Page 1 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P (C) No. 11732 of 2017

M/s Rexon Strips Ltd.

…..

Petitioner

Mr. D. Mohapatra, Advocate

Vs.

Union of India and others

…..

Opposite Parties

Mr. P.K. Parhi, ASGI

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

ORDER

13.07.2022

Order No.

06.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard.

3.

The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the notice

dated 30.09.2016 vide Anexure-3 issued by the General Manager

(S&M), Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Jagriti Vihar, Sambalpur directing

him to deposit the differential amount of District Mineral Foundation

Contribution against coal lifted during the period in question.

4.

This Court vide order dated 12.09.2017 while issuing notice to

the Opposite Parties had passed the following order:-

“Connect with W.P. (C) No.14668 of 2016.

2.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the petitioner does not hold any mining lease or

prospecting lease and is merely a purchaser.

3.

The petitioner is aggrieved by imposition of District

Mineral Foundation Fund and the National Mineral

Exploration Trust Fund which is applicable only in the case

of a Mining Lease Holder or Prospecting Mining Lease

Holder. It is submitted that the provision for imposition of

such contribution was provided under Sections 9-B and 9-C of

the Minor Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957,

which provisions have come into force with effect from 1

2.01.2015 and notified on 20th October, 2015, and the

Page 2 of 3

District

Mineral

Foundations

(DMF)

constituted

on

06.02.2016. As such, no recovery can be made from the

petitioner for a period prior to the notification dated

06.02.2016, even if the petitioner is found liable for payment

of any amount.

4.

Shri D.K.Sahoo, learned Standing Counsel for

Central Government has put in appearance on behalf of

opposite parties 1 and 2 and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate

appears for opp. party no.3.

5.

Steps to serve opposite parties 4 and 5 be taken by

Speed Post with A.D. within three days. Office shall send

notice fixing an early returnable date.

6.

All the opposite parties may file their counter

affidavits by the next date.

List this matter on the date fixed in the notice.

7.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case and keeping in view t he submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the

petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of

interim protection. Accordingly, it is directed that the

recovery pursuant to the notice dated 30.09.2016 (Annexure-

3) issued by opposite party no.5 shall remain stayed till the

next date.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on

proper application.”

5.

Now the issue is concluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries and others-v-Union

of India and another, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 186, wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph-52.5 had observed as follows:-

“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 20.10.2015 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.”

6.

In that view of the matter, since the issue is concluded, the DMF

is required to be collected only from the date on which it came into

Page 3 of 3

force. It is stated at the Bar that DMF has been constituted in the State

of Odisha on 6^th February, 2016. In that view of the matter, the

collection prior to that is contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and is required to be either refunded or to be adjusted

against