Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 887 (MP)

Kamla Construction Co. v. State of M. P.

2014-07-24

A.M.KHANWILKAR, ALOK ARADHE

body2014
JUDGMENT 1.Default pointed out by the Registry is ignored. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The issue raised in this petition is squarely answered in the case of M/s. Chandrama Construction Company vs. M.P. Rajya Krishi Vipran Sangh and others, W.P. No. 1361 of 2009. 3. That judgment has been followed by the Division Bench in several other cases including M/s. Jata Shankar Construction Co. vs. National Highway Authority of India and others, W.P. No. 5234 of 2011, decided on 25th March, 2011 (Annexure P-2). 4. For the same reasons even this petition is disposed of on the same terms with following directions: (1) The petitioner shall either furnish the bills of purchase of minerals from authorised dealer or an affidavit disclosing the source from where petitioner purchased minerals, which were used in the construction work. (2) The respondents authorities if are satisfied with the bills produced by the petitioner may process the bills, but in case of any doubt, respondents authorities may insist the petitioner to file an affidavit in support of its contention in respect of purchase of minerals from the open market by the bills. (3) In case the petitioner is unable to produce the bills for the purchase of the minerals or the royalty receipt in this regard, respondents authorities shall insist the petitioner to file an affidavit pointing out specifically the manner in which minerals were purchased, disclosing particulars of the person from whom the minerals were purchased. On filing of the affidavit, the authorities shall be within their right to verify the aforesaid facts. They can also verify the facts from the record of the Mining Department of the concerned district. (4) On completion of the aforesaid process, the respondents shall clear the bills of the petitioner submitted in connection with the execution of the works contract and the amount of royalty, if any recovered from the bills, shall be released in favour of the petitioner. (5) In case, the authorities are not satisfied with the contention of petitioner or on verification, facts are not found correct then they shall pass a reasoned order in rejecting the contention of petitioner. (5) In case, the authorities are not satisfied with the contention of petitioner or on verification, facts are not found correct then they shall pass a reasoned order in rejecting the contention of petitioner. (6) If the petitioner fails to produce the bills/ affidavit as indicated hereinabove, the petitioner may represent his case to the concerned authority showing his inability to produce the bills or affidavit and it shall be for the State Government or authority to consider the representation and pass a suitable order in that regard within two months from the date of receipt of the representation." Petition disposed of accordingly.