{"id":23225,"date":"2010-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010"},"modified":"2014-03-11T06:45:52","modified_gmt":"2014-03-11T01:15:52","slug":"south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2010<\/div>\n
                              (1)\n\n\n      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR\n\n                       W.P. No. 17301\/2007\n\n                    South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.\n\n                                    Vs.\n\n                      State of M.P. and another\n\n                         W.P. No. 363\/2008\n\n                    South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.\n\n                                    Vs.\n\n                      State of M.P. and another\n\n            DB : Hon. Arun Mishra & Hon. S.C. Sinho, JJ\n\n       Shri P.S.Nair, Sr. Counsel with Shri Rajas Pohankar for\npetitioner.\n\n       Shri Deepak Awasthi, Government Advocate for State.\n\n       Shri K.K. Pandey, Counsel for respondent No. 2.\n\n                             ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
                             (7.7.2010)<\/p>\n
                      As Per : Arun Mishra, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.     In these writ petitions, petitioner South Eastern Coalfields<\/p>\n
     Ltd.    has prayed for declaring notification dated 24th May,<\/p>\n
     1979 and notification dated 20th April, 1982 as ultra vires of<\/p>\n
     Article 243Q of the Constitution and Section 5 of the<\/p>\n
     Municipality Act, 1961. Alternative prayer has been made<\/p>\n
     that it be held that coal mines of Jamuna and Kotma are out<\/p>\n
     side the territorial jurisdiction of Pasan Municipality and the<\/p>\n
     definition of village does not cover coal mines. Prayer has<\/p>\n
     also been made to quash demand notice (P-4) demanding a
\n                              (2)<\/span><\/p>\n
     sum of Rs. 57,72,800\/- for a period of 10 years towards<\/p>\n
     lighting charges, general fire tax and general sanitary tax<\/p>\n
     under section 127 (c ), (d) and (e) of the Municipalities Act,<\/p>\n
     1961.\n<\/p>\n
2.     Facts are similar in both the writ petitions, they are being<\/p>\n
     narrated from W.P. No. 17301\/2007. It is averred in the<\/p>\n
     petition that erstwhile Rewa Durbar granted a lease for<\/p>\n
     coalmining purpose to M\/s ACC company in the year 1941,<\/p>\n
     later on the coal mines were nationalized under the Coal<\/p>\n
     Mines Nationalization Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as<\/p>\n
     the Act of 1973). Under section 11 of the Act of 1973, the<\/p>\n
     mine can be vested in the Central Government Company and<\/p>\n
     the Government Company will be entitled to exercise all<\/p>\n
     such powers and do all such things as the owner of the coal<\/p>\n
     mines is authorized to exercise and do. These powers have<\/p>\n
     been vested in the petitioner in the year 1986. In exercise of<\/p>\n
     power under section 340 of the M.P. Municipalities Act,<\/p>\n
     1961, the State Government issued notification declaring the<\/p>\n
     local area of Pasan Village in Sohagpur Tehsil as notified<\/p>\n
     area w.e.f. 24.5.1979. The State Government in exercise of<\/p>\n
     the power under section 5(4) of the Municipalities Act, 1961<\/p>\n
     declared the notified area as Municipal Area and declared<\/p>\n
     Pasan village as territory of municipal area.     Notification<\/p>\n
     dated 20.4.1982 was issued for Jamuna and Kotma area.<\/p>\n
     There are two coal mines called Kotma colliery and Jamuna<\/p>\n
     colliery. Kotma colliery was acquired under the provisions of
\n                                (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
     Coal Mines Nationalization Act, and Jamuna Colliery was<\/p>\n
     obtained under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas<\/p>\n
     (Acquisition    and   Development)      Act,   1957.    Notification<\/p>\n
     created Municipality of Pasan, neither Kotma colliery nor<\/p>\n
     Jamuna colliery are included in the notification. Even<\/p>\n
     otherwise these collieries could not have been included in<\/p>\n
     the municipal area.\n<\/p>\n
