High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 10 CHH CK 0091

Chhattisgarh Sponge Iron Manufacturers Association @APPELLANT@Hash Union Of India

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 31 October 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 526 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 298 words
1.

Learned counsel for the parties would not dispute that the date on which liability to make contribution to the District Mineral Foundation would arise

has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the matter of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Another

{Transferred Case (Civil) No.43/2016, decided on 13.10.2017}.

2.

In the said matter, the following has been held by the Supreme Court in para-41:-

“We hold, therefore, that the effective date of payment of contribution to the DMF in the case of those petitioners who are (or were) holders of a

mining lease or a prospecting licence- cum-mining lease for minerals other than coal, lignite and sand for stowing would be 17th September, 2015.â€​

3.

The other issue concerning the date on which liability to pay contribution towards National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET) has also been set at

rest by the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench in WPC No.1504/2016 (Jindal Steel & Power Limited Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors) and

other connected matters decided on 24.11.2017 holding that contribution towards NMET is payable w.e.f. 14.8.2015. Â

4.

In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is allowed holding that liability to contribute towards District Mineral Foundation for minerals other

than coal, lignite and sand for stowing would be 17th September, 2015 and for contribution towards NMET, the relevant date would be 14.8.2015.

5.

Needless to say, any recovery prior to the said date stands quashed. It is made clear that this Court has not dealt with the issue concerning

challenge to the contribution towards the above funds after the above noted date, for which the petitioner would be at liberty to work out remedy, if

they so desire, if it still remains open to challenge.