Honble KOTHARI, J.–This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff - Appellant M/s Dev Ganga Enterprises against the State of Rajasthan and the Mining Department, Udaipur and Rajsamand being aggrieved by rejection of its Civil Suit No.40/2005 filed for mandatory injunction against the defendant - Mining Department by the judgment and order dated 29.3.2006 of learned Additional Dist. Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Udaipur.

(2). That the plaintiff - appellant was granted contract for collection of excess royalty by the Superintending Mining Engineer, Udaipur on 18.7.2003 Ex.1 on record for the period of 2 years upto 31.3.2005 for a sum of Rs.36,52,00,000/- (Thirty Six Crores Fifty Two Lacs). The relevant preamble clauses of the said contract Ex.1 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

"Whereas the contractor has offered a bid for the grant of excess royalty collection contract for Mable (mineral) excavated and removed from the Mining leases situated within Revenue boundary of Tehsil Rajsamand, Kumbhalgarh, Amet and Railmagra of Dist. Rajsamand.

And whereas the said bid has been accepted by the State Government and the contractor had paid Rs.3,05,00000/- for first installment of the contract and has undertaken to pay the remaining amount of Rs.33,47,00,000/- in monthly installments, payable in advance upto tenth day of the month to the State Government with the condition that the working Mining Lease holder shall enjoy the right of mining on payment of royalty to the contractor at the rate specified in the first schedule to the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules ,1986.

And whereas the contractor has further undertaken to pay increased amount of contract money, security and guarantee in proportion to the enhancement in the rate of royalty due to amendment in the first Schedule to the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 for the remaining period of the contract from the date of such enhancement along with the monthly installment payable as above."

Clauses 6 and 11 of the contract relevant for the present controversy involved in the present appeal are also reproduced hereunder:

"(6) The contractor shall abide by the orders and instructions issued by the Government or any officer of the Department in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 regarding royalty collection not herein specified.

(11) The contract shall pay the installment of contract money according to the stipulations laid down in the contract, and if any amount is not paid on due date, it shall be collected as a arrears of land revenue and an interest @12% will be charged irrespective of any other action being taken for cancellation of contract or imposition of penalty under relevant rules.

Clause (1) of Other conditions of Notice Inviting Tender and clause 28.1 of the conditions of tender are also reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

^^vU; izfrcU/k jktLFkku viz/kku [kfut fj;k;r fu;ekoyh] 1986 ,oa Bsdk lafonk o fufonk dh krksZa ds vuqlkj tSlk fd le;-le; ij lakks/ku gks] ds vuqlkj ekU; gksaxsA fufonk dh krsZ] Bsdk lafonk dk gh Hkkx ekuh tkosxhA**

^^jktLFkku viz/kku [kfut fj;k;r fu;ekoyh 1986 ds izko/kkuksa ,oa le;-le; ij jkT; ljdkj ;k l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh tkosxh tks Bsdsnkj dks ekU; gksxhA**

(2). The case of the plaintiff - appellant is that he successfully completed the term of the said contract even for the period of three months for which contract was extended upto 30.6.2005 on which date, the respondents issued no dues certificate in favour of the appellant. However, when the respondent - Department demanded interest of Rs.18,46,899/- from the appellant - plaintiff on account of alleged delay in payment of monthly installments under the said contract, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit challenging the said levy of interest, which however, came to be rejected by the learned trial Court as aforesaid.

(3). The learned counsel for the appellant - plaintiff Mr. Vikas Balia pointed out that as per the terms o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document