3.     Under section 17 of the Municipalities Act, 1961, the<\/p>\n
     Municipal Council is required to erect and maintain the<\/p>\n
     boundary marks, it has not been done. There are no<\/p>\n
     permanent boundary marks showing the boundary in the<\/p>\n
     area of Pasan. The Municipality is demanding consolidated<\/p>\n
     tax   chargeable under section 127 (c ), (d) and (e)          of the<\/p>\n
     Municipalities Act. The coal mines is governed by various<\/p>\n
     enactments.     The   entire    jurisdiction   for     development,<\/p>\n
     regulation of coal mines vest with the Central Government<\/p>\n
     and in the Government company. The property is vested in<\/p>\n
     the   Central   Government      under    Article       285   of   the<\/p>\n
     Constitution of India    and cannot be taxed by the State<\/p>\n
     Government or instrumentality of the State Government<\/p>\n
     under the Municipalities Act. Kotma and Jamuna collieries<\/p>\n
     are not part of the Municipal area. A part of the area is in<\/p>\n
     reserved forest. Municipality cannot exist in reserve forest<\/p>\n
     area. The purpose of Municipalities Act is to carry out non<\/p>\n
     forest activities. Demand has been illegally raised by the
\n                               (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
     Municipal Council. Thus aforesaid provisions be declared as<\/p>\n
     ulra vires.\n<\/p>\n
4.     In W.P. No. 363\/2008, prayer has been made to hold the<\/p>\n
     establishment of Municipality Kotma including Govinda and<\/p>\n
     Meera Colliery\/Colonies is ultra vires of Article 243(Q) of the<\/p>\n
     Constitution of India and Section 5 of the Municipalities Act,<\/p>\n
     1961. Thus the Municipality had no right to demand the tax<\/p>\n
     under the aforesaid provisions. The consolidated      demand<\/p>\n
     under section 127 (c ), (d) and (e) is Rs. 26,66,500\/- for a<\/p>\n
     period of 10 years.\n<\/p>\n
5.     In the return filed in W.P. No. 17301\/2007, it is contended<\/p>\n
     that earlier petitioner had preferred two writ petitions in<\/p>\n
     which aforesaid grounds were not raised. The effort is to any<\/p>\n
     how prolong recovery. The area in question falls within the<\/p>\n
     Municipal Limits, the petitioner is bound to pay fee imposed<\/p>\n
     by the Municipal Council. Petitioner is a registered company,<\/p>\n
     hence is bound to make the payment of fees. The whole area<\/p>\n
     of Pasan and Jamuna colliery is included in Municipal<\/p>\n
     Council Pasan. The Municipal Council renders the services<\/p>\n
     and collects the fees. The petitioner is bound to pay it.<\/p>\n
     Various documents have also been filed indicating that area<\/p>\n
     in question falls within the municipal limits.<\/p>\n
6.     Shri P.S.Nair, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Rajas<\/p>\n
     Pohankar appearing for petitioner has submitted that the<\/p>\n
     provisions of Section 127 (c ), (d) and (e) of the Municipality<\/p>\n
     Act with respect to cleanliness of the city, lighting of public
\n                            (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
streets and fire fighting are applicable to city not to the coal<\/p>\n
mines. The Municipality cannot carry out any function in<\/p>\n
coal mines. Conservancy is the function of the coal mines<\/p>\n
under section 20 of the Mines Act. Coal mines are also<\/p>\n
responsible for cleanliness of canteen and its precincts<\/p>\n
under Mines Rules, 1967. Under Mines Rules 33, 34, 35, 36,<\/p>\n
37, 38 and 39 details of standard of construction, signboard,<\/p>\n
provision of water for washing, underground latrines,<\/p>\n
sanitation,   obligation   of    work   person   etc.   have been<\/p>\n
provided. Rule 38 specifically provides for sanitation. It is a<\/p>\n
duty of coal mines to provide general lighting, safety lamp<\/p>\n
etc under Rule 151 of Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. Fire<\/p>\n
services are also provided by coal mines. There is no public<\/p>\n
street in the mines. The Municipality has not given the<\/p>\n
details how they arrived at the amount. Coal mines cannot<\/p>\n
