Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Special Bench)
Hemant Gupta, C.J., H.P. Singh, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Vijay Kumar Shukla and Subodh Abhyankar, JJ.
Pankaj Kumar Rai (M/s) v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.7798 of 2017 with Writ Petition No.11608 of 2017 (Jabalpur); Decided on 12.10.2017.
¼1½ xks.k [kfut fu;e] 1996 ¼e-ç-½ & fu- 68¼1½ r`rh; ijarqd] 2 ¼lksyg&[k½] 2¼rsbZl½] 4] 6] 7] 18 rFkk 36 & ^^[knku vuqKki=**] ^^O;kolkf;d [knku**] ^^[knku iêk** rFkk ^^Bsdsnkj** & ls vfHkizsr&[knku vuqKki= O;kolkf;d [knku ;k [knku iês ls lqfHkUu gS & [knku vuqKki= lafonk dh fofufnZ"V dkykof/k ds fy, xkS.k [kfut fudkyus ds fy, gS & Bsdsnkj og O;fä gS tks O;kolkf;d [knku /kkj.k djrk gSA
[knku iêk vkcaVu }kjk iznku fd;k tkrk gS tcfd O;kolkf;d [knku uhykeh }kjk vkcafVr dh tkrh gS tcfd [knku vuqKki= fu;e 68 ds r`rh; ijarqd ds fuca/kuksa ds vuqlkj fofufnZ"V lafonk ds iz;kstuksa gsrq fofufnZ"V dkykof/k ds fy, iznku fd;k tkrk gSA fu;eksa ds fu;e 2¼lksyg&[k½ ds v/khu ifjHkkf"kr ^^Bsdsnkj** og O;fDr gS tks O;kolkf;d [knku /kkj.k djrk gSA fu;e 68 dk r`rh; ijarqd ,sls Bsdsnkj dks ykxw ugha gksrk ftls O;kolkf;d [knku nh xbZ gS cfYd ,sls Bsdsnkj dks ykxw gksrk gS ftls fuekZ.k dk;Z esa yxk;k x;k gSA fu;e 2 esa nh xbZ ifjHkk"kk gS fd ^^tc rd fd lanHkZ ls vU;Fkk visf{kr u gksA** r`rh; ijarqd esa vfHkO;fä ^^Bsdsnkj** ds i'pkr~ vfHkO;fä ^^fuekZ.k dk;Z esa yxk;k x;k** vkrh gS blfy, r`rh; ijarqd dk Bsdsnkj ,slk Bsdsnkj ugha gS ftls O;kolkf;d [knku nh xbZ gS cfYd dsanzh; ;k jkT; ljdkj ds fuekZ.k dk;Z esa yxk;k x;k Bsdsnkj gSA
iw.kZ U;k;ihB us fu;e 2 ds [kaM ¼lksyg&[k½ ds v/khu ^^Bsdsnkj** dh ifjHkk"kk dk ijh{k.k dj vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd [kqys cktkj ls xkS.k [kfut Ø; djus ds fy, fdlh foHkkx vkSj miØe ds dk;Z eas yxk, x, Bsdsnkj mDr ifjHkk"kk ls vkPNkfnr ugha gSaA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % gekjk fu"d"kZ gS fd iw.kZ U;k;ihB }kjk fudkys x, fu"d"kksZa dk dkuwuh mica/k lkeatL; ugha gS ftlesa O;kolkf;d [knku ;k [knku iêk vkSj [knku vuqKki= ij vyx & vyx fopkj fd;k x;k gS r`rh; ijarqd [knku iês ds vkcaVu vksj O;kolkf;d [knku dh uhykeh ds izfrdwy fu;e 4 ds v/khu ;Fkk micaf/kr [knku vuqKki= /kkjd ds ckjs esa gS iw.kZ U;k;ihB us QykSnh daLVªD'ku ¼iwoksZä½ esa bu ifjHkk"kkvksa dk leqfpr :i ls ijh{k.k ugha fd;k gSA 2016¼2½ jk-fu- 54¼mPp U;k- iw.kZ U;k;ihB % 2016¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 704 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ myVk x;kA
¼2½ fof/k dk fuoZpu & e-iz- xkS.k [kfut fu;e] 1996 & fu;e 68¼1½ r`rh; ijarqd] 4] 6 rFkk 7 & dkuwuh fuoZpu dk fl)kar & dkuwu esa dksbZ 'kCn vfrfjä ugha & fof/k ds leLr vica/kksa dk lkeatL;iw.kZ vFkkZUo;u djrs gq, dkuwu dks laiw.kZrk esa i<+k tkuk gksrk gS & ftlls dksbZ Hkh mica/k vuko';d ugha gks & lkeatL;iw.kZ vFkkZUos;u dh n`f"V ls & r`rh; ijarqd fu;e 4 ,oa 68¼1½ dk vfrfjä f'kfFkyhdj.k gS & r`rh; ijarqd dks fdlh Hkh izdkj voS/k ugha dgk tk ldrkA 2016¼2½ jk-fu- 54 ¼mPp U;k- iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ % 2016¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 704 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ myVk x;kA ¼2000½2 ,l lh lh 451 ls folEerA ¼1976½1 ,l lh lh 129] ¼1996½4 ,l lh lh 596] , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 582] ¼2004½6 ,l lh lh 672 ¼1994½2 ,l lh lh 678 rFkk ¼2014½1 ,l lh lh 258 fufnZ"VA¼iSjk 17 ls 24
