Jharkhand High Court

M/S Shyam Sel And Power Limited vs Central Coalfields Limited on 4 February, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          W.P. (C) No. 1093 of 2017
                                 ------

M/s Shyam Sel and Power Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having it's registered office at SS Chambers, 5- C R Avenue, P.O & P.S C R Avenue, Town and District Kolkata- 700072 through it's General Manager (Authorised Signatory), Sri Rajendra Mohta, son of Late Moti Lal Mohta, resident of A/F, 6/1 Raghunathpur, P.O Baguihati, P.S. Bidhan Nagar, Town & District Kolkata- 7000059, West Bengal.

.... Petitioner

Versus

1. Central Coalfields Limited, through it's Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

2. The General Manager (Sales and Marketing), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

3. The Deputy General Manager (Mining), Central Coalfields Limited, 10-NS Road, P.O GPO, P.S. Hare Street, Town & District Kolkata, West Bengal.

4. The Deputy Manager (Finance), KDH Project, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).

5. The State of Jharkhand, through Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Nepal House, PO and PS Doranda, Ranchi. .... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

------

      For the Petitioner         : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                                   Ms. Aditee Dongrawat, Advocate
      For the State              : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, AC to AAG-II
      For the CCL                : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate
                                  ------
05/Dated: 04.02.2025

1. Reference may be made to the order dated 24.01.2025, by

which, the State has been impleaded as party.

2. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned AC to AAG-II for the

respondent-State has submitted that the State has already

impleaded as party and the identical matters have been decided

by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in batch of writ petitions

being W.P.(C) No.286 of 2017 and other analogous cases, vide

order dated 28.11.2023 and recently in W.P.(C) No.4029 of 2024

vide order dated 19.07.2024.

3. Learned State Counsel has further submitted that the present writ

petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28.11.2023 in

batch of writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.286 of 2017 and other

analogous cases, and also order passed in W.P.(C) No.4029 of

2024 vide order dated 19.07.2024.

4. There is no opposition on the part of learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-CCL.

5. Considering the same, this Court would like to advert the factual

aspect of the present case.

6. The facts of the present case is that the petitioner is inter alia

engaged in the trade of manufacture of Sponge Iron and

Generation of Power and has its units established at Mangalpur

Industrial Estate, Raniganj, West Bengal and Palitpur Road,

Dewandighi, Burdwan, West Bengal. The petitioner has been

procuring coal under the said agreements and has been paying

the price strictly in terms of the agreements and bills raised by the

CCL.

7. It is case of the petitioner that the Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India

issued an order dated 16.09.2015 in purported exercise of

powers under Section 20A of the MMDR Act directing all the

State Governments that the notification establishing the District

Mineral Foundations shall state such District Mineral Foundations

shall be deemed to have come into force into existence w.e.f. 12th

day of January, 2015.

8. The State of Jharkhand in purported exercise of power under

Section 15(4) and 15A of the MMDR Act promulgated Jharkhand

District Mineral Foundation (Trust) Rules, 2016 vide notification

no.Kha Ni. (Vividh)-76/2015-804/M, Ranchi dated 21.03.2016

which was notified by a notification dated 22nd March, 2016 and

the same was published in the Jharkhand Gazette Extraordinary

dated 23.03.2016.

9. It is the case of the petitioner that although, the petitioner has

been paying the price of coal against the bills raised by the CCL.

Out of five bills, the petitioner had made payment against two bills

being Bill Nos.1/05159996/1715/15-16/AKP1162 dated

06.11.2016 for Rs.34,22,860.21 and 1/0519996/1715/15-

16/AKP1158 dated 06.11.2016 for Rs.14,47,056.43 which is

reflected in the bank account statement of the petitioner. The

aforesaid payment was made by the petitioner under compulsion

otherwise the coal supply would have disrupted.

10. It is the case of the petitioner that the burden regarding

contribution to DMF if any does not lie upon the petitioner as the

coal has been procured under the fuel supply agreement with the

CCL.

