Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 456
(FULL BENCH)
Ajay Kumar Mittal, CJ, Sujoy Paul and Vijay Kumar Shukla,JJ.
Vandey Matram Gitti Nirman (M/s.) v. Madhya Pradesh Poorv KshetraVidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Others
Writ Appeals No. 202 of 2012, 237 of 2012, 247 of 2012, 249
of 2012, 250 of 2012, 252 of 2012, 257 of 2012, 258 of 2012, 259 of 2012, 260 of 2012, 261 of 2012, 278 of 2012, 313 of 2012, 321 of 2012, 344 of 2012, 345 of 2012, 346 of 2012, 347 of 2012, 348 of 2012, 349 of 2012, 477 of 2012, 587 of 2012, 832 of 2012, 260 of 2013, 261 of 2013, 262 of 2013,51 of 2014 and 79 of 2016 (Jabalpur); against thecommon order dated 9.1.2012 in W.P. No.736/2011; Decided on 28.2.2020
Headnote:
(1) Electricity Duty Act, 1949 (M. P.) -- S. 3 (1) Part B Entry 3 Explanation (b) -- Mines Act, 1952 -- S. 2 (1) (j) -- for purposes of "mine" under explanation (b) of Part B of Section 3 (1) of 1949 Act, intent of Legislature was not to include mining activities which are not in or adjacent to mine-person purchasing boulders from mine owners and converting same into gitti through stone crusher -- cannot be said to be directly involved in mining activity -- person purchasing mineral from other source and not directly obtaining it through mining, digging and quarrying etc. for converting into gitti-cannot be said to be involved in mining activity -- Entry 6 in Explanation (b) of Section 3(1) of 1949 Act excludes stonecrushing units not exclusively occupied by owner of mine andnot belonging to a mine and which are not situated in or adjacent to mine wherestone crushing activity is going on. AIR 1961 SC1170, (1992)4 SCC 711, (2005)2 SCC 271, (1997)5 SCC 482 and (2017)1 SCC 81 followed.2012 SCC Online P&H 24518 relied on.
[Paras 16 to 19 & 26
(2) Interpretation of Statute -- provision has to beread as a whole and not in isolation. [Para 17
(3) Words and Phrases -- word "adjacent" is defined as"situated next to or close to something" -- would alsoinclude nearby place or place in same area or neighboring area -- cannot be restricted to mean "adjoining" or "abutting"alone. Black's Law Dictionary (10th edition), Oxford Dictionary and 1904 AC 773 relied on. [Para 21
(4) Electricity Duty Act, 1949 (M. P.) -- S. 3(1)Part B Entry 3 Explanation (b) -- MinesAct, 1952 -- S. 2(1)(j)(x) and (xi) -- M. P. Vidyut Shulk Adhiniyam, 2012 -- S. 15 and SchedulePart-A Entry 6- whether rate of electricity duty applicable to mines canbe applied and enforced upon stone crushing units that arenot situated in and adjacent to mine, or upon only those units that are alsoindulging in mining activities -- held -- if stone crusher unit is not exclusively occupied byowner of mine and is not belonging to a mine, it would not fall within ambit and scope of explanation (b) of Part B of S. 3(1) of 1949 Act so as to attract rate of duty as provided at Entry 3 Part B of Table appended to S. 3 of 1949 Act. [Para 28
(5) Electricity Duty Act, 1949 (M. P.) -- S.3(1)Part B Entry 3 Explanation (b) – Mines Act, 1952 - S. 2(1)(j)(x) and (xi) -- appellant has mining license -- carrying out miningactivity covered under provisions of 1952 Act – his stone crushing unit situated in or adjacent to mine -- liable to pay rate of electricity duty applicable to mines asenvisaged in Entry 3 of Part B of Table appended to S. 3(1) of1949 Act -- however, whether such stone crushing unit is situated in or adjacent to a mine, shall depend upon facts ofeach case. [Para 28
