IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 18586 of 2024 Sunil Mallik …. Petitioner Mr. Gopal Krushna Nanda, Advocate -versus- Govt. of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 17.02.2026 01. 1. A seminal point involved in the instant writ petition is whether the authorities can charge District Mineral Foundation (DMF) and Environment Management Fund (EMF) on the additional charge levied in terms of the statutory rules. Prior to the amendment having made in the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short "the MMDR Act"), there was no imposition of any liability towards the DMF. 2. Section 9-B of the said Act was introduced by virtue of an amendment Act 10 of 2015 to take effect on and from 12th January, 2015 bringing the concept of the DMF which is to be set up by the Government as a Trust, which would be a non-profit body. The object can be gathered from the provisions of Section 9-B for constituting a Trust in the name of the ‘District Mineral Foundation’ that it would work in the interest and the benefit of the persons and the areas affected by the mining related operations. It is thus created to give a succor to persons of the locality who would be affected by such operations/activities and, therefore, the avowed object and the purpose underlying such incorporation are manifested therefrom. 3. Apropos, the said amendment having brought into the said Act, the Odisha District Mineral Foundations Rules, 2015 was framed, which was duly notified on 18th August, 2015. Rule 9 of the said Rules postulates that all the holders of the mineral leases shall pay to the respective DMF, in addition to the royalty, an amount equivalent to such percentage of royalty as may be prescribed by the Central Government under sub-Section (5) or sub-Section (6) of Section 9-B of the said Act. The percentage is also provided in Rule-9 of the said Rules, which runs thus: "9. Amount payable by lessees of minerals to the Trust:– (1) All holders of major minerals leases shall, in addition to royalty, pay to the respective District Mineral Foundation, an amount equivalent to such percentage of royalty as may be prescribed by the Central Government under sub-section (5) or, as the case may be, sub-section (6) of section 9B of the Act. (2) All holders of the minor mineral leases shall, in addition to the royalty, pay to the respective Trust amount equivalent to – (a) an amount equal to thirty percentum of the royalty, if the lease has not been granted through auction (b) Ten percentum of the royalty, if the lease has been granted through auction (3) The amount under sub-rule (1) and (2) shall become payable and be paid on the same day on which such royalty was payable to the Government." 4. Even apart, Rule 27 of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 encompasses not only the modalities and the procedures to be adhered to in granting the mining leases to the respective mining lease holders but also an obligation to pay 1/4th of the total amount of royalty and additional charges as well as the amount of contribution payable to the DMF on Annual Minimum Guaranteed Quantity and also to deposit the cost of obtaining a mining plan and the environmental clearance approval before the execution of the lease deed. Page 4 of 7 5. The conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions leads to an inescapable inference that apart from the royalty, the additional charges as well as the contribution towards the DMF in addition to other charges are to be paid. The introduction of Section 9-B in the parent Act conveys an avowed intention of the legislature to provide the benefit to the persons, who would be affected by the mining activities or operations and such beneficial piece of the legislation has to be construed in the perspective of the benefits intended to be given to the inhabitants of the locality. 6. The canon of interpretation ordains such interpretation to be placed in action to the beneficial piece of the legislation so that the beneficiaries under the said Act receive the benefits and any other interpretation, which would frustrate the very object of incorporating the welfare piece of legislation, would have to be eschewed. There is no escape from the payment of the DMF under the statutory provisions but the point which boils down in the instant case is whether the DMF would be calculated both on the royalty and the additional charges so also the EMF. Page 5 of 7 7. As indicated above, Rule 9 of the Odisha District Mineral Foundations Rules, 2015 leaves no obscurity in understanding the method of calculation of the DMF that it has to be calculated on the royalty thereby excluding the component of additional charges from the purview thereof. Once the DMF and the EMF are to be charged on the royalty itself, charging of any amount on the additional charges is contrary to the statutory provisions, which is apparent in the instant case. The authorities cannot travel beyond the circumference of the statutory provisions nor can impose any amount not contemplated therein as the transgression of such boundaries entails such decision liable to be interfered with in exercise of power of judicial review. 8. We are unable to appreciate the contention of Ms. Aishwarya Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) appearing for the State-opposite parties that since the payments have been made voluntarily without any demur, it is not open to the mining lease holders to contend that the calculation of the statutory amount to be remitted to the Government exchequer is faulty and/or not in consonance with the statutory provisions. Page 6 of 7 9. As indicated above, the authorities cannot charge any amount de hors the statutory provisions and even if the payment is made under the mistaken advice or due to oversight, it does not create any brindle into a person to raise such issue before the statutory authority. 10. It is also brought to our notice that after an amendment having brought in the year 2021, the power and the jurisdiction of the Tahasildar has been transferred to the Mining Department and the Mining Officer while reminding the petitioner of his statutory liabilities and/or responsibilities by a Letter dated 18th April, 2024 containing the breakup of the total demanded sum, which does not include the additional charges while calculating the DMF and EMF. The said demand appears to be in tune with the relevant statutory provisions and, therefore, the DMF and EMF calculated by the Tahasildar, not only on the basis of the royalty but also the additional charges appear to be infirm, illegal and not in tune with the statutory provisions. 11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Page 7 of 7 12. The Director of Mines (opposite party No.2) is directed to recalculate the amount of DMF and EMF for the impugned period and make refund of the amount calculated on the basis of the additional charges. The entire exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Sisira