w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Through its Authorised Signatory (Indrapreet Singh, Manager CMG at Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Raigarh (C.G.) & Others v/s State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Naya Raipur & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- JINDAL POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U04010CT1995PLC008985

Company & Directors' Information:- JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = L27105HR1979PLC009913

Company & Directors' Information:- CHHATTISGARH STEEL AND POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109CT2003PLC016284

Company & Directors' Information:- JINDAL (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1991PLC092393

Company & Directors' Information:- RAIPUR POWER AND STEEL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310DL2007PLC222971

Company & Directors' Information:- B D STEEL AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2010PTC144767

Company & Directors' Information:- S. G. POWER AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14290DL2012PTC240718

Company & Directors' Information:- R. S. STEEL AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100CT2009PTC021362

Company & Directors' Information:- B R JINDAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH1973PTC016358

Company & Directors' Information:- JINDAL AND JINDAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31200UR1975PTC004130

Company & Directors' Information:- JINDAL (INDIA) LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1968PLC004852

    WPC Nos. 1504, 2573, 245, 393, 1506, 1606, 1626, 2851, 2894, 3176 & 5 of 2016 & 107, 333, 383, 411, 458, 464 of 2017

    Decided On, 24 November 2017

    At, High Court of Chhattisgarh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL

    For the Petitioners: Bhaskar Payashi, Shruti Choudhary, Sumesh Bajaj, Harsh Wardhan, Shailendra Dubey, Maneesh Sharma, Amrito Das, Rahul Sharma, Rohit Sharma, Shobhit Koshta, Himanshu Sharma, Suyash Dhar, Himanshu Sinha, Priyanka Mehta, Chandradeep Prasad, Shivang Dubey, Advocates. For the Respondents: Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate, B. Gopa Kumar, Assistant Solicitor General of India, Shailendra Shukla, Vaibhav Shukla, Rahul Kumar, Advocates.



Judgment Text

C.A.V. Order

1. In this batch of writ petitions, in which common question of law and fact is involved therefore they are clubbed together and are being decided by common order, the petitioners seek to challenge the memo / letter dated 14-9-2015 by which the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Mines, has directed that contribution towards the National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET) established under Section 9C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 needs to be collected from the lessee with effect from 12-1-2015.

2. Essential facts requisite to adjudicate the lis between the parties are as under: -

(Facts of W.P.(C)No.1504/2016 are taken for adjudication)

2.1) The Union of India by amendment in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'the MMDR Act') introduced an amendment by Amendment Act 10 of 2015 inserting Sections 9B and 9C providing for establishment of District Mineral Foundation and National Mineral Exploration Trust, respectively, and contribution to be made to the said Trusts.

2.2) In this batch of writ petitions, the Court is concerned with the National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET), as the question of contribution towards District Mineral Foundation has already been decided by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Transferred Case (Civil) No.43/2016 (Federation of Indian Mineral Industries and others v. Union of India and another[2017 SCC OnLine SC 1237]).

2.3) The Central Government in accordance with Section 9C (1) to (4) of the MMDR Act, framed rules known as the National Mineral Exploration Trust Rules, 2015 (for short, 'the NMET Rules'), which came into force with effect from 14-8-2015, in exercise of its rule making power conferred under Section 13 (1) of the MMDR Act. The Central Government also simultaneously constituted a Trust called as the National Mineral Exploration Trust with a governing body and executive committee with effect from 14- 8-2015 and brought into force from the same date. Thereafter, the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Mines, by its demi-official letter dated 14-9-2015 informed to the Chief Secretary of the State of Chhattisgarh that since the amended provisions of the MMDR Act came into force from 12-1-2015, the liability of payment towards the NMET Fund accrues from 12-1-2015 on all royalty payments, therefore, the amount due towards the NMET Fund needs to be collected from the lessee with effect from 12-1-2015. In compliance of the said memo / demi-official letter, recovery notices have been issued by the respondents directing that NMET is payable @ 2% of the royalty applicable from 12-1-2015.