(6) Electricity Duty Act, 1949 (M. P.) -- S. 3(1)Part B Entry 3 Explanation (b) -- MinesAct, 1952 - S. 2(1)(j)(x) and (xi) -- M. P. Vidyut Shulk Adhiniyam, 2012 -- S. 15 and Schedule Part-A Entry 6 -- decisions of this Court wherever it is heldthat stone crushing units even though not occupied by mineowners and/or not belonging to mine situated in or adjacent tomine, and even if situated outside mining area, are chargeable torate of duty as per Entry 3 of Part B of Table appended to S. 3(1) of 1949 Act -- are not correct enunciation of law -- overruled -- decisions where rate of duty as per Entry 3 was held to be applicable to stone crushing units occupied by mine owner and belonging to mine andsituated in or adjacent to mine -- upheld. L. P. A. No. 247 of 1998 decided on 1.6.2004 confirmed. W. A. No. 140 of 2011 decided on 15.12.2016 overruled. No. 673 of 1993 decided on 19.10.1994 distinguished. (2017) 1 SCC 81, SLP (C)No.6524 of 1995 decided on 6.3.1995, (2009)17 SCC 266, AIR 2012 MP 49, M.P. No. 2821 of 1988 decided on 9.2.2005, W.P. No. 166 of 1996 decided on 11.2.1998, W. P. No.166 of 1996 decided on 13.8.2003, W. P. No. 3153 of 2004 decided on 29.8.2008, W.P. No. 846 of 2005 decided on 24.6.2009, W.P. No.1640 of 2007 decided on 6.7.2009 and 2016 (1) MPLJ 159 discussed. [Para 44
(7) Electricity Duty Act, 1949 (M. P.) -- S. 3(1) Part B Entry 3 Explanation (b) -- MinesAct, 1952 -- S. 2(1)(j)(x) and (xi) -- circular dated 30.3.2010 issued by Chief Engineer (Electrical Safety) and Chief Electrical Inspector, State of M.P. -- is administrative order -- cannot override statute and is a wrong interpretation of definition of 'mine'. [Para 47
¼1½ fo|qr 'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 1949 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 3¼1½ Hkkx [k izfof"V 3 Li"Vhdj.k ¼[k½ && [kku vf/kfu;e] 1952 && /kkjk 2¼1½¼´½ && lu~ 1949 ds vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ¼1½ ds Hkkx [k ds Li"Vhdj.k ¼[k½ ds v/khu ß[kkuÞ ds iz;kstukFkZ] fo/kku eaMy dk vk'k; mu [kuu xfrfof/k;ksa dks lfEefyr djus dk ugha Fkk tks [kku esa vFkok [kku ds ik'oZLFk ugha gSa && [kku Lokfe;ksa ls f'kyk[kaM Ø; dj mUgsa ik"kk.k enZd ds ek/;e ls fxêh esa laifjofrZr djus okyk O;fDr && [kuu xfrfof/k esa izR;{kr% varoZfyr ugha dgk tk ldrk && fxêh esa laifjofrZr djus ds fy, izR;{kr% [kuu] [kqnkbZ vkSj [knku fØ;k vkfn ls [kfut vfHkizkIr ugha dj] vU; lzksr ls [kfut Ø; djus okyk O;fDr && [kuu xfrfof/k esa varoZfyr ugha dgk tk ldrk && lu~ 1949 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ¼1½ ds Li"Vhdj.k ¼[k½ dh izfof"V 6 esa ,slh ik"kk.k enZu bdkb;k¡ vioftZr dh xbZ gSa tks [kku ds Lokeh ds vuU; vf/kHkksx esa ugha gSa rFkk fdlh [kku dh ugha gSa rFkk tks ,slh [kku esa ;k mlds ik'oZLFk fLFkr ugha gSa tgk¡ ik"kk.k enZu ds fØ;kdyki pyrs gSaA , vkb vkj 1961 ,l lh 1170] ¼1992½4 ,l lh lh 711] ¼2005½2 ,l lh lh 271] ¼1997½5 ,l lh lh 482 rFkk ¼2017½1 ,l lh lh 81 vuqlfjrA 2012 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ia- rFkk gfj- 24518 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 16 ls 19 ,oa 26
¼2½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && mica/k lexz :i esa i<+k tkuk gksrk gS] i`Fkdr% ughaA ¼iSjk 17
¼3½ 'kCn rFkk okD;ka'k && 'kCn ßik'oZLFkÞ dks ßfdlh oLrq ds ikl ;k fudVÞ ds :i esa ifjHkkf"kr fd;k x;k gS && fudVLFk LFkku vFkok mlh {ks= ;k vklikl ds {ks= dk LFkku Hkh lfEefyr gksxk && dsoy ßlVs gq,Þ ;k ÞlaLi'khZÞ ds vFkZ esa lhfer ugha fd;k tk ldrkA CySd Ñr ykW fMD'kujh ¼10ok¡ laLdj.k½] vkWDlQMZ fMD'kujh rFkk 1904 , lh 773 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 21
