Point of Law : It is well settled that to maintain certainty, stability and consistency in legal system, courts generally abide by things/issues already decided. Legal principles or rules that have been created by earlier decision of this court should be respected and followed touching similar legal issues and same should guide subsequent decisions.

JUDGMENT :

Heard both Mr. K.N. Choudhury and Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior counsels for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Finance Department, Assam.

2. Common issues involving questions of law out of similar set of fact arises in the present batch of writ petitions and all the learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties have agreed that the matters need to be heard analogously. Accordingly, matters were heard analogously. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted the fact of the each cases, the argument on the question of law was led by Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel and Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior counsel.

3. The issues:

The issues involved in the present batch of writ petitions, can be summarized as follows :

i. Whether the State authority i.e. Public Works Department, Railways etc. can deduct forest royalty from the bills/ Security Deposits of the contractors in absence of any stipulation in the Contract agreement empowering the employer state to do so?

ii. Whether the decision of the Division Bench on the first issue in Musilm Ali Vs. State of Assam reported in 2013 (2) GLT 945 is a binding precedent or the same is in conflict with the decision dated 04.05.2018 of another Division Bench in M/s Durga Krishna stores vs. Union of India (WA 168/2017)?

iii. Whether the State in Forest Department can take action of recovery of forest royalty in all situations taking recourse to the Provisions of the Statutory Notification dated 01.09.2009, issued in exercise of power under Assam Forest Regulation’ 1891?

iv. Whether the contractors executing works for Government & its Department are bound to procure minor mineral/ forest produce only through permit granted under Rule 5 of the MMC Rules, 2013?

4. The background:

i. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions executed works contract under the State authority like Public Works Department, Railway etc. and in most of the cases recovery against forest royalty are sought to be made from their pending bills/security deposit/ earnest money etc. In some of the cases such recovery has already been made.

ii. The writ petitioners in all these writ petitions have projected that by virtue of the decision of the Division Bench in Muslim Ali (supra), the State authorities are not within their jurisdiction and competence to recover such forest royalty from the pending bills of the petitioners.

iii. Their further case is that the dicta in Muslim Ali (supra) has been followed consistently by all the co-ordinate benches such as, in M/s Trinayan Associates Vs. State of Assam reported in (2017) 2 GLT 859 and in writ petitions like Engineers and Engineers Vs. State of Assam (WP(C) 1066/2015), Rana Construction and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Assam (WP(C) 872/2017), etc. Therefore the same is a binding precedent so far the same relates to the present writ petitions.

iv. Thus the learned counsels for the petitioners contend that the law is well settled in this regard and they are entitled for a similar order as decided by the Division Bench in Muslim Ali (supra) and by a Co-ordinate Bench in M/s Trinanayan Associates (supra).

5. Submissions of Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General:

Representing the Forest Department Mr. Goswami, learned counsel strenuously argues:

i. The law laid down in Muslim Ali (supra) is not a correct proposition of law as the same has been delivered without dealing with the provision of MMDR Act.1957, MMC Rules’2013 and Notification dated 01.09.2009 issued under Assam Forest Regulation, 1891.

ii. The Division Bench judgement in Durga Krishna Stores (supra) took a contrary view as that of the view taken in Muslim Ali and therefore, the matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench.

iii. In Muslim Ali (supra), it was not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Division Bench, the existence of the Notification dated 01.09.2009 issued by the Gover