Writ petition challenging District Mineral Foundation notifications was disposed of by the High Court of Karnataka in terms of the Supreme Court judgment in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries, holding redundant.
The writ petition and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of in terms of the Apex Court judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.33949 OF 2016 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
M/S ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT B WING AHURA CENTRE, 2ND FLOOR MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400 093 HAVING ITS UNIT M/S RAJASHREE CEMENT, ADITYA NAGAR, SEDAM, DIST. GULBARGA-585 292 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR GUPTA
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ANKITHA.G.SHELKE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO 4; SRI K.A.ARIGA, CGC FOR R5)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE NOTIFICATION / ORDER DTD.16.9.2015 VIDE ANNEX-E1, ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF MINES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI; NOTIFICATION DTD.5.11.2015 VIDE ANNEX-E2 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NOTICE DTD.3.5.2016 VIDE ANNEX-G.
3
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"i) Call for records pertaining to the Notification/Order bearing No.16/7/2015-M.VI (Part) dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure-E1), issued by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, New Delhi; Notification bearing No.CI 207 MMN 2015 dated 05.11.2015 (Annexure-E2) issued by the Department of Commerce & Industries, Government of Karnataka; Notices bearing No.Ga Bhu.Ee/UuNiKa/ML-DMF/201617/436 dated 03.05.2016 (Annexure-G);
ii) Issue a Writ, Order or Declaration, declaring the Notification/Order dated 16.09.2015 (AnnexureE1) as unconstitutional and ultra vires of the MMDR Act and Rules, insofar as it directs establishment of District Mineral Foundation retrospectively from 12.01.2015 by the States;
iii) Issue a Writ, Order or Declaration, declaring the Notifications dated 05.11.2015 (Annexure-G2) as unconstitutional and ultra vires of the MMDR Act and Rules, insofar as it has given the District Mineral
4
Foundation a deemed retrospective date of establishment;
iv) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction more in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari and quash the Notification bearing No.16/7/2015-M.VI (Part) dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure-E1), issued by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, New Delhi;
v) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction more in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari and quash the Notification bearing No.CI 207 MMN 2015 dated 05.11.2015 (Annexure-E2) issued by the Department of Commerce & Industries, Government of Karnataka;
vi) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction more in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari and quash the quashing the Notice bearing No.Ga Bhu.Ee/UuNiKa/MLDMF/2016-17/436 dated 03.05.2016 (Annexure-G) issued by the 4th respondent; and
vii) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, proper, necessary and expedient in the circumstances of the case."
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate informs
that with respect to the establishment of District Mineral Foundations, the issues raised in the writ petition have been decided by the judgment and order passed in the case of
5
Federation of Indian Mineral Industries and Others vs.
Union of India and Another by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Transferred Case (Civil) No.43 of 2016. The conclusion of the judgment noted in paragraphs 46, 47, 48 and 49 are reproduced below:
"46. Having considered the issues raised by the petitioners and by the learned Additional Solicitor General in different perspectives, we hold: (i) 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. (ii) In any event, the establishment of the DMFs (assuming the establishment is retrospective) from 12th January, 2015 does not prejudicially affect any holder of a mining lease or a prospecting licence-cummining lease. (iii) In view of the failure of the Central Government to prescribe the rate on 12th January, 2015 at which contributions are required to be made to the DMF, the contributions to the DMF cannot be insisted upon with effect from 12th January, 2015. Fixing the maximum rate of contribution to the DMF is insufficient compliance with the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Vatika. (iv)
6
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 minerals other than coal, lignite and sand for stowing with effect from 17th September, 2015 when the rates were prescribed by the Central Government. (v) 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 20th October, 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. (vi) The notification dated 31st August, 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.
47. We fervently hope the State Governments recognize their responsibilities and utilize 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.
48. We grant time till 31st December, 2017 to those holders of a mining lease or a prospecting licence-
7
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 licencecum-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.
49. With the above conclusions, Transfer Petition Nos.74-76/2017 are allowed, Transferred Cases (arising out of Transfer Petition (C) Nos.74--76/2017), 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."
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits
that subsequent to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the District Mineral Foundation Trust Rules, 2016 have been framed which has come into force.
8
4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is
decided in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the conclusion of which has been noted above.
5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
CA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding District Mineral Foundation notifications should be decided in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries.
Whether the petitioner's claims regarding retrospective establishment of District Mineral Foundation are viable post the Apex Court ruling.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Federation of Indian Mineral Industries and Others vs. Union of India and AnotherApplied¶40
Federation of Indian Mineral Industries and Others vs. Union of India and Another by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Transferred Case (Civil) No.43 of 2016
M/S ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
UNION OF INDIA
RITU RAJ AWASTHI
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