¼3½ xkS.k [kfut fu;e] 1996 ¼e-ç-½ & fu-68¼1½ r`rh; ijarqd] 4] 6 rFkk 7 & mica/kksa dh O;kfIr rFkk oS/krk & Bsdsnkj }kjk [kqys cktkj ls xkS.k [kfut Ø; fd;k x;k & og ljdkjh dk;Z esa iz;qä & D;k ^^[kuu ns; ugha** izek.ki= vfHkizkIr djuk visf{kr gS & ijarqd nks fLFkfr;ksa ds laca/k esa & jks;YVh dk vfxze lank; rFkk [kuu ns; ugha gksus dk izek.ki= izkIr djuk & dkuwu dh ;kstuk vkSj fu;eksa dk iz;kstu & voS/k mR[kuu ugha gksuk pkfg, & xkS.k [kfut jkT; esa fufgr & fu.kZ; dk;Z eas yxs Bsdsnkj ls ;g lkfcr djuk visf{kr gS fd [kfut dh jkS;YVh lanÙk gS & jkT;] [kuu ns; ugha gksus ds izek.ki= dk vkxzg djrk gS rks & mls voS/k ugha dgk tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 14
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % oLrqr%] r`rh; ijarqd nks fLFkfr;ksa ds ckjs esa gS] vFkkZr ¼1½ [knku vuqKki= /kkjd }kjk xkS.k [kfut dk mR[kuu] ftlls vfxze jkS;YVh dk lank; visf{kr gS vkSj ¼2½ fuekZ.k dk;Z esa yxk;k x;k Bsdsnkj ftlls fuekZ.k dk;Z esa iz;qä xkS.k [kfut dh jkS;YVh dk lank; lqfuf'pr djus ds fy, [kuu ns; ugha gksuk Fkk izek.ki= vfHkizkIr djuk visf{kr gSA
okLro esa ;kphx.k ds dkmUlsy }kjk fd;k x;k rdZ fd ijarqd eq[; lkjoku mica/k dk foLrkj gS] iw.kZr% vuqfpr gSA
bl izdkj] fu;e 68 dh Li"V Hkk"kk dkuwu dh ;kstuk vkSj fu;eksa ds iz;kstu ls] fd [kfutksa dk voS/k mR[kuu ugha gksuk pkfg, ,oa leLr [kfut jkS;YVh&lanÙk gksuk pkfg,] blfy,] gekjk fu"d"kZ gS fd r`rh; ijarqd u voS/k gS vkSj u fu;e 68 ds ijarqd ;k fu;eksa ds vU; fdlh mica/k dh O;kfIr dk foLrkj gh djrk gSA
xkS.k [kfut jkT; eas fufgr gS ,oa [knku iêk ;k O;kolkf;d [knku ;k vuqKki= [knku ds vykok [kfut mR[kuu Fkk iw.kZr% izfr"ks/k gS] blfy,] fuekZ.k dk;Z esa yxk, x, Bsdsnkj ls ;g lkfcr djuk visf{kr gS fd [kfut jkW;YVh&lanÙk gS! ,slh 'krZ ds fy,] ;fn jkT; ljdkj }kjk [kuu ns; ugha gksus ds izek.ki= ds fy, vkxzg fd;k tkrk gS rks mls voS/k ugha dgk tk ldrk D;ksafd og ;g lqfuf'pr djus ds fy, gS fd fuekZ.k xfrfof/k esa iz;qä leLr xkS.k [kfut jkS;YVh lkexzh lekIr gSA 2016¼2½ jk-fu- 54 ¼mPp U;k- iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ % 2016¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 704 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ mYkVk x;kA ¼2016½6 ,l lh lh 120 fufnZ"VA
(1) Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (M.P.) -- Rr. 68(1) third proviso, 2(Xvi-b), 2(xxiii)] 4, 6, 7, 18 and 36 -- "quarry, permit", "trade quarry", "Quarry lease", and "Contractor" -- mean -- quarry permit is distinct from trade quarry or quarry lease -- quarry permit is to extract minor mineral for specified period of contract -- contractor is person who holds trade quarry. [Para 13
