Ajay Kumar 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 vs. 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 12.09.2019, 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 vs. M/s Stuti and others) decided on 15.12.2016 (in short "M/s Stuti1") and LPA No.247/1998 (M/s Vastu vs. M.P. Electricity Board & others) decided on 01.06.2004 (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 intracourt appeals have been placed before the Full Bench in pursuance to an order dated 12.09.2019 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 Division Bench of this Court in the case of L.P.A. No.247/1998 (M/s Vastu Vs. M.P. Electricity Board and others) or the decision rendered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. M/s Stuti and others, (W.A. No.140/2011) lays down the correct law?

(iv) Any other issue arising out of the dispute relating to determination of the rate of electricity duty to be imposed upon the stone crushing units?"

(3.)As the identical questions are involved, the facts sans unnecessary detail are extracted from Writ Appeal No.202/2012 (M/s Vandey Matram Gitti Nirman vs. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd. And others) for the sake of convenience.