The Government has the power to seek relevant information although it may cause some strain-certainly not unbearable strain -to fulfil that object.

Krishna Ballabh Sinha, J.-In this batch of nine writ applications the petitioners have challenged constitutionality of the Government Circular bearing Memo No. 2939/2192 dated the 26th March, 1987, sent to all the District Mining Officers of the State of Bihar. In all the applications prayer has been made for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forebear and desist from enforcing the provisions of the said Circular of the Government, as contained in Annexure-3 to C.W.J.C. No. 702 of 1988.

2. The case of all the petitioners is almost identical. The questions for determination are the same in all the writ petitions. The counter affidavits filed ill two of the petitions were sought to be used in all the cases and so this judgment will govern all the petitions.

3. Undisputedly, all the petitioners are contractors and they have been doing works of contract allotted by different departments of the Government of Bihar and some of them by the Union of India also. It is the common case of the petitioners that they submitted their bills for the work done by them. The concerned departments, while making payment, deducted some amount from their bills as royalty and cess for the minor minerals used by them in course of execution of their respective work. In their applications, the petitioners have given the details of their bills submitted on different dates as also the amount deducted as royalty and cess from the amount payable to them. The stand of the petitioners is that there is no provision in the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 (herein-after referred to as 'the Mineral Rules) or under any other law according to which they are liable to pay royalty and cess on minor minerals used by them in execution of contract work. They approached the respondents and requested them not to make any deduction from their bills on account of royalty and cess but on one plea or the other their request was not heeded to. In course of execution of work of contract, the petitioners stored bricks, stone-chips, stone-meta is and sand etc. after purchasing from the dealers. So they are only consumer of minor minerals and have been purchasing the materials for execution of work of contract from the open market. They are neither lessees of any mine nor holders of quarrying permit and thus they are not liable to pay royalty and cess. In pursuance of Circular, as contained in Annexure-3, respondents have been making deductions of royalty and cess from the amount payable to them on the basis of bills submitted by them

4. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent no. In C.W.J.C. No. 92/88 and No. 195/88 stating therein that the aforesaid Circular dated 13.10.87 (Annex.ure-3 in C.W.J.C. No. 195/88) was issued in accordance with law and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The said Circular was only regulatory in nature and it was issued to prevent evasion of payment of royalty and cess by the lessees. It was found that the lessees in collusion with the con tractors were evading payment of royalty and cess and thereby the State was put to substantial loss of revenue. At times, it was found that the contractors purchased minor minerals from the agencies who did not possess any valid lease or permit under the Minerals Rules. After giving anxious thought to this problem, the said Circular (Annexure-3) was issued making provisions for the 'bonafide contractors to disclose the source of purchase so that the royalty and cess could ultimately be realised from the lessee from whom such contractor purchased the materials used in execution of the work.

5. It is worthwhile to mention at the outset that in CWJC No. 36/88, 194/88, 195/88 and 197/88 the petitioners have challenged the validity of Circular No. C-1055/79-2931 dated 26-5-80 issued by respondent no. 1. It is manifest from Circular dated 13-10-87 (Annexure 3 of C. W. J. C. No. 702/88) that in view of the judgment of this Court, the said Circular was withdrawn and thus,