Madhya Pradesh High Court
Heildelberg Cement (India) Ltd. vs Government Of India Ministry Of Mines on 10 December, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.5311/2017
JABALPUR
10.12.2018
Shri M. L. Jaiswal learned Senior Counsel with
Shri K. K. Gautam for the petitioner.
Smt. Jahanvi. Pandit, learned Govt. Advocate
for the respondent/State.
Shri Abhinav Khirdikar learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
This petition has been filed challenging the validity of Section 9(B) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
The aforesaid issue has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries and others vs. Union of India and another, (2017) 16 SCC 186, in the following terms:-
"Conclusion
52. Having considered the issues raised by the petitioners and by the learned Additional Solicitor General in different perspectives, we hold:
52.1. Merely because the DMFs have been established or are deemed to have been established from a date prior to the issuance of the relevant notifications does not make their operation retrospective. 52.2. In any event, the establishment of the DMFs (assuming the establishment is retrospective) from 12-1-2015 does not 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.5311/2017 prejudicially affect any holder of a mining lease or a prospecting licence-cum-mining lease.
52.3. In view of the failure of the Central Government to prescribe the rate on 12-1-
2015 at which contributions are required to be made to the DMF, the contributions to the DMF cannot be insisted upon with effect from 12-1-2015. Fixing the maximum rate of contribution to the DMF is insufficient compliance with the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Vatika [CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 1] . 52.4. Contributions to the DMF are required to be made by the holder of a mining lease or a prospecting licence-cum-mining lease in the case of minerals other than coal, lignite and sand for stowing with effect from 17-9- 2015 when the rates were prescribed by the Central Government.
52.5. Contributions to the DMF are required to be made by the holder of a mining lease or a prospecting licence-cum-mining lease in the case of coal, lignite and sand for stowing with effect from 20-10-2015 when the rates were prescribed by the Central Government or with effect from the date on which the DMF was established by the State Government by a notification, whichever is later.
3THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.5311/2017 52.6. The Notification dated 31-8-2016 issued by the Central Government is invalid and is struck down being ultra vires the rule- making power of the Central Government under the MMDR Act.
53. We fervently hope the State Governments recognise their responsibilities and utilise the contributions to the District Mineral Funds quickly and for the object for which they have been established, particularly since the amounts involved are huge.
54. We grant time till 31-12-2017 to those holders of a mining lease or a prospecting licence-cum-mining lease who have not made the full contribution to the District Mineral Funds to pay the contribution, failing which they will be liable to make the contribution with interest at 15% per annum from the due date. We also make it clear that in the event any holder of a mining lease or a prospecting licence-cum-mining lease has mistakenly made contributions to the District Mineral Fund from a date prior to the date that we have determined, such a holder of a mining lease or a prospecting licence-cum-mining lease shall not be entitled to any refund but may adjust the contribution against future contributions, without the benefit of any interest.
4THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.5311/2017
55. With the above conclusions, Transfer Petitions Nos. 74-76 of 2017 are allowed, Transferred Cases [arising out of Transfer Petitions (C) Nos. 74-76 of 2017], Transferred Cases (C) Nos. 43 and 51 of 2016 and the batch of petitions are disposed of. All other pending applications are also disposed of."
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents conjointly that the issue now stands conclusively decided in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court and, therefore, nothing further survives in the matter.
In the circumstances and in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (supra) shall be followed by the parties.
It is made clear that the issue of validity of the provisions raised by the petitioner stand concluded by the order passed by us today. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the assessment, if any, would be at liberty to take up the remedies available to them under law against the order of assessment and no opinion on the correctness or validity of the order has been expressed by this Court in the present petition.
5THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.5311/2017 With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (supra).
C.C as per rules.
( R. S. JHA ) ( SANJAY DWIVEDI )
JUDGE JUDGE
mms/ch/-
Digitally signed by CHRISTOPHER
PHILIP
Date: 2018.12.14 17:02:15 +05'30'