The quarry lease is granted by allotment whereas the trade quarry is allotted by auction whereas the quarry permit is granted for a specified period for the purposes of specific contract in terms of third proviso to Rule 68. The "Contractor" defined under Rule 2(xvi-b) of the Rules is a person who holds a trade quarry. The third proviso to Rule 68 is not applicable to a contractor who has been given a trade quarry but a contractor who is engaged in construction work. The definitions given in rule 2 are "unless the context otherwise requires". Since the expression "Contractor" in third proviso is followed by the expression "engaged in construction work" therefore, the contractor in third proviso is not a contractor, who has been given a trade quarry but a contractor engaged in construction work of the Central or the State Government.
The Full Bench examining the definition of a "Contractor" under Clause (xvi-b) of Rule 2 held that the contractors engaged in the work of any Department and Undertaking to purchase the minor mineral from open market are not covered by the said definition.
Held : We find that the conclusions drawn by the Full Bench are not in tune with the statutory provision, which deals separately with trade quarry or quarry lease and quarry permit. The third proviso deals with quarry permit holder as provided under Rule 4 in contradiction to allotment of quarry lease and auction of trade quarry. Such definitions have not been examined properly by the Full Bench in Phaloudi Construction (supra). 2016(2) RN 54 (HC-FB)=2016(2) MPLJ 704 (FB) overruled.
(2) Interpretation of Statutes - M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 -- Rr.86(1) Third Proviso, 4, 6 and 7 -- principle of statutory interpretation -- no word in statute is superfluous -- statute has to be read as a whole by giving harmonious construction to all provisions of law -- so that no provision is rendered redundant -- in view of harmonious construction -- third proviso is additional relaxation to Rules 4 and 68(1) -- third proviso cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. 2016(2) RN 54 (HC-FB)= 2016(2) MPLJ 704 (FB) overruled. (2000)2 SCC 451 dissented from (1976)1 SCC 129, (1996)4 SCC 596, AIR 1985 SC 582, (2004)6 SCC 762, (1994)2 SCC 678 and (2014)1 SCC 258 referred to. [Paras 17 to 24
(3) Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (M.P.) - Rr.68(1) Third Proviso 4, 6 and 7 -- scope and legality of provisions -- minor mineral purchased from open market by contractor -- same used in Government works -- whether obtaining of "No Mining Dues" certificate is required -- proviso deals with two situations -- payment of royalty in advance and obtaining no mining dues certificate -- scheme of statute and purpose of Rules -- there should not be any illegal extraction -- minor mineral is vested in State --contractor engaged in construction work is required to prove that such mineral is royalty paid -- State insists on no mining dues certificate -- same cannot be said to be illegal.