be said to be smaller area under Article 243Q of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India. Pasan Municipality is declared as<\/p>\n
scheduled area. After period of one year, there can be no<\/p>\n
municipality. Municipality cannot impose tax on coal mines<\/p>\n
in view of the decision rendered in State of Orissa and<\/p>\n
another Vs.     M\/s M.A. Tulloch and Co. – AIR 1964 SC<\/p>\n
1284,The India Cement Ltd. Etc. etc. Vs. State of Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu etc. – AIR 1990 SC 85, Tata Iron and Steel Co.<\/p>\n
Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others – 1991 Supp. (1) SCC<\/p>\n
430, District Mining Officer and others Vs. Tata Iron<\/p>\n
and Steel Co. and another – (2001) 7 SCC 358. He has
\n                              (6)<\/span><\/p>\n
     further submitted that decision rendered by the Apex Court<\/p>\n
     in State of West Bengal Vs. Kesoram Industies Ltd. and<\/p>\n
     others – (2004) 10 SCC 201 cannot be said to have laid<\/p>\n
     down correct law. Judgment is per incuriam and not binding.<\/p>\n
7.     Shri Purushendra Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate General<\/p>\n
     and Shri K.K. Pandey, learned counsel, appearing on behalf<\/p>\n
     of respondents have submitted that     the area in question<\/p>\n
     falls within the area of Pasan and Kotma Municipal Council.<\/p>\n
     They are entitled to recover the fee as per decision rendered<\/p>\n
     by the Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Kesoram<\/p>\n
     Industries Ltd. and others (supra), Union of India and<\/p>\n
     others Vs. State of U.P. and others – 2007 AIR SCW<\/p>\n
     7393 and decision of this Court in Shrimal Dal Mills<\/p>\n
     (Firm) and others Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti,<\/p>\n
     Sarangpur – 1990 MPLJ 431. They have submitted that<\/p>\n
     once the area falls within the Municipal Councils of Pasan<\/p>\n
     and Kotma and services are being provided in the colonies<\/p>\n
     of the collieries as well as other services are also being<\/p>\n
     provided in the area, the demand raised by the Municipal<\/p>\n
     Council is proper.\n<\/p>\n
8.      First we advert to the question whether on facts colliery\/<\/p>\n
     area in question falls within the municipal limits of Pasan<\/p>\n
     and Kotma Municipal councils. With respect to the local area<\/p>\n
     of Pasan and Jamuna, a notification was issued on 24.5.1979<\/p>\n
     including all the villages within the notified area w.e.f the<\/p>\n
     date of notification. The State Government vide notification
\n                           (7)<\/span><\/p>\n
(P-2) dated 24.11.1979 extended the provisions of sections of<\/p>\n
Municipalities Act as laid down in schedule II from the date<\/p>\n
of publication of the notification. Vide notification (P-3)<\/p>\n
dated 20.4.1982, the State Government declared the notified<\/p>\n
area as Pasan Municipality and entire area which was<\/p>\n
included in the     previous notification, was included within<\/p>\n
the municipal limits. Notification (R-2\/8) dated 19.7.1996<\/p>\n
relating to constitution of wards has also been placed on<\/p>\n
record by the Municipal Council.          The description of<\/p>\n
boundaries of Ward No. 15 Indira Gandhi Ward, Ward No. 16<\/p>\n
Shri Ram Manohar Lohia Ward, Ward No. 18 Madan Mohan<\/p>\n
Singh Ward and that of other wards proved beyond doubt<\/p>\n
that the collieries and the entire colliery area is within the<\/p>\n
municipal limits.\n<\/p>\n
     Similar is the position with respect to Municipal Council<\/p>\n
Kotma. There are notifications placed on record including<\/p>\n
that of formation of wards. The entire area of concerned<\/p>\n
villages was included within the notified area and thereafter<\/p>\n
Municipality was formed. The notification of constitution of<\/p>\n
wards makes it clear that area in question is included       in<\/p>\n
municipal limits of Kotma. Thus the submission raised by<\/p>\n
Shri Nair that it is not established that area of coal mines<\/p>\n
and colonies fall within the limits of Municipal Council, is not<\/p>\n
acceptable. Considering the notification of notified area and<\/p>\n
constitution of Municipal Council and formation of wards, we<\/p>\n
