards seigniorage and cess charges will be released to the contractor in the final bill on production of proof of such charges paid by the contractor to the concerned government department. It further provides that if the contractor fails to submit such proof of payment made by him towards signiorage and cess charges to the government department, the amount kept under the suspense account will be sent to the Government department by way of cheque during the payment of final bill. Counsel states that as provided under the special conditions and also as per the G.O.Ms.No23 dated 5-3-1999, the seigniorage fee has been collected at source by the Municipal authorities and also by the sand contractor and when the certificates issued by the two authorities placed before the 1st respondent when a claim is made for payment of the monies for executing the work, the respondent is not prepared to accept the said certificates. 4. We have also heard the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent. 5. It could be seen that the special conditions for collection of seigniorage charges as provided under clause "C', if examined, it is clear that the seigniorage and cess charges will be recovered from each running bill and the amount will be kept under suspension till further orders. Likewise as per clause 6 (v) of the G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 5-3-1999, no obligation is created on the contractor to get a clearance certificate from Mines department. It is in this background, it is difficult to hold that the first respondent is justified in refusing to take note of the certificates issued by the Municipal authority as well as the sand contractor indicating that seigniorage charge has already been deducted at source. As per the terms and conditions, when the seigniorage charge was deducted at source and the certificates to that effect are produced by the contractor before the authority, the authority has no other go except to accept the same. As per the terms and conditions, when the seigniorage charge was deducted at source and the certificates to that effect are produced by the contractor before the authority, the authority has no other go except to accept the same. If the authority entertains any doubt it shall be open to the authority to verify the correctness of the certificates produced by the contractor. If the respondents are not satisfied with the certificates obtained by the contractor and that they are not genuine, it would be open to the authority to prevent the contractor from drawing the consideration. 6. As discussed by us in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that the respondent is justified in refusing to act upon the certificates produced by the petitioner. As indicated by us, if at all the respondent has any doubt, it can verify the certificates placed by the petitioner which are obtained from the Municipal authority as well as the sand contractor and after satisfying that they are genuine the respondent shall clear the bills produced by the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed.