FEDERATION OF INDIAN MINERAL INDUSTRIES & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 724 · Decided: 13-10-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 12 S.C.R. 724 
A 
FEDERATION OF INDIAN MINERAL INDUSTRIES & ORS. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
(Transferred Case (Civil) No. 43 of2016) 
OCTOBER 13, 2017 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND 
DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] 
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: 
s.98 and l 3(qqa) - Establishment of District Mineral 
Foundation (DMF) provided by Ordinance dated 12.1.2015 - On 
direction by Central Government the States established DMFs on 
different dates - By Notification dated 17.09.2015, Ministry of Mines 
promulgated Contribution Rules which were deemed to have come 
into force on 12.1.2015 - By Notification dated 20.10.2015 Ministry 
of Coal promulgated Contribution Rules in respect of coal, lignite 
and sand for stowing, which were deemed to have come into force 
on the date of their publication - Both the Notifications provided 
payment to DMF an amount at the rate of 10% of the royalty in 
respect of mining leases granted on or after date of their enforcement 
and at the rate of 30% in respect of leases granted before the date 
of their enforcement - Ministry of Coal by further Notification dated 
31.8.2015 provided that paynu:nt under Notification dated 
20.10.2015 shall be made to DMF ll~ef 12.1.2015 - Validity of the 
Notifications challenged - Held: Mere(v because DMFs have been 
established or deemed to have been established from a date prior 
to issuance of relevant notifications, does not make their operation 
retrospective - The establishment of the D}v!Fs even if assumed to 
be retrospective does not prejudicially affect anyones vested rights 
- Delegated legislation is ordinarily prospective and a right or 
liability created for the first time cannot be given retrospective effect 
G - Provisions of the Act do not give power to the State Government 
or the Central Government to make rules with retrospective effect -
It is not obligatory to declare any not(fication ultra vires' the rule 
making power of the State, if its validity can be saved without doing 
violence to the law - In the present case, it is not obligat0ty to 
H declare the notifications ultra vires the rule making power of the 
724 
FEDERATION OF INDIAN MINERAL INDUSTRIES v. UNION 
725 
OF INDIA 
Slate Government to the extent of their establishing the DMF with 
retrospective effect - The court can save their validity by reading 
them as operational from the date of their publication - The 
contributions to the DMF cannot be insisted upon w.e.f 12.1.2015 
- Co11trib11tions to the DMF. in the case of minerals other than coal, 
lignite and sand for stowing are required to be made w.e.f 17.9.2015 
A 
B 
- Contributions to the DMF in the case of coal, lignite and sand for 
stowing are required to be made w.e.f 20.10.2015 when the rates 
were prescribed by the Central Government o!" w.e.f the date on 
which the DMF was established by the State Government by a 
notification, whichever is later - The notification dated 31.8.2016 
being retroactive substitution is ultra vircs the rule making power of C 
the Central Government under the MMDR Act and hence invalid -
Mines and A1inerals (Contribution to District Mineral Foundation) 
Rules, 2015. 
Disposing of the transferred cases/petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The notifications establishing the District D 
Mineral Foundation (DMF) in the States were issued pursuant 
to the provisions of Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals 
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The intention of 
Parliament appears to have been for the State Governments to 
establish the DMF with effect from 12•h January, 2015 since its 
object is to work for the interest and benefit of persons and areas 
affected by mining related operations. The object being the welfare 
of those adversely affected by mining operations, the DMFs ought 
to have been established on 12•h January, 2015. However, every 
State Government took it easy compelling the Central 
Government to issue a direction u/s. 20A of the MMDR Act on 
1611' September, 2015 requiring the State Governments to issue 
a notification that the DMF shall be deemed to have come into 
existcn.ce with effect from the 12•h January, 2015. [Para 18)(742-
C-E] 
E 
F 
A. Thangal K11nj11 Musaliar v. M Venkitachalam Patti 
G 
[1955] 2 SCR 1196; Commissioner of Income Tax 
(Central) - 1 v. Vatika Township Private Limited (2015) 
I sec I : [2014] 12 SCR 1037 - followed. 
1.2 Even assuming that since the DMFs were established 
H 
726 
SUPREME COURT REPOR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.