reject the aforesaid submissions. Though Municipal Council
\n                               (8)<\/span><\/p>\n
     may not have erected the boundary marks, acting as per<\/p>\n
     mandate of Section 17 but that does not advance the case of<\/p>\n
     the petitioner in the instant case. Beyond pale of doubt, it is<\/p>\n
     established that area in question falls within the Municipal<\/p>\n
     Limits of Pasan and Kotma.\n<\/p>\n
9.     Coming to the submission raised that coal mines are<\/p>\n
     exclusively covered under MMRD Act & Rules and that<\/p>\n
     under rules 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 67 of Mines Rules,<\/p>\n
     it is the duty of coal mines to make the provisions for<\/p>\n
     cleanliness   of   canteen,    to   maintain   the   standard   of<\/p>\n
     construction, signboard, provision of water for washing,<\/p>\n
     sanitation etc and under section 20 of the Mines Act,<\/p>\n
     conservancy is also the function of coal mines.<\/p>\n
          It is not in dispute that colonies are also attached to<\/p>\n
     these coal mines in which services are rendered by<\/p>\n
     Municipalities. Merely by providing certain facilities for the<\/p>\n
     work for operation of the coal mines, it could not be said that<\/p>\n
     coal mines are exempted from making the payment of<\/p>\n
     requisite charges to the local bodies under the provisions of<\/p>\n
     Section 127 (c ), (d) and (e) of the Municipalities Act. A<\/p>\n
     general sanitary tax is levied under section 127(c) for<\/p>\n
     construction and maintenance of public latrines and for<\/p>\n
     removal and disposal of refuse and general cleanliness of the<\/p>\n
     city. A general lighting tax is levied under section 127 (d) for<\/p>\n
     lighting of public streets and public places. A general fire tax<\/p>\n
     is levied under section 127 (e)           for the conduct and
\n                            (9)<\/span><\/p>\n
  management of the fire service and for the protection of life<\/p>\n
  and property in the case of fire. There need not be any quid<\/p>\n
  pro quo in the fees charged and service rendered.<\/p>\n
10.       The Apex Court in Union of India and others Vs.<\/p>\n
  State of U.P. and others (supra) has laid down that the<\/p>\n
  service charges can be collected by Water Department for<\/p>\n
  supply of water and maintenance of sewerage system of<\/p>\n
  Railway colonies. In order to maintain these services, Jal<\/p>\n
  Sansthan has to incur expenditure for the same. Though<\/p>\n
  expression tax has been used but in fact it is in the nature of<\/p>\n
  fee for the service rendered by Jal Sansthan.<\/p>\n
11.       Coming to the question whether levy of charges<\/p>\n
  entrench upon regulation of Coal Mines under the MMRD<\/p>\n
  Act. The Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Kesoram<\/p>\n
  Industies Ltd. and others      (supra) considered the taxing<\/p>\n
  power of Union and States. The Apex Court emphasized that<\/p>\n
  there is no overlapping anywhere in the taxing power and<\/p>\n
  the Constitution gives independent sources of taxation to the<\/p>\n
  Union and the State. Methodology or mechanism adopted for<\/p>\n
  assessment and quantification could be similar for taxes.<\/p>\n
  There, could be no overlapping in law. It has also been laid<\/p>\n
  down that so long as a tax or fee on mineral rights remains<\/p>\n
  in pith and substance a tax for augmenting the revenue<\/p>\n
  resources of the State or a fee for rendering services by the<\/p>\n
  State and it does not impinge upon regulation of mines and<\/p>\n
  mineral development or upon control of industry by the
\n                         (10)<\/span><\/p>\n
Union, it is not unconstitutional.    In the instant case it<\/p>\n
cannot be said that the charges realized under section<\/p>\n
127(c), (d) and (e) for rendering the services entrench upon<\/p>\n
the regulation of Mines and Minerals in any way or upon<\/p>\n
control of industry by the petitioner. Thus no sustenance can<\/p>\n
be derived by Shri Nair by relying upon the various<\/p>\n
provisions of Mines Rules and akin provisions. The Apex<\/p>\n
Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Kesoram Industries<\/p>\n
Ltd. and others (supra) has also considered the question of<\/p>\n