2.4) In the aforesaid background, the demi-official letter dated 14- 9-2015 and the demand notice dated 21-1-2016 have been called in question in this batch of writ petition stating inter alia that the rules indicating the manner of payment of contribution towards NMET have come into force with effect from 14-8-2015 and the NMET has been constituted with effect from 14-8-2015 and therefore no contribution towards the NMET can be recovered prior to 14-8-2015 and as such, the demand notice issued on that count and the consequent recovery are liable to be quashed.

2.5) The Supreme Court by its order dated 30-8-2017 passed in Transferred Case (Civil) No.43/2016 (Federation of Indian Mineral Industries v. Union of India and another), has given liberty to the parties to approach the High Court so far as the NMET is concerned.

3. No return has been filed on behalf of the respondents, though opportunity was granted from time to time to file counter-affidavit.

4. Mr. Bhaskar Payashi and Ms. Shruti Choudhary, learned counsel, opening argument on behalf of the writ petitioners, would submit that prescription of the date of recovering contribution of NMET from 12-1-2015 is contrary to the facts and law declared by the Supreme Court in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (supra). They would also submit that under Section 9C of the MMDR Act, the Central Government has to establish a Trust, by notification, called as the National Mineral Exploration Trust and the manner of payment of contribution to the said Trust which is claimed to be 2% of the royalty has to be prescribed by the Central Government which the Central Government has prescribed by enacting rules under the powers conferred under Section 13(2) (qqd) of the MMDR Act and in terms of Rule 7(3) of the NMET Rules. Therefore, once the Central Government has established the Trust with effect from 14-8-2015 and the manner of making payment has also been prescribed by enacting the rules, the amount towards contribution of the Trust will be recovered from 14- 8-2015 only, as no retrospective effect can be given to recovery of the said contribution in view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (supra). Therefore, the impugned notice and the declaration made by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Mines deserve to be quashed.

5. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in W.P.(C)Nos.333/2017, 1606/2016, 2851/2016, 2894/2016 and 3176/2016, would submit that the word 'prescribed' as mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 9C of the MMDR Act, has been defined in Section 3(f) of the MMDR Act which means prescribed by rules made under this Act. The NMET Rules have been enacted with effect from 14-8-2015 which make the legislative intent clear that the amount of contribution towards NMET would be applicable only from 14-8-2015, as the Rules have come into force with effect from 14-8-2015. Therefore, the recovery notice deserves to be quashed.

6. Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Harsh Wardhan, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, would submit in line of submission already made by Mr. Bhaskar Payashi and Mr. Sumesh Bajaj.

7. Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Union of India, would submit that the amount of contribution would be recoverable from the date on which Section 9C of the MMDR Act relating to National Mineral Exploration Trust came into force i.e. 12-1-2015, as the amount of contribution towards NMET has already been prescribed in sub-section (4) of Section 9C of the MMDR Act. Therefore, irrespective of the date of notification of the Rules and constitution of the Trust with effect from 14-8-2015, the Central Government is justified in directing the said contribution to be recovered from 12-1-2015.

8. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh, would submit that the State is recovering the amount as per the direction given by the Supreme Court and by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Mines, by demi-official letter dated 14-9-2015.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

10. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice the provisions contained in Section 9C of the MMDR Act which provides for establishment of National Mineral Exploration Trust. Section 9C of the MMDR Act states as under: -

'9C. National Mineral Exploration Trust.-(1) The Central Government shall, by notification, establish a Trust, as a non-profit body, to be called the National Mineral Exploration Trust.

(2) The object of the Trust shall be to use the funds accrued to the Trust for the purposes of regional and detailed exploration in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(3) The composition and functions of the Trust shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(4) The holder of a mining lease or a prospecting licence-cum-mining lease shall pay to the Trust, a sum equivalent to two percent. of the royalty paid in terms of the Second Schedule, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.'

11. Simultaneously, Section 13 of the MMDR Act which provides for rule making power of the Central Government was also amended and following clauses in sub-section (2) of Section 13 were inserted in the main Act enabling the Central Government to frame rules to enforce the provisions contained in Section 9C of the MMDR Act, which state as under: -

'13. Power of Central Government to make rules in respect of minerals.-(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for regulating the grant of reconnaissance permits, prospecting licences and mining leases in respect of minerals and for purposes connected therewith.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters namely:-

.......

