1. Challenging the action of the State Government/respondent corporation in insisting upon producing no dues certificate from the Collector or showing proof for payment of royalty for the minerals consumed by the petitioners in execution of the contract in question, petitioners have filed this petition.

2. Petitioners have executed the contract in question and for the purpose of doing the work awarded by the contract certain minerals are to be used as raw material. According to the petitioners the minerals and other raw materials are purchased from the open market from various authorized and licenced dealers. After the contract is executed now when the bills are to be settled, grievance of the petitioners are that respondents are insisting upon producing royalty payment receipts or no due certificate with regard to payment of royalty for the mineral consumed before clearing the bills of the petitioners for payment.

3. Petitioners contended that in view of the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. Contractors Sangh, Indore and others v. State of M.P. and others [1987 JLJ 743] followed by a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Prestige C.S. Sole v. M.P. Rural Development [2004 (4) MPLJ 175] and a recent judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Keti Construction Limited v. State of M.P. and others [2007 (3) MPHT 433], respondents cannot withhold payment of bills on the ground of non-production of certificate or document for payment of royalty. It is the contention of the petitioners that in view of the principles laid down by this Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove, respondents cannot withhold clearance of the bills submittedby the petitioners on the grounds as indicated hereinabove. Accordingly, seeking interference and directions to the respondents to clear the bills of the petitioners without insisting upon no dues certificate or other documents with regard to payment of royalty, petitioners have approached this Court for necessary directions.

4. Refuting the aforesaid contentions, Smt. Ami Prabal, learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel representing the Corporations submit that with a view of check illegal mining operation of minor minerals, the aforesaid step is taken by the State Government. It is emphasised that in the light of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 and M.P. Minerals (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1996 and the Rules, 2006), the State Government is entitled to seek production of no dues certificate or other documents. It is argued by the respondents that in the cases relied upon by the petitioner as the Rules, 2006 is not taken into consideration, the judgments in the earlier cases will have no application. Referring to sub-rule 14 of Rule 50 of Rules 1996 and Rule 3 (1) of the Rules, 2006 so also the definition of 'carrier' as indicated in the Rules, 2006, Smt. Ami Prabal submits that petitioner cannot be permitted to transport the minerals without a valid transit pass and in insisting upon a royalty clearance certificate. respondents have not committed any error. Accordingly, she submits that action of the respondents is proper and no interference can be made in this petition.

5. As an alternative, it was pointed out by learned counsel for respondents/State that the State Government is not insisting upon the documents pertaining to payment of royalty, the intention of the State Government is only to stop illegal mining operation and for doing so the State Government is only insisting upon production of bills or any other documents with regard to purchase of minerals so that illegal extraction of minerals can be discouraged. It is stated by learned Deputy Advocate General that petitioners are misconstruing the direction issued by the State Government and have approached this Court under misapprehension. It is stated by her that in fact the State