The main legal point established in the judgment is that the deduction of Forest Royalty from the bills of the Petitioner was unauthorized as there was no contractual provision mandating the procurement of a mining permit for the use of minor minerals.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction to refund the amount of Rs.22,50,799/- which was deducted from the bills of the Petitioner towards the Forest Royalty and Rs.2,00,000/- which is withheld from the 3rd R.A. Bill of the Petitioner thereby seeking a direction that the total entitlement of the Petitioner which is Rs.24,50,799/- should be directed to be paid to the Petitioner.

2. The facts involved in the instant case are that the Petitioner herein is a Class-I(A) Contractor under the Assam Public Works Department. The Respondent No.3 who is the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (Border Roads) issued a notice dated 18.01.2019 thereby initiating a tender process for the work of construction of road from L 138 Paschim Chaysimana to Baladmari via Rahmania MEM including CD works and routine maintenance for 5 years package member AS-01-211. The estimated cost of the work was Rs.16,47,00,000.16/- and the completion period was 12 months. The Petitioner submitted his bid along with others and the Respondent No.3 vide its Letter of Acceptance bearing No.CE/Commn/PMGSY/02/2017-18/157 dated 08.03.2019 informed the Petitioner that his tender for the above work had been accepted by the employer for the contract price of Rs.17,24,37,355/- and the Petitioner was directed to furnish the performance security for an amount of Rs.43,10,934/- within 10 days of the receipt of the Letter of Acceptance. Accordingly, the Petitioner furnished his performance security and signed the contract agreement with the Respondent No.3. Thereupon, the formal work order dated 13.06.2019 was issued thereby instructing the Petitioner to proceed with the execution of the said work in accordance with the contract documents.

3. It is the further case of the Petitioner that during execution of the said work, the authorities have prepared running account bills in the name of the Petitioner from time to time and released the same. However, in respect to four running account bills, the Respondent Authorities had deducted a huge amount towards Forest Royalty including Income Tax and Monopoly on Forest Royalty and altogether an amount of Rs.22,50,799/- was deducted towards Forest Royalty. The details of such deduction corresponding with the Running Account Bills were Rs.6,30,112/-, Rs.11,71,302/-, Rs.1,84,950/- and Rs.2,64,435/- thereby totaling to Rs.22,50,799/-. Further to that, it is also the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent Authorities while preparing and passing 3rd R.A. Bill on 21.08.2006 in respect to the work in question withheld an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- without any justifiable reason. It is under such circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the deduction of Rs.22,50,799/- on account of Forest Royalty and withholding of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the 3rd R.A. Bill.

4. Upon filing of the instant writ petition, this Court vide an order dated 14.09.2022 issued notice and in the interim directed that no coercive action shall be initiated against the Petitioner for recovery of the Forest Royalty till the returnable date. The records reveals that in spite of the notice being issued, none of the Respondents have chosen to file any reply.

5. I have heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner as well as Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department and Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the PWD.

6. Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the instant case is settled by a Division Bench Judgment as well as also by a judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The learned Senior counsel has referred to the judgment of the Division Bench dated 08.11.2012 in the case of State of Assam and Others Vs. Muslim Ali reported in 2013 (2) GLR 505 as well as the judgment dated 30.06.2022 of the Co