¼4½ fo|qr 'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 1949 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 3¼1½ Hkkx [k izfof"V 3 Li"Vhdj.k ¼[k½ && [kku vf/kfu;e] 1952 && /kkjk 2¼1½¼´½¼nl½ rFkk ¼X;kjg½ && e-iz- fo|qr 'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 2012 && /kkjk 15 rFkk vuqlwph Hkkx-d izfof"V 6 && D;k [kkuksa dks ykxw fo|qr 'kqYd dh nj mu ik"kk.k enZu bdkb;ksa dks ykxw vkSj izo`Ùk dh tk ldrh gS tks [kku esa ;k mlds ik'oZLFk fLFkr ugha gSa] vFkok dsoy mUgha bdkb;ksa dks ykxw vkSj izo`Ùk dh tk ldrh gS tks [kuu xfrfof/k;ksa esa Hkh lafyIr gSa && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && ;fn ik"kk.k enZu bdkbZ [kku ds Lokeh ds vuU; vf/kHkksx dh ugha gS rFkk [kku dh ugha gS rks og lu~ 1949 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3¼1½ ds Hkkx [k ds Li"Vhdj.k ¼[k½ dh ifjf/k vkSj O;kfIr ds v/khu ugha vk,xh] ftlls lu~ 1949 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ls layXu lkj.kh ds Hkkx [k dh izfof"V 3 esa nh xbZ 'kqYd dh nj vkÑ"V gksA ¼iSjk 28
¼5½ fo|qr 'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 1949 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 3¼1½ Hkkx [k izfof"V 3 Li"Vhdj.k ¼[k½ && [kku vf/kfu;e] 1952 && /kkjk 2¼1½¼´½¼nl½ rFkk ¼X;kjg½ && vihykFkhZ ds ikl [kku vuqKfIr && lu~ 1952 ds vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu vkPNkfnr [kuu xfrfof/k;ksa esa yxk gqvk && mldh ik"kk.k enZu bdkbZ [kku esa ;k mlds ik'oZLFk fLFkr && lu~ 1949 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3¼1½ ls layXu lkj.kh ds Hkkx [k dh izfof"V 3 esa ;Fkk ifjdfYir] [kkuksa dks ykxw fo|qr 'kqYd dh nj lanÙk djus ds nkf;Rok/khu && rFkkfi] ,slh ik"kk.k enZu bdkbZ [kku esa ;k mlds ik'oZLFk fLFkr gS ;k ugha] izR;sd ekeys ds rF;ksa ij fuHkZj gksxkA ¼iSjk 28
¼6½ fo|qr 'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 1949 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 3¼1½ Hkkx [k izfof"V 3 Li"Vhdj.k ¼[k½ && [kku vf/kfu;e] 1952 && /kkjk 2¼1½¼´½¼nl½ rFkk ¼X;kjg½ && e-iz- fo|qr 'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 2012 && /kkjk 15 rFkk vuqlwph Hkkx-d izfof"V 6 && bl U;k;ky; ds og leLr fofu'p; ftuesa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd [kku esa vFkok mlds ik'oZLFk fLFkr ik"kk.k enZu bdkb;ksa ij] ;|fi og [kku Lokfe;ksa ds vf/kHkksx esa ugha gSa vkSj@vFkok [kku dh ugha gSa] rFkk pkgs og [kuu {ks= ds ckgj fLFkr gksa] lu~ 1949 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3¼1½ ls layXu lkj.kh ds Hkkx [k dh izfof"V 3 ds vuqlkj 'kqYd dh nj izHkk;Z && fof/k dh lgh fu#i.k ugha gSa && myVs x, && ftu && fofu'p;ksa esa [kku Lokfe;ksa ds vf/kHkksx dh rFkk [kku dh rFkk [kku esa vFkok [kku ds ik'oZLFk fLFkr ik"kk.k enZu bdkb;ksa dks izfof"V 3 ds vuqlkj 'kqYd dh nj ykxw vfHkfu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gS && ekU; fd, x, A ySVlZ isVasV vihy Ø- 247 lu~ 1998 fu.khZr fnukad 1-6-2004 iq"VA fjV vihy Ø- 140 lu~ 2011 fu.khZr fnukad 15-12-2016 myVk x;kA izdh.kZ ;kfpdk Ø- 673 lu~ 1993 fu.khZr fnukad 19-10-1994 izHksfnrA ¼2017½1 ,l lh lh 81] fo'ks"k btktr ;kfpdk ¼lh½ Ø- 6524 lu~ 1995 fu.khZr fnukad 6-3-1995] ¼2009½17 ,l lh lh 266] , vkb vkj 2012 e-iz- 49] izdh.kZ ;kfpdk Ø- 2821 lu~ 1988 fu.khZr fnukad 9-2-2005 fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 166 lu~ 1996 fu.khZr fnukad 11-2-1988] fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 166 lu~ 1996 fu.khZr fnukad 13-8-2003] fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 3153 lu~ 2004 fu.khZr fnukad 29-8-2008 fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 846 lu~ 2005 fu.khZr fnukad 24-6-2009] fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 1640 lu~ 2007 fu.khZr fnukad 6-7-2009 rFkk 2016¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 159 foosfprA¼iSjk 44
¼7½ fo|qr 'kqYd vf/kfu;e] 1949 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 3¼1½ Hkkx [k izfof"V 3 Li"Vhdj.k ¼[k½ && [kku vf/kfu;e] 1952 && /kkjk 2¼1½¼´½¼nl½ rFkk ¼X;kjg½ && eq[; ;a=h ¼fo|qr lqj{kk½ eq[; fo|qr fujh{kd] e-iz- jkT; }kjk tkjh ifji= fnukad 30-3-2010 && iz'kklfud vkns'k gS && dkuwu ij v/;kjksgh ugha gks ldrk rFkk ^[kku* dh ifjHkk"kk dk xyr fuoZpu gSA¼iSjk 47
ORDER
