Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36037 of 2018
Petitioner :- Alim Mohammad Khan Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Malhotra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioner has been called upon to deposit the contribution to the District Mining Fund being holder of a mining lease for 10 years, 23.11.2006 to 22.11.2016. for mining of building material (Khanda, Gitti and Boulder).
The present writ petition seeks the following reliefs:-
“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned notice / order dated 20.09.2018 issued by the respondent no. 2, as contained in Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus thereby restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner in furtherance of the impugned notice / order dated 20.09.2018.
(iii) Mould and Grant and Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.”
Learned counsel has advanced various submissions and has emphasized on Ground Nos. H to M that are as follows:-
“(H) Because, on a composite reading of provisions of the MMDR Act, it shall be evident that the Rule making power in respect of the minor minerals specifically vests with the State Government and specifically with regards to the amounts of payments to be made to the District Mineral Foundation, it is within the absolute domain of the State Government in light of provisions of Section 15(5) and 15 A.
(I) Because, further a conjoint reading of the Section 15 (4) and Section 15-A of the MMRD Act, 1957, it shall be clear, that the State Government has the power to make Rules for regulating the provisions of the Act, i.e. the manner in which the DMF shall work under Section 9(B) (2) and the composition and functions of DMF as under Section 9(B)(3) and the amount to be paid by concession holder under Section 15-A.
(J) Because, the Central Government was conscious of certain facts and therefore it did not specifically provide in Section 15(4) of the MMRD, Act, 1957, the power to the State Government as conferred under Section 9(B) (6). For collection DMF from existing lease holders to whom lease was granted prior to MMRD Amendment Act, 2015.
(K) Because, the State Government, i.e. respondent no. 1, in exercise of the specific powers vested into it by the statute had on 15.06.2017, notified the Uttar Pradesh District Mineral Foundation Rules, 2017 fixing the amount of contribution to be made to the trust fund.
(L) Because, it is no more res integra, that the date of contribution to the Foundation is be from the date the rates of contributions have been prescribed.
(M) Because, it had categorically been ruled out that even though the DMF may be established with a retrospective effect, it is the date on which the rates of contributions has been prescribed, that the contributions shall have to be made.”
The aforesaid grounds to our mind stand squarely answered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries & Others.. Vs. Union of India & Another 2017 (16) SCC 186 decided on 13.10.2017, and therefore, there is no occasion for us now to pronounce on it otherwise.
However much stress was laid by Ms. Bisht on Ground Nos. N, P, and T which are extracted hereinunder:-
“(N) Because, the judgment and order dated 22.11.2017 passed in Writ Petition C No. 49399 of 2017 (Dharmendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others) clearly fails to take into account Sections 14, 15(4) and 15-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 and the fact the notification dated 17.09.2015 was in respect of minerals given in Second Schedule and not in respect of minor minerals.
(P) Because, as far as the Notification dated 17.09.2015, passed by the Ministry of Mines, passed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 9-B of the MMDR Act is concerned, the same fails to apply to mining operations of minor minerals, in light of specific exclusion contained in Section 14 of the Act and its applicability to minerals mentioned in the Second Schedule.
(T) Because, when the very Section 9-B fails to apply to mining operations of minor minerals, and Rules framed in exercise of the powers entrusted under Section 9-B shall fail to apply to mining of minor minerals.”
We have considered the entire submissions and having perused the scheme of the Act in the Rules what we find is that the Apex Court in the case of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (supra) went on to categorize the applicability of the Rules for contribution to the fund by placing coal, lignite and sand in one category and all other minerals in the other category. In order to understand the same, it would be appropriate to point out that the object of the fund was clearly discussed and it was held that the fund was established in order to execute work for the interest and benefit of persons as well as the area affected by mining relating operations. It was made applicable to the holders of mining leases or prospective licensees cum mining lease by placing them in two categories and subject to payment of royalty in the Second Schedule of Mining and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957. In paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment, the entire scheme has been discussed and the royalty has to be paid in such manner in terms of the Second Schedule subject to the categorization of the mining leases and the amount payable by the various categories of the lease holder as may be prescribed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that it does not relate to minor minerals. We are unable to find any such distinction having been drawn by the Apex Court keeping in view the object of the establishment of the fund which is the welfare of those affected by mining operations. The Apex Court carved out two categories, namely, lease holders for minerals other than coal, lignite and sand for stowing and the second category of lease holder for coal, lignite and sand for stowing. The modalities of payment and the dates of the same being effective is a separate issue, but the applicability without distinction in respect of all minerals does not appear to have been made by the Apex Court or even under the statutory provisions as urged by the learned counsel. It is not for this Court to interpret and read the judgment of the Apex Court otherwise. The compulsion of contribution to the fund by holders of mining leases and prospecting mining leases has not been bifurcated on the ground of the mineral being a major or a minor mineral.
Apart from this, the issue as to how the modalities are to be executed reference can be had to the judgments in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others in Writ Petition No. 49399 of 2017 alongwith the decision in the case of Santosh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others in Writ Petition No. 51753 of 2017 decided on 22.11.2017.
In view of what has been stated above and the view taken by us in the case of Govind Saran Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others in Writ Petition No. 35872 of 2018 decided on 29.10.2018, we find no reason to entertain this petition on the grounds so raised. The petition is accordingly consigned to records.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 S.Chaurasia