2020 (2) TMI 1630

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss. 2. The challenge primarily made to the notification or amendment brought in is that the State Government is denuded of its power to enact any such provision firstly and secondly, once when the matter has already subjudiced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court so far as the validity of the act itself, the Respondent-State Government should have refrained from revising the Development Cess and Environment Cess which were already enforced. 3. A bunch of writ petitions, leading of which being W.P. 2445/2006 and other analogous writ petitions challenging the validity of the original Act itself i.e. the Principle Act, 2005 referred to in the preceding paragraph. 4. The Division Bench of this Court took all these matters for hearing on 25.0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....neral development" within the meaning of Entry 50 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India? Does the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 contain any provision which operates as a limitation on the field of legislation prescribed in Entry 50 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India? In particular, whether Section 9 of the aforementioned Act denudes or limits the scope of Entry 50 of List II? 4. What is the true nature of royalty/dead rent payable on minerals produced /mined/extracted from mines? 5. Whether the majority decision in the State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 10 SCC 201, could be read as departing from the law laid down in the seven Jud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... law relating to mineral development" on the taxing power of the State Legislature in Entry 50 of List II, particularly in view of its uniqueness in the sense that it is the only entry in all the entries in three Lists (Lists I, II and III ) where the taxing power of the State Legislature has been subjected to "any limitation imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development" 6. In the light of the aforesaid matters pending before the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Division bench of this Court had disposed of all the writ petitions by making these following observations on 25.07.2012 in Paragraph 4 to 8 :- "4. It is not in dispute that the constitutional validity of this very Adhiniyam is also under challen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petition. 6. In our view, since the Supreme Court of India is seized of the issue and examining its constitutional validity along with similar Acts made by different States, we are inclined to dispose of this petition finally with an observation that any decision that may be rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4056-4064 of 1999 (Mineral Areas Development Authority etc. Vs. M/s Steel Authority of India and Ors) and in W.P. 2064/2006 (Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.), the same shall be binding upon the parties to the writ petitions herein by virtue of provision of Article 141 of Constitution and depending upon the final directions given by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned appeals, the parties....