levy of cess by the local Government authority and levy of<\/p>\n
cess was held to be valid. The Apex Court has further laid<\/p>\n
down that The Central Government is empowered under<\/p>\n
Section 25 of Tea Act, 1953 to levy a duty or cess upon tea<\/p>\n
or tea leaves for the purposes of that Act, can in no manner<\/p>\n
deprive the State Legislature of its power to tax the land<\/p>\n
comprised in a tea estate. In the context of cess imposed by<\/p>\n
the local Government body on the dispatches of minor<\/p>\n
mineral from mineral bearing land other than coal bearing<\/p>\n
land cess was held to be justified as fee for rendering such<\/p>\n
services as to the infrastructure and general development of<\/p>\n
the area. In the instant case the area in question falls within<\/p>\n
the municipal limits as such for general development of area,<\/p>\n
the Municipal Council is empowered to realize the charges<\/p>\n
under section 127(c), (d) and (e) of the Municipalities Act.<\/p>\n
Thus we are not impressed by the submission raised by Shri<\/p>\n
Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner      based
\n                             (11)<\/span><\/p>\n
  upon section 20 of the Mines Act and the aforesaid Mines<\/p>\n
  Rules and provision of Rule 121 of Coal Mines Regulations,<\/p>\n
  1957.\n<\/p>\n
12.   In State of Orissa and another Vs. M\/s M.A. Tulloch<\/p>\n
  and Co. (supra) the question for consideration before the<\/p>\n
  Apex Court was Orissa Mining Area Development Fund Act<\/p>\n
  is superseded by Mines and Minerals (Regulatioin and<\/p>\n
  Development) Act, 1957. In the instant cases, levy in<\/p>\n
  question   is   not   covered    by   the   Mines   and   Minerals<\/p>\n
  Regulations and has independent field to operate, thus the<\/p>\n
  ratio of the aforesaid decision is not attracted. Shri Nair,<\/p>\n
  learned Sr. counsel has further relied upon the decision of<\/p>\n
  Apex Court in The India Cement Ltd. Etc. etc. Vs. State<\/p>\n
  of Tamil Nadu etc. (supra) in which           cess on royalty on<\/p>\n
  mineral rights was imposed, same was held to be beyond<\/p>\n
  competent of State legislature. Levy of cess was declared<\/p>\n
  illegal only prospectively for the aforesaid reason. The<\/p>\n
  decision is not applicable to the instant case for the similar<\/p>\n
  reasons as that of State of Orissa (supra).\n<\/p>\n
13.   Petitioners’ Counsel has also relied upon the decision of<\/p>\n
  Apex Court in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. State of<\/p>\n
  Bihar and others (supra) in which it was held that cess on<\/p>\n
  royalty charged for mining lease cannot be equated with<\/p>\n
  land revenue, hence does not fall under Entry 45 of Orissa<\/p>\n
  Cess Act, 1962. Cess on royalty charged for mining lease<\/p>\n
  was held not be a tax on land. The aforesaid decision has no
\n                            (12)<\/span><\/p>\n
  application as the Municipality Act     and charges realized<\/p>\n
  under section 127 (c ), (d) and (e) are not having any<\/p>\n
  overlapping effect with any of the regulations or provisions<\/p>\n
  under which petitioner’s coal mines are operated. The levy<\/p>\n
  cannot be said to be overlapping in any manner in the light<\/p>\n
  of the decision in Kesoram (supra).\n<\/p>\n
       In District Mining Officer and others Vs. Tata Iron<\/p>\n
  and Steel Co. and another (supra) the question was with<\/p>\n
  respect to cess and other taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act,<\/p>\n
  1992. The levy in question being entirely different in the<\/p>\n
  instant case particularly in view of decision of Apex Court in<\/p>\n
  State of West Bengal Vs. Kesoram Industies Ltd. and<\/p>\n
  others    (supra), no sustenance can be derived from the<\/p>\n
  aforesaid decision. It cannot be said that the tax levied and<\/p>\n
  charges realized are without authority of law.<\/p>\n
14.   We find no force in the submission of Shri Nair that<\/p>\n
  Municipality could not have been constituted in the area.<\/p>\n
  The industrial township can be left out of Municipal area<\/p>\n
  having regard to the services         proposed by industrial<\/p>\n
  establishment. The Municipal Council stood established<\/p>\n
