ORDER :

Sangeet Lodha, J.

1. The matter comes up on an application (IA No. 2/19) preferred by the respondents for vacating the interim order dated 8.8.16 passed by this Court, which reads as under:

"In the meanwhile, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner for the liability arising under the District Mineral Foundation Rules, 2016 for the period prior to 31.5.2016."

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned vires of Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ('Act of 1957'), Rule 1(3) of District Mineral Foundation Trust Rules, 2016 ('the Rules of 2016') and Rule 2 of Mines & Minerals (Contribution to District Mineral Foundation) Rules, 2015 ('the Rules of 2015'). The petitioner has also questioned legality of order dated 16.9.15 issued by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, directing that the District Mineral Foundation established under Section 9B of the Act of 1957 shall be deemed to have come into force from 12.1.15, the order dated 8.7.16 issued by the Director, Mines, Rajasthan, directing recovery of contribution to District Mineral Fund (DMF) from the mining lease holder w.e.f. 12.1.15 and the demand notice dated 15.7.16 issued to the petitioner pursuant thereto.

3. The application seeking vacation of the interim order is preferred by the respondents inasmuch as, the validity of Rules 1(2) & 1(3) of the Rules of 2016 stands upheld by this Court vide decision dated 8.11.17 rendered in D.B.C. Writ Petition No. 7646/16-Federation of Mining Association of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and the Supreme Court in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr., (2017) 16 SCC 186, has categorically held that the contribution to DMF is required to be made by the holder of a mining lease or a prospecting license-cum-mining lease in the case of mineral other than coal, lignite and sand for stowing w.e.f. 17.9.15 when the rates were prescribed by the Central Government. Further, keeping in view the said decisions, the interim order granted in identical petition being D.B.C. Writ Petition No. 7909/16-M/s. JK Lakshmi Cement Limited vs. Union of India & Ors., has already been vacated by this Court vide order dated 23.10.19.

4. It is submitted that keeping in view the Bench decision of this Court and the decision of the Apex Court, referred supra, almost all the mining lease holders have made payment of contribution to DMF w.e.f. 17.9.15 onwards. Even the petitioner has paid the contribution post May, 2016 and it is only qua the period from 17.9.15 to 31.5.16, the amount of contribution is due. Precisely, the contention of the respondents is that the liability of contribution to DMF w.e.f. 17.9.15 having been settled by the Apex Court in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries's case (supra), there is no justification for permitting the petitioner to withhold the payment for the period from 17.9.15 to 31.5.16.

5. A reply to the application has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking the stand that interim order dated 8.8.16 granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner stands confirmed in presence of the State Government vide order dated 6.7.18 and therefore, the application preferred for vacation of the interim order is not maintainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that on 8.11.17, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (supra), while deciding the other connected matters, after hearing of the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner, the present writ petition was detached from the bunch and was posted for completion of the pleadings and was directed to be decided separately. It is submitted that the application preferred by the State is not maintainable for yet another reason that the State Government had earlier filed an application for disposal of the writ petition in light of judgment passed by this C