11. It is further case of the prosecution that the respondent CCL

being the lessee is liable to pay the amount from unless it throws

a challenge to the retrospective levy itself. The petitioner being

governed by the contract cannot be compelled to pay the amount

covered in the impugned notices. The collection of contribution to

District Mineral Foundation from 12.01.2015 by the respondent-

CCL was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.

12. The respondent CCL was approached by the petitioner for

amicable settlement of the issue but no interest has been shown

by the respondents to settle the matter and the petitioner has

been threatened that the allocation for the month of February

shall not be made unless the petitioner meets the demand raised

in the impugned bills. The petitioner vide its letter dated

10.02.2017 requested the respondent not to interrupt coal supply

and refund the amount already paid under compulsion. Being

aggrieved with the aforesaid, the instant writ application has been

filed.

13. Thus, from the factual aspects aforesaid it is evident that the

present writ has been preferred for quashing of the

supplementary bills whereby demand have been raised upon the

petitioner towards contribution to the DMF fund.

14. In the instant case, the learned State Counsel has submitted that

the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order

passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in terms of order

dated 28.11.2023 passed in batch of writ petitions being W.P.(C)

No.286 of 2017 and other analogous cases and order dated

19.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.4029 of 2024.

15. We have gone through the order dated 28.11.2023 passed in

batch of writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.286 of 2017 and other

analogous cases wherein direction was passed that any deposit

made by the petitioners towards contribution in the District Mining

Fund in between 12.01.2015 to 22.03.2016 shall be adjusted

towards the future contribution of the respective petitioners and

appropriate demand notice for the future shall be raised by the

concerned respondent. For ready reference, the relevant

paragraph of the aforesaid order, is being quoted as under:

"11. Further the order passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench in W.P.(C) No. 6824 of 2016 with W.P.(C) No. 6825 of 2016 which was decided on 21.08.2023 the writ petitions have been allowed with a direction 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 and appropriate demand notice for the future shall be raised by respondent No. 5.

12. Considering the aforesaid ratio and the decision having been taken by the Co-ordinate Division Bench while disposing of the writ petitions, we are of the view that since, the matter has already been decided by setting at rest by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, hence, all the writ petitions needs to be disposed of.

13. Accordingly, the demand notices issued in respective writ petitions as impugned are hereby quashed and set aside.

14. However, any deposit made by the petitioners towards contribution in the District Mining Fund in between 12.01.2015 to 22.03.2016 shall be adjusted towards the future contribution of the respective petitioners and appropriate demand notice for the future shall be raised by the concerned respondent.

15. Accordingly, all the writ petitions stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Consequently, the pending Interlocutory Applications also stands disposed of."

16. We have also gone through the order dated 19.07.2024 passed in

W.P.(C) 4029 of 2024, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench, while

taking note of the order dated 28.11.2023 passed in W.P.(C) 286

of 2017 has passed the following order, which is being quoted as

under:

"3) Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Shyam Nandan Singh and others Vs. Union of India, through the Ministry of Coal and others passed in W.P. (C) No. 286 of 2017 and other analogous cases dated 28.11.2023, hence, this matter may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment.

4) Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondents, disputes certain facts in the instant writ petition, however, we are not going into merits of the case, rather, we are simply disposing of this writ petition in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of M/s. Shyam Nandan Singh and others Vs. Union of India, through the Ministry of Coal and others passed in W.P. (C) No.286 of 2017 and other analogous cases dated 28.11.2023 and applicability of this case has to be examined considering each & every fact enumerated in those cases".

17. In the view of aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for

writ petitioner and learned Sate Counsel as also the learned

counsel for the Respondent-CCL that the instant writ petition

stands disposed of in terms of the orders dated 28.11.2023 and

19.07.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in

W.P.(C) 286 of 2017 and analogous cases and W.P.(C) No.4029

of 2024 respectively.

18. The authority to examine the applicability of the order passed in

W.P.(C) 286 of 2017 and analogous cases and W.P.(C) No.4029

of 2024 and to take decision regarding the applicability of the

Judgment in the facts of the present case.

19. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.