  more than a decade before insertion of Article 243(Q) w.e.f.<\/p>\n
  1.6.1993 and it is not the case of the petitioner that area in<\/p>\n
  question has been declared to be Industrial Township. The<\/p>\n
  constitution of Municipal Councils Pasan and Kotma cannot<\/p>\n
  be said to be illegal.\n<\/p>\n
                            (13)<\/span><\/p>\n
15.      Coming to argument raised feebly with respect to<\/p>\n
  scheduled area under Article 244(1) read with Article 243<\/p>\n
  ZC of Constitution of India, there being no pleading        and<\/p>\n
  material placed on record. The notification has not been<\/p>\n
  placed on record and on such constitution of scheduled area<\/p>\n
  provision of schedule 5 of constitution provide in Clause 5 as<\/p>\n
  to law applicable to schedule area, no such notification has<\/p>\n
  also been placed on record. Thus the submission is rejected.<\/p>\n
16. The petitioner has also raised submission that Municipality<\/p>\n
  cannot exist\/operate in the forest\/reserve forest area as part<\/p>\n
  of collieries falls within said area. There is no bar for such<\/p>\n
  area being within Municipal area, what kind of activity can<\/p>\n
  be carried on is a different matter. On facts learned Sr.<\/p>\n
  Counsel was unable to show that which particular area falls<\/p>\n
  in the forest. The aforesaid submission has no effect on right<\/p>\n
  of Municipal Council to levy and realize tax which is in<\/p>\n
  nature of fees from petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
17.   The petitioner previously has filed four writ petitions i.e.<\/p>\n
  W.P.     Nos.   7844\/2007,      7843\/2007,   16314\/2007     and<\/p>\n
  16315\/2007, in which the same demand notices were<\/p>\n
  impinged the grounds taken in the present writ petitions<\/p>\n
  were not raised. In previous writ petitions the matters were<\/p>\n
  remitted by this Court to hear the petitioner and thereafter<\/p>\n
  to determine the extent of tax and charges to be realized<\/p>\n
  under the aforesaid provisions. Now levy is challenged as an<\/p>\n
  after thought on new grounds. Whatever that may be, we
\n                           (14)<\/span><\/p>\n
  have not found any merit in the instant writ petitions. In<\/p>\n
  case any amount which has been deposited and has not been<\/p>\n
  withdrawn by the concerned Municipal Council under the<\/p>\n
  interim order of this Court, the concerned Municipal Council<\/p>\n
  is free to withdraw the same.\n<\/p>\n
18.    Writ petitions being devoid of merits, deserve dismissal.<\/p>\n
  Writ petitions are hereby dismissed. No costs.<\/p>\n
           (Arun Mishra)                (S.C.Sinho)\n              Judge                        Judge\n      PB\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2010 (1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR W.P. No. 17301\/2007 South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and another W.P. No. 363\/2008 South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and another DB : Hon. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23225","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSouth Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-11T01:15:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-11T01:15:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3059,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010\",\"name\":\"South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-11T01:15:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-11T01:15:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-11T01:15:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010"},"wordCount":3059,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010","name":"South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-11T01:15:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/south-eastern-coalfields-ltd-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-7-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23225","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23225"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23225\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23225"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23225"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}