(qqa) the amount of payment to be made to the District Mineral Foundation under sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 9B;

(qqb) the manner of usage of funds accrued to the National Mineral Exploration Trust under subsection (2) of section 9C;

(qqc) the composition and functions of the National Mineral Exploration Trust under sub-section (3) of section 9C;

(qqd) the manner of payment of amount to the National Mineral Exploration Trust under subsection (4) of section 9C;'

12. A focused glance of sub-section (1) of Section 9C of the MMDR Act provides that the Central Government shall, by notification, establish a Trust, as a non-profit body, to be called the National Mineral Exploration Trust. Sub-section (3) of Section 9C provides that the composition and functions of a Trust shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Sub-section (4) of Section 9C provides that the holder of a mining lease or a prospecting licence-cum-mining lease shall pay to the Trust, a sum equivalent to 2% of the royalty paid 'in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government'. The word 'prescribed' has been defined by the MMDR Act in Section 2(f) defining 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules made under this Act. The word 'rule' has not been defined in the MMDR Act, whereas it has been defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897 in sub-section (51) of Section 3 which states as under: -

'(51) 'rule' shall mean a rule made in exercise of a power conferred by any enactment, and shall include a regulation made as a rule under any enactment;'

13. Thus, rule means a rule made in exercise of a power conferred by any enactment. As per Section 2(f) of the MMDR Act, rules means rules made under the MMDR Act. In the present case, the enactment / Act is the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Section 13 of the MMDR Act is the rule making power of the Central Government in respect of minerals. Clauses (qqb), (qqc) and (qqd) of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the MMDR Act provide rule making power of the Central Government to make rules in respect of the manner of usage of funds, the composition and functions as well as the manner of payment of amount to the NMET.

14. The Central Government by its notification dated 14-8-2015, notified the rules known as the National Mineral Exploration Trust Rules, 2015 (the NMET Rules). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the NMET Rules provides that they shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette and it has been published in the Government of India Extraordinary Gazette on 14-8-2015 and thus, it has come into force on that date. Rule 7 of the NMET Rules provides for contribution to Trust Fund and sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 7 provide as under: -

'7. Contribution to Trust Fund.-(1) The Trust shall have power to open and operate bank accounts in its own name at any Scheduled Bank as specified in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934).

(2) The Trust shall communicate the particulars of its bank account to the State Government for the purposes of payments required to be made under subsection (4) of section 9C of the Act.

(3) The holders of mining lease and prospecting licence-cum-mining lease shall make payments for contribution to the Trust Fund of amount payable under sub-section (4) of section 9C of the Act to the State Government simultaneously with payments of the royalty.

(4) The State Government shall deposit the amount collected from such payments into the bank account of the Trust.'

15. Rule 6 of the NMET Rules provides that the Central Government shall, by order, set up a fund under the Trust to be called as the 'National Mineral Exploration Trust Fund' to be managed by the Executive Committee of the Trust. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 provides that the holders of mining lease and prospecting licence-cum-mining lease shall make payments for contribution to the Trust Fund of amount payable under sub-section (4) of Section 9C of the MMDR Act to the State Government simultaneously with payments of the royalty.

16. Not only this, the Central Government by another notification issued on the same day (14-8-2015) to enforce the provision contained in sub-section (1) of Section 9C of the MMDR Act in exercise of its rule making power under Section 13(1) of the MMDR Act, established a Trust to be called the National Mineral Exploration Trust with a governing body and an executive committee. This notification has also come into force from its publication in the official gazette i.e. 14-8-2015.

17. It is well settled law that rules made under the statute are to be treated for the purpose of construction as if they were in the enabling Act and are to be of the same effect as if contained in the Act. (See State of U.P. v. Baburam[AIR 1961 SC 751].)

18. It is also accepted principle of statutory construction that 'rules made under a statute are a legitimate aid to construction of the statute as contemporanea expositio' (see Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edn., pp. 157-58).