Mittal, C.J., -- 1. These intra-Court appeals have been preferred under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against an order dated 09.01.2012 passed by a learned single Bench in W.P. No.736/2011 (M/s Vandey Matram Gitti Nirman v. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. And others) whereby bunch of writ petitions, main case being W.P. No.5070/2011 (M/s Jai Hanuman Stone Crusher vs. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. and others), involving identical question : as to whether the stone crusher units, not operated by the mine owners and not located in the premises or adjacent to mine, can be charged the electricity duty under Entry 3 of Part B of Table appended to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1949 Act”) and whether the arrears of duty could be recovered from a retrospective date, were dismissed vide common order. The Bench observed as under :
“26. The Division Bench was thus very much alive of the issue and the expanse of applicability of the definition ‘mines’ contained in Explanation (b) of section 3 of 1949 Act. It appears that the Division Bench in M/s Vastu (supra), overlooked the above facts while observing that “the point projected as to whether a crushing unit situated outside the mining area or to be more precise not situated in or adjacent to a mine will also be covered by the said definition of ‘mine’ was not in issue nor decided in M.P. No.673/1993.
27. The issue as to whether a crushing unit situated outside the mining area or to be more precise not situated in or adjacent to a mine being covered by decisions in the Crusher Owners Association and others (supra), and Hindustan Copper Limited (supra), i.e., the petitioners though not the mine owners, having the crushing unit established at place not adjacent or in the premises where the mine is situated being covered by the definition of ‘mine’ as contained in Explanation (b) to section 3 of 1949 Act are liable to pay electricity duty as applicable to the “mines (other than captive mines of a cement industry)”.
*** *** ***
32. Thus, once the validity of the expression ‘mines’ as per Explanation 3(b) of 1949 Act having been upheld in the Stone Crusher Owners Association and others (supra), decided on 17.10.1994, the contention that the petitioners are charged from a retrospective date on the basis of the explanation tendered by the Secretary, Department of Energy, State of Madhya Pradesh, does not stand to reason. The petitioners’ unit having been held to be covered by the definition of mine, the petitioners ought to have volunteered to pay the duty.”
2. A Division Bench of this Court while hearing the matters on 12.9.2019, found conflicting observations made by two Division Bench judgments of Indore Bench of this Court rendered in W.A. No.140/2011 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. M/s Stuti and others) decided on 15.12.2016 (in short “M/s Stuti-1”) and LPA No. 247/1998 (M/s Vastu v. M.P. Electricity Board & others) decided on 1.6.2004 (for brevity “M/s Vastu-1) and further noticed that there is lack of detailed discussion in respect of applicability of the entry relating to units that are not situated in or adjacent to a Mine. Accordingly, these intra Court appeals have been placed before the Full Bench in pursuance to an order dated 12.9.2019 passed by the Division Bench framing the following questions for the opinion of the Larger Bench :
“(i) Whether the rate of electricity duty, applicable to mines, can be applied and enforced upon stone crushing units that are not situated in and adjacent to a mine?”
(ii) Whether the electricity duty applicable to mines can be imposed upon only those stone crushing units that are also indulging in mining activities?
(iii) Whether the observations made by the Divis
