Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned the veracity of the Government Order dated 15th October 2015 and its competence to demand royalty on minor minerals and cost of minor minerals to the extent of five times the royalty which the contractors supply to the Government Department and public undertakings pursuant to the contract entered between the parties. For facility, the facts of Writ-C No. 11171 of 2016 is being taken into consideration.

2. The petitioner is a registered contractor in Category-D with the Public Works Department (PWD). The petitioner was awarded a contract for reconstruction of a road from Shiv Marg to Kali Theeka, Mau. A contract was executed in this regard. For execution of the work, the petitioner purchased ballast/grits, sand, moram, etc. from stone crushers and from other sources.

3. The petitioner contends that the State of U.P. was deducting royalty on the raw-material used by the contractors, who failed to produce form MM-11 but, pursuant to the Government Order dated 15th October 2015, in addition to the royalty to be charged for non-production of Form-MM-11, the Government is now realising the cost of material to the extent of five times the royalty. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the charging of royalty and cost of the material upto five times the royalty, have filed the present writ petitions.

4. The contention of the petitioner in this regard is, that the royalty is payable by the holder of the mining lease as per the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1957) read with Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1963). The petitioner contends that he is neither a holder of the mining lease nor carrying any mining operation and therefore, the realisation of royalty on purchase of minor minerals is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Similarly the Government Order charging cost of the mineral equivalent to five times the royalty was also illegal.

5. In support of their submissions, the petitioners have relied upon the decision in M.P. Contractors Sangh Indore and others v. State of M.P. and others, AIR 1987 MP 74; Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharad Kumar Jayanti Kumar Pasawalla and others, AIR 1992 SC 2038; Virendra Giri v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(1) ADJ 307 (DB); M/s. Om Contractors v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(1) ADJ 548 (DB) and the decision dated 14th March, 2016 of the Division Bench of this Court in Abhimanyu Singh and 12 others v. State of U.P. and 9 others.

6. On the other hand, the respondents have submitted that earlier a Government Order dated 2nd February 2001 was issued directing the Principal Secretaries and the District Magistrate to ensure that minor minerals are supplied to the Government Departments and public undertakings for use in construction works or are transported only after payment of royalty and that the suppliers should ensure evidence of the payment of royalty, failing which, the amount of royalty would be deducted from their bills.

7. The respondents contended that this imposition was made in order to ensure that contractors purchased minor minerals from authorized sources and to ensure that royalty was paid. The respondents submitted that in spite of the Government Order, the contractors were purchasing the minor minerals from unauthorized sources and were getting the royalty deducted from their bills, which has only increased the sale of illegal minor minerals. Consequently, in order to curb this menace, the Government Order dated 15.10.2015 was issued to ensure that the registered contractors, who were awarded a Government contract, should purchase minor minerals from authorized sources, failing which, they would not only pay the amount of royalty but would also pay the cost of the material, which would be equivalent to five times the royalty. It was contended that the Gove