Held : In fact, third proviso deals with two situations i.e. (1) extraction of minor mineral by a quarry permit holder, who is required to pay royalty in advance and (2) a contractor engaged in construction work who has to obtain certificate of 'No Mining Dues' to ensure payment of royalty for the mineral used in construction work. In fact, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that proviso is enlarging the main substantive provision, is wholly misplaced.
Thus, from the plain language of rule 68; Scheme of Statute and the purpose of Rules that there should not be any illegal extraction of minerals and all minerals should be royalty paid, therefore, we find that third proviso is neither illegal nor enlarges the scope of proviso to than that of rule 68 or any other provision of the Rules.
Since minor mineral vests in the State and there is absolute prohibition in extraction of mineral other than by a quarry lease or a trade quarry or permit quarry, therefore, contractor who is engaged in construction work is required to prove that such mineral is royalty paid. For such condition, if the State Government insists on 'No Mining Dues' certificate, the same cannot be said to be illegal as it is to ensure that all minor minerals used in the construction activity are royalty paid material. 2016(2) RN 54 (HC-FB)=2016(2) MPLJ 704 (FB) overruled. 2016(6) SCC 120 referred to.
Gupta, C.J.--1. The present Writ Petition No.7798/2017 was earlier referred to Larger Bench vide order dated 16.8.2017 whereby a Division Bench of this Court prima facie found that the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4547/2016 (M/s Phaloudi Constructions and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh) 2016 (2) RN 54 (FB) and other connected matters decided on 10.5.2016 requires reconsideration. Thus, following two questions were referred for consideration to the Larger Bench :
(i) Whether the purchase of minor minerals from open market in terms of 3rd proviso to rule 68(1) excludes the obtaining of “No Mining Dues” certificate from Mining Department as the open market may include illegally extracted minor minerals as well?
(ii) Whether the judgment in Phaloudi Constructions and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. lays down good law, in view of the fact that the amendment carried out in rules on 23rd March, 2013 and later on 2.7.2013 was not brought to the notice of the Bench, when the rule 68(1) was substituted?
2. Later, a Full Bench of three Judges hearing the petition found that the second question does not arise for consideration, but, finding that the view in Phaloudi Constructions and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra), does not seem to be correct, therefore, the petition was ordered to be placed before the larger Bench. It is how; this Bench is seized of the petition.
3. The brief facts leading the abovesaid question, in short, are that the petitioner herein is a registered contractor with Public Works Department and has been awarded work order for construction work. In terms of the agreement, the petitioner is being paid periodically but in every bill deduction of royalty amount is made in spite of submitting purchase bills of the minor minerals of the authorized dealers. The grievance of the petitioners is that deductions of amount of royalty are being made without issuing any notice to the petitioners and the entire payments are not being paid to the petitioners. It is pointed out that there is no express provision of law to pay royalty to the Department of Mines as the royalty is to be paid by the contractor, who undertakes mining operation. The material is purchased by the petitioners from the trader who pays royalty as the payment of royalty is mentioned in the invoices raised and given to the petitioners. The petitioners seek support from the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as 2016(2) RN 54 (F.B.)= 2016(2) MPLJ 704 (Phaloudi Constructions and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P.) wherein the Court has concluded as under :
“25. Thus, whether it is under clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of rule 68 of 1996 rules, the fact remains that the same relates to contractor engaged in Government work of the nature stipulated therein and are given permission for extraction, removal and transportation of any minor mineral and not the contractors who though engaged in the work of any department and undertaking but purchases the minor mineral from open market. This aspect gets clarified from the definition of “Contractor” as contained under clause (xvi-b) of rule 2 of 1996 Rules, which means a person who holds a “trade quarry”. Accordingly, quarry permit holder/contractor engaged in construction as find mention in Third Proviso is the contractor, who has been so permitted under clause (i) and (ii), as the case may be. Though this proviso contains an expression “or used by purchasing from open market”; however, since no such class of contractor engaged in work of any department and undertaking, who is not authorised under clause (i) or (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 68, completes such work by purchasing minor mineral from open market, is created under these clauses, we decline to accept the contentions on behalf of the respondent that Third Proviso creates a substantive class of contractors engaged in works of Govt. Department and undertaking. In view whereof, the
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
