Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Vinod Domestic Fuel vs The Central Coalfields Limited on 18 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 W.P. (C) No.7716 of 2017
With
W.P. (C) No.7743 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 7716 of 2017
M/s. Vinod Domestic Fuel, a Parnership Firm having its place of
business at Naya Road, Phusro, Thana- Bermo, Town & Dist.-
Bokaro- 829144 (Jharkhand) through its Partner Shri Rajnish Kumar
Singh, S/o Bibhash Chandra Singh, resident of Phusro, P.O. & P.S.-
Bermo, Town & Dist.- Bokaro-829144 (Jharkhand)
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House,
Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi
2. The General Manager (Finance), Central Coalfields Limited,
Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.-
Ranchi
3. The General Manager (S&M), Central Coalfields Limited,
Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.-
Ranchi
.... Respondents
With
W.P. (C) No. 7743 of 2017
M/s. Nine Fashion Marketing Private Limited, a company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its place of
business at Khajanchi Talab, K.B. Road, Boddom Bazar, P.O. -Sadar,
P.S.- Hazaribagh Town & Dist.- Hazaribagh-825301(Jharkhand)
through one of its Director Shri Rajendra Prasad, S/o late Jawahar
Sao, resident of Khajanchi Talab, K.B. Road, Boddom Bazar, P.O. -
Sadar, P.S.-Hazaribagh, Town & Dist.- Hazaribagh-
825301(Jharkhand)
.... Petitioner
Versus
2 W.P. (C) No.7716 of 2017
With
W.P. (C) No.7743 of 2017
1. The Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House,
Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.- Ranchi
2. The General Manager (Finance), Central Coalfields Limited,
Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.-
Ranchi
3. The General Manager (S&M), Central Coalfields Limited,
Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, Dist.-
Ranchi
.... Respondents
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, Advocate
: Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate
: Mr. Shubham Gurung, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. Both these Writ Petitions have been filed under Articles 226 of
the Constitution of India with a prayer to refund the amount
realized from the petitioners of the respective writ petitions in
relation to the District Mineral Fund for the period commencing
from 12.01.2015 till December, 2016.
3. The identical facts of the two cases are that the Government of
Jharkhand came out with a notification dated 24.11.2015
published in the Jharkhand Gazette Extraordinary on 07.12.2016
whereby, it decided to constitute District Mineral Foundation
Trust in terms of provision of Mines and Minerals (Contribution
to District Mineral Foundation) Rules, 2015 which was published
With
vide notification no. G.S.R. 715 (E) on 17.09.2015 in the Gazette of
India Extraordinary No. 575 dated 17.09.2015. Under Section 15 (4)
and 15 (A) of MMDR Act, the State of Jharkhand promulgated
Jharkhand Mineral Foundation (Trust) Rules, 2016 dated
21.03.2016 and the same was notified on 22.03.2016 providing that
the Jharkhand District Mineral Foundation (Trust) Rules, 2016
shall be deemed to have come into force on 12th day of January,
2015.
4. The case of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that in
terms of such notification, the deductions were made from the
dues of the petitioners with retrospective effect. It is submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case of Federation of
Indian Mineral Industries & Others vs. Union of India & Anr.
reported in (2017) 16 SCC, 186, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has held in paragraph no. 40 as under:-
"Crucial date for making the contribution to the DMF
40. What then is the crucial date for making the
contribution? There are two categories of holders of a
mining lease or a prospecting licence-cum-mining lease.
We will consider the effect of the notifications on each such
category.
.... ... ... ... ...
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.
.... ... ... ... ...
52.5. Contributions to the DMF are required to be made by
the holder of a mining lease or a prospecting licencecum-
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."
With
5. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the selfsame issue was before the Division Bench of this Court in
W.P. (C) No.6824 of 2016 dated 21.08.2023 and the Division Bench
of this Court relied upon the judgment of another Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Usha Martin Limited vs. State of
Jharkahnd & Ors. in W.P. (C) No.6624 of 2016, the relevant
portion of which reads as under:-
"Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the State
Government do not have jurisdiction while promulgating a
delegated legislation to make it applicable with retrospective
effect. In that view of the matter, the second question was
also decided in favour of the petitioner and it was held that
the petitioner cannot be compelled to make contribution for
a period prior to the date of relevant notification i.e.
17.09.2015 and 20.10.2015, as were the case before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and reliance was also placed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Saran
Ganga Saran Vs. CST, 1985 (Supp) SCC 205, and CIT
Vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd. (supra).
In that view of the matter, the legal question appearing in
this case is no longer res integra. It is further put to our
notice by the petitioner that the aforesaid judgment has
been relied upon by the High Court of Chhattisgarh,
Bilaspur in WPC No. 1504 of 2016 as well as by the
Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 36037 of 2016
(GM-MM-S) as per the judgments dated 24.11.2017 and
15.09.2018 respectively. In that view of the matter, since
nothing more is to be decided because of the covered
judgments passed, we are inclined to allow the writ
application. This writ application is accordingly allowed."
and held that any deposit made by the petitioners towards
contribution to the District Mining Fund in between 12.01.2015 to
22.03.2016 shall be adjusted towards the future contribution of the
respective petitioners.
6. Relying upon the judgment of another Division Bench of this
Court in W.P. (C) No. 286 of 2017 and allied cases dated
28.11.2023, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as by
now it is a settled principle of law that with retrospective effect
With
the said fund cannot be realized from the petitioners. Hence, it is
submitted that the respondents be directed to refund the amount
realized from the petitioners in relation to the District Mining
Fund for the period commencing from 12.01.2015 to 22.03.2016.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents drawing attention of this
Court to the counter affidavit filed in W.P. (C) No. 7716 of 2017
submits that the respondents have already paid back Rs.1,94,920/-
in pursuance to the decision taken to refund the amount from
12.01.2015 to 06.12.2015 to the customers including the petitioner
of W.P. (C) No. 7716 of 2017 and another sum of Rs.454,813/- has
been refunded to the said petitioner on 11.09.2018.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
going through the materials available in the record, it is crystal
clear that the issue involved in these cases is no more res-integra.
As it has already been held that the State of Jharkhand cannot take
contribution to the District Mining Fund between 12.01.2015 to
22.03.2016. That undisputedly as contribution to the District
Mining Fund between 12.01.2015 to 22.03.2016 has already been
taken from the petitioner, so it will be just and proper that the
amount of contribution to the District Mining Fund between
12.01.2015 to 22.03.2016 realised from the petitioner be adjusted
towards future contribution. Hence, both these writ petitions are
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to adjust the
contribution amount realized from the petitioners of both these
writ petitions in relation to the District Mining Fund for the
period commencing from 12.01.2015 to 22.03.2016 towards the
With
future contribution of the respective petitioners and appropriate
demand notice for the future shall be raised by the respondents.
9. Both these writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 18th January, 2024
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
