Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) Both the counsel jointly submits that the self same controversy which has been raised in the instant batch of petitions has been examined and decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 7987/2016 (Meghraj Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan and Ors) vide judgment dt.18.12.2017 and observed in paras No. 16 to 22 as under : "16. On the basis of the various notifications issued by the Central Government noticed hereinabove, following questions came up for consideration of the Supreme Court in the matter of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (supra) : (1) Whether DMFs could be established w.e.f. 12.1.15? (2) Whether contribution to the DMFs were required to be made by the petitioners therein, at the rate mentioned in both set of Contribution Rules (promulgated by Ministry of Mines and Ministry of Coal vide notifications dated 17.9.15 and 20.10.15 respectively) w.e.f. 12.1.15 ? 17. On first question, the Supreme Court concluded that the MMDR Act does not confer any specific power on the State Government to fictionally create DMF deeming it to be in existence from a date earlier than the date of notification establishing the DMF. The Court opined that Section 9B (5) and (6) read with clause (qqa) inserted in Section 13(2) of the MMDR Act, does not confer any specific power on the Central Government to require the holder of a mining lease or a prospecting licence-cum-mining lease to contribute to DMF with retrospective effect. Accordingly the Court categorically held that the notifications issued by the State Governments which includes the notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan must be understood to mean that the DMF was established on the date of publication of its notification. However, the Court opined that it is not obligatory to declare any notification ultra vires the rule making power of the State Governments to the extent of their establishing the DMF from the retrospective date by reading them as operational from the date of their publication. 18. Answering the second question, the Supreme Court opined that the purpose of Section 9B of the MMDR Act and the object of DMF are in furtherance of cause of social justice for those affected by mining related operations including tribals, who may dislocated or displaced from their habitat and thus, to deny them benefit that is rightfully their only because the State Government has been lax in establishing the DMF would be injustice to them. The Court opined that Section 9B of the MMDR Act creates a liability and only the quantum of liability remain to be determined. The Court held that the effecting date of payment of contribution to the DMF in case of those petitioners who are (or were) holder of the mining lease or prospecting licence-cummining lease for minerals other than coal, lignite and sand for stowing would be 17.9.15. However, noticing the text of paragraph 3 of notification dated 20.10.15 providing that the contribution shall be payable only from the date of notification i.e. 20.10.15 or from the date of establishment of DMF in the concerned State whichever is later, the Court held that Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Telangana would be entitled for contribution from the holders of the mining lease from 20.10.15, since their DMF was established much earlier and as far as all other States are concerned, the holders of the mining lease or a prospecting licence-cum-mining lease were held entitled for postponement of payment to DMF till it was established as per the notification issued by the State Government. 19. In the backdrop of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries case (supra), adverting to the controversy raised in the present petition, it is noticed that the DMFT in the State of Rajasthan has been established by the State Government vide notification dated 31.5.16 and as far as minor minerals are concerned, the rate of contribution payable by mineral concession holder in respect of any mineral removed by him from and or consumed within the area allotted/permitted has been prescribed vide Rule 13 of DMFT Rules and thus, the liability upon mineral concession holders in respect thereof, cannot be imposed with the retrospective effect i.e. 12.1.15 and accordingly, the petitioner and his likes would be liable to contribute to DMF prospectively w.e.f. 31.5.16, when the rate was prescribed by the State Government as aforesaid. 20. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The DMF is established by the State Government by issuing notification under Section 9B of the Act. But then, Section 9B creates liability upon the holder of the mining lease or prospecting licence-cum-mining lease granted on or after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, 2015 and also in respect of the holder of the mining lease granted before the commencement of Amendment Act, 2015 and as observed by the Supreme Court in Federation of Indian Mineral Industries's case (supra), only the quantum remained to be determined. Whereas in respect of the minor mineral by virtue of provisions of Section 15A, the State Government is empowered to prescribe the payment by all holders of concession related to minor minerals of amounts to DMF of district in which mining operations are carried on, but no liability as such stands created by virtue of Section 15A itself and thus, unless exercising power under Section 15A, the prescription is made by the State Government, the holders of concession related to minor minerals cannot be held liable to pay any contribution to DMF. To put in other words, the liability of contribution to DMF in respect of minor minerals is created and quantified by way of notification dated 31.5.16 issued by the State Government and therefore, the petitioner and his likes holders of concession related to minor minerals cannot be held liable to pay the contribution to DMF prior to the date of issuance of the said notification, notwithstanding creation of DMF by the State Government retrospectively w.e.f. 12.1.15. 21. Consequently, we hold that the petitioner and his likes holders of concession related to minor minerals shall be liable to make payment of contribution to the DMF as prescribed by Rule 13 (1)(iii)(b) of DMFT Rules w.e.f. 31.5.16. 22. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The order impugned dated 8.6.16 issued by the Director, Mines, to the extent it creates liability of contribution to DMF by the holders of concession in respect of minor minerals w.e.f. 12.1.15 is declared illegal and quashed. It is declared that the petitioner and his likes holders of the concession in respect of minor minerals are liable to make payment of contribution to the DMF as prescribed by Rule 13(1)(iii)(b) of the DMFT Rules w.e.f. 31.5.16. No order as to costs."
(2.) In the light of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, on which both the parties have jointly relied upon, the controversy raised in the instant batch of petitions stands disposed of in terms thereof accordingly.
(3.) Copy of the order be separately placed in each connected file.;