Jharkhand) v. With W.P. (C) No
Case Details
With W.P. (C) No.7716 of 2017 1 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)
Legal Reasoning
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 W.P. (C) No.7716 of 2017 5 W.P. (C) No.7743 of 2017 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 W.P. (C) No.7716 of 2017 6 W.P. (C) No.7743 of 2017 future contribution of the respective petitioners and appropriate demand notice for the future shall be raised by the respondents. 9.
Arguments
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 With W.P. (C) No.7716 of 2017 2 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 P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, Advocate : Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Gurung, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. 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 W.P. (C) No.7716 of 2017 3 W.P. (C) No.7743 of 2017 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 W.P. (C) No.7716 of 2017 4 W.P. (C) No.7743 of 2017 5. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
Decision
Both these writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 18th January, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)