19. The aforesaid principle of statutory construction has been followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of The Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. The Gram Panchayat, Pimpri Waghere [(1976) 4 SCC 177] and it was held that the Rules provided internal legitimate aid for the interpretation of the words and phrases used in the main enactment.

20. Thereafter, in the matter of P. Kasilingam and others v. P.S.G. College of Technology and others [1995 Supp (2) SCC 348], the Supreme Court has held that the Act and the Rules form part of a composite scheme and many of the provisions of the Act can be put into operation only with the aid of the Rules. It has been observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: -

'20. ... Moreover, the Act and the Rules form part of a composite scheme. Many of the provisions of the Act can be put into operation only after the relevant provision or form is prescribed in the Rules. In the absence of the Rules the Act cannot be enforced. ...'

21. The Supreme Court has followed the principle of statutory construction laid down in The Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. (supra), in P. Kasilingam (supra).

22. Thereafter, in the matter of J.K. Industries Limited and another v. Union of India and others [(2007) 13 SCC 673], the Supreme Court again followed the principle of statutory construction that the rules made under the statute are legitimate aid to construction of statute and held that many of the provisions the Companies Act cannot be put into operation without the rules and held as under: -

'138. ... In our view, the provisions of the Companies Act together with the Rules framed by the Central Government constitute a complete scheme. Without the Rules, the Companies Act cannot be implemented. The impugned Rules framed under Section 642 are a legitimate aid to construction of the Companies Act as contemporanea expositio. Many of the provisions of the Companies Act, like computation of book profit, net profit, etc. cannot be put into operation without the Rules.'

23. Going by the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is quite vivid that Section 9C of the MMDR Act could be implemented only by promulgation of rules in exercise of rule making power by the Central Government and accordingly, the NMET Rules were brought into force with effect from 14-8-2015, as Section 9C of the MMDR Act with the NMET Rules constitute a complete scheme and without the NMET Rules, Section 9C of the MMDR Act could not be implemented because Section 9C is only enabling provision and it can be implemented and enforced only by framing rules i.e. the NMET Rules. NMET was also constituted with effect from 14-8-2015.

24. The Supreme Court in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (supra), has clearly held that Section 13 of the MMDR Act does not confer any specific power on the Central Government to frame any rule with retrospective effect and that even the scope and extent of rule making power of the Central Government is limited. It was succinctly observed in para 25 as under: -

'25. Similarly, Section 13 of the MMDR Act does not confer any specific power on the Central Government to frame any rule with retrospective effect. Section 9B(5) and (6) read with clause (qqa) inserted in Section 13(2) of the MMDR Act enable the Central Government to make rules to provide for the amount of payment to be made to the DMF established by the State Government under Section 9B(1) of the MMDR Act. None of these provisions confer any power on the Central Government to require the holder of a mining lease or a prospecting licence-cum-mining lease to contribute to the DMF with retrospective effect. Therefore, even the scope and extent of the rule making power of the Central Government is limited.'

25. Not only this, the Supreme Court in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (supra) also held that power of the State Government or the Central Government to give retrospective effect to subordinate legislation is well settled and laid down the following principles: -

'(i) The Central Government or the State Government (or any other authority) cannot make a subordinate legislation having retrospective effect unless the parent statute, expressly or by necessary implication, authorizes it to do so. (Hukum Chand v Union of India [(1972) 2 SCC 601] and Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana [(2006) 3 SCC 620]).

(ii) Delegated legislation is ordinarily prospective in nature and a right or a liability created for the first time cannot be given retrospective effect. (Panchi Devi v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 2 SCC 589]).

(iii) As regards a subordinate legislation concerning a fiscal statute, it would not be proper to hold that in the absence of an express provision a delegated authority can impose a tax or a fee. There is no scope or any room for intendment in respect of a compulsory exaction from a citizen. (Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla [(1992) 3 SCC 285] and State of Rajasthan v. Basant Agrotech (India) Limited [(2013) 15 SCC 1].).'

