Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 08.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: WPC No. 3517 of 2026 filed by M/s Sahil Enterprises (proprietor Shri Sahil Gupta) against the State of Chhattisgarh and several forest and mining officials.
  • Reliefs prayed: (i) call for entire records, (ii) quash recovery orders dated 08.06.2026 and 16.06.2026 and memo dated 26.05.2026, (iii) direct release of outstanding payment, (iv) any other relief with costs.
  • Background: Tender for supply of material for an anicut under the CAMPA Scheme was submitted on 08.11.2019; work order dated 09.12.2019 authorized supply of minor minerals (stone/grit). The petitioner supplied material, submitted running bills and royalty receipts, and received payments for verified bills.
  • Complaint: Shri Pushpraj Singh alleged non‑payment of royalty, prompting an enquiry dated 15.10.2024 that assessed a recovery of Rs 1,00,24,520.67 without notice or hearing.
  • Demand notices issued on 13.11.2024 and 09.12.2024 were quashed by this Court on 31.01.2025 (WPC No.155/2025) for violation of natural justice, with liberty to the respondents to restart proceedings after proper notice.
  • Petitioner’s representations dated 14.07.2025, 03.12.2025 and 15.06.2026, along with royalty receipts, transportation permits and other documents, were submitted but allegedly ignored.
  • Respondent authorities, relying on the earlier enquiry report, issued a communication on 26.05.2026 directing recovery of Rs 1,00,24,520.67, followed by recovery orders on 08.06.2026 and 16.06.2026 demanding payment within seven days and ordering stoppage of pending payments and forfeiture of security deposits.
  • Respondent’s defence: The petitioner utilized 31,880.89 cubic meters of minor mineral; valid royalty receipts were produced only for 13,002.32 cubic meters. No valid documents were provided for the remaining 18,878.57 cubic meters despite opportunity to do so.
  • The court examined the material, found that the petitioner’s documents were merely repetitions of earlier submissions and did not establish royalty payment for the disputed quantity.
  • The court held that the authorities had provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing, complied with the procedural requirements of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015, and that the petitioner failed to prove payment of royalty for the entire quantity used.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Topics: Royalty Recovery, Natural Justice