IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
NTPC Limited having its registered office at NTPC Bhawan – Appellant
versus
The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of Mines – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 2756 of 2025 an W.P.(C) No. 3894 of 2025
Decided on : 08-10-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relief sought for dmf contributions (Para 4 , 11) |
| 2. factual background on coal block allocation (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. acknowledgment of excessive payments (Para 12 , 14) |
| 4. court's direction on dmf contributions (Para 13 , 18) |
| 5. conclusion and order disposition (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
Order :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Reference may be made to order dated 18th September, 2025.
2. In pursuance thereto, Mr. Arava Rajkamal, Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand has appeared and submitted that since the matter pertain to the reduction of the amount of DMF from 30% to 10%, for which approval was taken from the Department as such some delay has been caused in filing the counter affidavit. Now, the counter affidavit has been filed on merit.
3. However, the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand has assured this Court that henceforth he will take care that the counter affidavit be filed as per direction passed by the Court and in case of any failure, the erring officers will be taken to task.
4. The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for the following relief(s):
Prayer made in W.P.(C) No. 2756 of 2025
a. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for commanding and directing the Respondents to charge and recover District Mineral Foundation (DMF) contribution at the rate of 10% of the royalty in respect of the coal block allocated to the Petitioner which was allotted under the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, on 08.09.2015 and not at the higher rate of 30% currently being levied.
b. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for refund or adjust the excess amount of DMF contribution already paid by the Petitioner at the rate of 30% of royalty from the date of commencement of mining operations, on the basis that such deduction is contrary to the applicable statutory rules, including Rule 2(a) of the Mines and Minerals (Contribution to District Mineral Foundation) Rules, 2015 and Rule 6(i) of the Jharkhand District Mineral Foundation (Trust) Rules, 2016;
Prayer made in W.P.(C) No. 3894 of 2025
a. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to hold that the Respondents collecting charge 30% of the royalty in respect of the coal block allocated to the Petitioner which was allotted under the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 is illegal and dehors the law including Rule 2(a) of the Mines and Minerals (Contribution to District Mineral Foundation) Rules, 2015 and Rule 6(i) of the Jharkhand District Mineral Foundation (Trust) Rules, 2016 and to further hold that Respondent can charge and recover District Mineral Foundation (DMF) contribution at the rate of 10% of the royalty in respect of the coal block allocated to the Petitioner which was allotted under the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, on 08.09.2015.
b. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for Refund or adjust the excess amount of DMF contribution already paid by the Petitioner at the rate of 30% of royalty in excess of 10%, from the date of commencement of mining operations since March 2024, on the basis that such deduction is contrary to the applicable statutory rules, including Rule 2(a) of the Mines and Minerals (Contribution to District Mineral Foundation) Rules, 2015 and Rule 6(i) of the Jharkhand District Mineral Foundation (Trust) Rules, 2016;
Factual aspect:
5. Since similar facts and prayers have been made in these writ petitions, as such for the sake of convenience, the brief facts of the first case, i.e., in W.P. (C) No. 2756 of 2025, is referred as under:
6. The Petitioner herein is a Government of India undertaking engaged in generation and supply of power, and is the allottee of the Chatti Bariatu Coal Mining Project (CBCMP), located in the State of Jharkhand. The said coal block was originally allocated to NTPC by the Minist
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.