26. Thus, Section 9C of the MMDR Act has been enforced by the Central Government only by enacting the NMET Rules with effect from 14-8-2015 and by bringing the NMET Rules into force, by constituting the NMET and its governing body and executive committee. But the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Mines, by letter dated 14-9-2015 inter alia provided the details of bank account to the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh and stated that since Section 9C of the MMDR Act came into force on 12-1-2015, the liability of payment towards the NMET Fund accrues from 12-1-2015 on all royalty payments.

27. It is well settled proposition of law that executive instructions which have no statutory force cannot override the law and that any notice, circular, guidelines, etc., which run contrary to statutory laws cannot be enforced. Executive instructions cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules or add something therein, nor the orders be issued in contravention of the statutory rules for the reason that an administrative instruction is not a statutory rule nor does it have any force of law.

28. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation v. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur and others [(2013) 5 SCC 427], dealing with the above-stated aspect, held as under: -

'27. Executive instructions which have no statutory force, cannot override the law. Therefore, any notice, circular, guidelines, etc. which run contrary to statutory laws cannot be enforced. [Vide B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore [AIR 1966 SC 1942], Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1967 SC 1910], State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] and Mahadeo Bhau Khilare (Mane) v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 5 SCC 524].]'

29. However, the letter dated 14-9-2015 is only a demi-official letter of the Central Government and there is no subordinate legislation in the present case, except promulgation of the NMET Rules with effect from 14-8-2015. Further, in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (supra), it has been held by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that Section 13 of the MMDR Act cannot said to have conferred any power on the Central Government to require a holder of a mining lease or a prospecting licence-cum-mining lease to contribute to the DMF with retrospective effect. Merely because the quantum payable as NMET is specified under Section 9C of the MMDR Act, it does not make Section 9C operative with effect from 12-1-2015, in view of the discussion made herein-above. The provisions contained in Section 9C of the MMDR Act have been enforced by enacting the NMET Rules and by establishing the National Mineral Exploration Trust with effect from 14-8-2015 which provides the manner of depositing amount to the NMET.

30. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, it is held that contribution towards the NMET is payable with effect from 14-8- 2015 and the respondents are entitled for contribution towards the NMET only with effect from 14-8-2015. The petitioners are directed to make payments accordingly.

31. Lastly, Ms. Shruti Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that in this batch of writ petitions, question relating to establishment of District Mineral Foundation (DMF) under the MMDR Act, 1957 and contribution required to DMF by holder of mining lease or prospecting licence-cum-mining lease is also involved. She would further submit that the said question stands determined by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (supra) and that has been followed by this Court in W.P.(C)No.82/2017 (Vardhman Textiles Limited v. Union of India and others) decided on 24-10-2017.

32. In Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under: -

'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-cum-mining 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – I v. Vatika Township Private Limited [(2015) 1 SCC 1]. (iv) 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 ho

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

lders of a mining lease or a prospecting licence-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 licence-cum-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.' 33. Following the afore-quoted judgment of the Supreme Court, this Court in Vardhman Textiles Limited (supra) held as under: - '5. A careful perusal would show that contributions to the DMF are required to made by the holder of a mining lease or a prospecting license-cum-mining lease in the case of coal, lignite and sand for stowing and it will be with effect from 20th of 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. 6. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned State counsel, would submit that the DMF was established by the State Government in Chhattisgarh by a notification which was issued on 22-12-2015, therefore contributions will be payable by the petitioners with effect from 22-12-2015. 7. In view of the above, the writ petitions stand finally disposed of in terms of paragraphs 46, 47 and 48 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (supra) and contributions will be payable by the petitioners with effect from 22-12-2015. No order as to cost(s).' 34. Thus, on the basis of above legal analysis, it is held as under: - (1) Contribution towards National Mineral Exploration Trust shall be payable with effect from 14-8-2015, the date of promulgation of the NMET Rules, plus constitution of National Mineral Exploration Trust (14-8-2015). The petitioners are directed to make payment accordingly and if contribution has already been made towards NMET prior to 14-8-2015, the respondents are directed to adjust the contribution against future contributions without any interest. (2) Contribution towards District Mineral Foundation shall be payable with effect from 22-12-2015 and the writ petitions questioning payment of DMF stand finally disposed of in terms of paragraphs 46, 47 and 48 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (supra). 35. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).
O R