ORDER 1. The appellant is a developer and promoter of the house-buildings and is engaged in constructing residential and commercial housing complex. In exercise of power under Rule 40 of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, the Assistant Mining Officer, Jamshedpur, vide letter dated 16.8.2000, directed the appellant to produce necessary papers, including, transportation challan, failing which total amount of royalty and penalty calculated in the said letter would be realised by certificate proceeding. 2. Against the said order, appellant moved this Court in CWJC No. 3364 of 2000 (R). The respondents filed counter affidavit stating, inter alia, therein that the appellant while making construction of building illegally transported the minor minerals and consumed the same for which the State was put in loss and therefore, the respondent demanded the transport challans only to verify as to whether the materials used in the constructions, royalty has been paid or not. 4. The writ application was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 3.1.2002. The order of the respondent No. 4, contained in Memo No. 973, dated 16.8.2000, relating to demand of royalty was quashed and the appellant was directed to satisfy the authorities by production of challans and other documents that they used or shall use the minor mineral after purchasing the same from the persons authorised under law and royalty in respect of such minerals was paid to the Government. Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. Sub-rule 10 of Rule 40 authorise the Government to ask the works contractor to send photocopy in Form M" of the rules in respect of purchase of those materials for verification. The explanation attached to the said Rule defined works contractor an individual, a firm, a company, an association or body of the individuals, who under an agreement, with the Works Department, work for the said department. 5. As such the authority of the department under Rule 40(10) to ask for aforesaid information was confined to the works contractors. 6. In this regard a reference may be made to a Division Bench decision in Monghyr Construction Co. and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., 1992 (1) PLJR 44, wherein it was held that such right to ask for information was not violative of any principle of law. 6. In this regard a reference may be made to a Division Bench decision in Monghyr Construction Co. and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., 1992 (1) PLJR 44, wherein it was held that such right to ask for information was not violative of any principle of law. If there was conflict between private interest and interest of society or State, the interest of private individual must give way to the social or public interest. The realization of royalty and cess is a statutory right of the State. For the fulfillment of that purpose it can certainly call upon all citizens to furnish the necessary information. It is, therefore, well within the power of the State to seek relevant information although it may cause some strain, certainly not unbearable strain, to fulfill that object. In the said case such information was asked from the works contractor and they had challenged the right of State in this regard. The Words all Citizen as well as the Private individual used in the aforesaid observation were made in respect of the works contractor only, to whom Rule 40(10) was applicable. 7. In such circumstance we are of the view that those who are other than the works contractors are not liable to give information under Rule 40(10) of the rules to the State Government. At this Juncture it is relevant to mention that if the officials of the State Government in connection with certain enquiry relating to evasion of royalty is required to ask any information regarding purchase of a particular minor mineral from the individual or private contractors they are liable to give such information. 8. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is disposed of.