Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., P.N. BHAGWATI, V.R. KRISHNA IYER, R.S. SARKARIA, N.L. UNTWALIA, P.S. KAILASAM AND V.D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.
Tara Prasad Singh etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 111, 150-151, 180, 205-210, 220, 226, 270-271, 346-352, 355, 403, 396-398, 599, 541, 543, 626, 635-639, 661, 687-692, and 758 of 1977, 154, 178, 571-574, 600-603, 605, 610, 611, 257, 221 and 1130-1134 of 1977
Decided on 7-5-1980.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen and Mr. S. C. Banerjee, Sr. Advocates (in W Ps. Nos. 220 and 226 of 1977), Mr. Y. S. Chitale, Sr. Advocate (in W. P. No. 111 of 1977), Mr. K. K. Sinha, Advocate (in all W. Ps. except in W. Ps. Nos. 154, 178, 600, 610-611 of 1977), Mr. S. K. Sinha, Advocate (in all W. Ps.), Mr. Pradeep Hajela, Advocate(in W. P. No. 111 of 1977), M/s. S. K. Verma, A. K. Srivastava, M. P. Jha and C. K. Ratnaparkhi (in W. Ps. Nos. 154, 178, 600, 610-611 of 1977), M/s. B. N. Lala Surajdeo Singh, D. P. Mukherjee and A. K. Ganguli, Advocates (in W. P. No. 111 of 1977), for Petitioners in W. Ps. Nos. 111, 150-151, 154, 178, 610, 611, 661, 180, 270, 271, 599, 220, 226, 205-210, 396-399 and 600 of 1977; Mr. H. M. Seervai, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, Advocate (in W. Ps. Nos. 257, 346, 355, 270 and 271 of 1977), Mr. A. K. Srivastava, Advocate (in W. Ps. Nos. 257, 270-271, 346, 355 and 758 of 1977), Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate (in all W. Ps. and in W. P. No. 758 of 1977), Mr. Bimal Kumar Sinha, Advocate (in W. Ps. Nos. 346, 355 and 270-271 of 1977) for Petitioners in W. Ps. Nos. 257, 571 to 574, 603, 605, 355 and 346 of 1977; Mr. D. Goburdhan, Advocate, for the Petitioners in W. Ps. Nos. 687, 692, 635-639, 352 and Respondent No. 12 of 1977, in W. Ps. Nos. 150-151 of 1977, Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate (in all W. Ps), Mr. S. C. Banerjee, Sr. Advocate (in all W. Ps.) Mr. Y. S. Chitaley, Sr. Advocate (in all W. Ps. except in W. P. No. 154 of 1977), Mr. S. B. Sanyal, Sr. Advocate and Mr. A. K. Banerjee, Advocate (in W. P. No. 154 of 1977), Mr. A. K. Nag, Advocate (in all W. Ps.), for Petitioners in W. Ps. Nos. 626, 541, 543 and Respondent No. 15 in W. P. No. 154 of 1977; Mr. S. V. Gupte, Attorney General (in W. Ps. Nos. 257, 270 and 150 of 1977), Mr. S. N. Kacker Sol. General (in W. Ps) Nos. 111, 543, 178, 220 and 226 of 1977), Mr. U. R. Lalit, Sr. Advocate (in W. Ps. Nos. 403, 180 and 151 0f 1977), Mr. S. P. Nayar, Advocate (in W. Ps. 352, 626, 220, 226, 154, 396-398 and 638-639 of 1977), Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate (in all W. Ps.) and Mr. Govind Mukty, Advocate (in W. Ps. Nos. 150-151 of 1977), for the Res. Nos. 1, 9-12 in W. P. No. 111 of 1977, RR. 1, 7, 11 in W. Ps. Nos. 1, 8 to 12 in W. P. No. 154, RR. 1 & 7 in W. P. 178, RR. 1 & 7 in 610-611, RR. 1, 5, 6 and 8 in W. P. 661, RR. 1 and 7 in W. Ps. Nos. 270-271, RR. 1 and 7 in W. P. 599, RR. 1, 8, 9-12 and 15 in W. Ps. Nos. 571, 574, RR. 1, 8-13 and 16 in W. P. No. 603, RR. 1, 2 and 9 in W. P. 605, RR. 1, 2, 10, 11, 14 and 15 in W. P. 355, RR. 1, 8-12 in W. P. 346, RR. 1, 3, 5, 8 and 9 in W. P. No. 626, RR. 1, 6-10 and 14 in W. P. 541, RR. 1-5 and 9 in W. P. 543, RR. 1, 8-12 and 15 in W. P. 758, RR,. 1, 7 in W. P. 257, RR. 1 and 7 in 220 and 226, RR. 1, and 8 in W. Ps. Nos. 205-210. RR. 1 & 8 in W. P. 600, RR. 1, 3, 11-15 in W. P. 408, RR. 1, 9 and 10 in W. P. No. 180/77, Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, Sr. Advocate (in W. Ps. Nos. 111, 180, 403, 270-71, 543, 178 and 257 of 1977. Mr. U. P. Singh, Advocate (in all W. Ps.), Mr. Shambhu Nath Jha, Advocate (in W. P. No. 111 of 1977), and Mr. U. S. Prasad, Advocate (in W. P. No. 541 of 1977), for Respondents. Nos. 2-8 in W. Ps. Nos. 111, 2-7 in 154, 2-6 in 178, 2-6 in 610-611; 2-4, 7 and 9 in 661; 2-8 in 180; 2-6 and 10-12 in 270-271; 2-6 and 10-13 in 599; 2-7 in 571-574; 2-7, 14-15, 17-20 and 23 in 603; 2-7 in 605, 3-8, 12, 13, 16-18 in 335; 2-6 in 687 to 692; 2-6 in 635-637; 2-6 in 352; 2, 6, 7 and 10 1686 in 626; 2, 5, 11, 13 in 541; 6-8 in 543; 2-6 in 758 of 1977, 2-7, 13, 14 and 16 in 257; 2-6 in 220 and 226; 2-6, 13, 14 in 205-210; 2-7 in 600; 2-6 in 638-639; 2-4 to 10, in 403 of 1977, Mr. P. S. Khera, Advocate (for No. 1), and Mr. S. K. Verma, Advocate (for No. 2) in W. P. No. 1, 11 of 1977 for Interveners; Mr. A. P. Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. G. S. Chatterjee, Advocate with him), For Res. 2 and 6 in W. Ps. 150-151 and 2 to 6 in 396-398 of 1977; Mr. P. P. Jha, Advocate for Petitioner in W. P. No. 758 of 1977.
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14, 19 (1) (f), 19 (1) (g) , 31, 32 and 246 (3) - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 144 - Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rule 37 - Coal Mines (Nationalisation) amendment Act, 67 of 1976 – Section 30 (2) - Bihar Land Reforms Act, 30 of 1950 - Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 - Section 4-A and 31A (1) (e) - Sole proprietor - Land - Possession - Petitioner No. 1 claims to be sole proprietor of S. D. Coal Company which is engaged in coal business and coal mining operations - Petitioner No. 2 is said to be agent of company - Both surface and underground rights in Mouza Bundu in District , previously belonged to Raja of Ramgarh from whom or whose successors-in-interest, South Karanpura Coal Co. Ltd. appears to have obtained a lease of 242 Bighas of coal bearing lands in Mouza Bundu, called Bundu Colliery - After enactment of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 30 of 1950, all rights of tenureholders, landlords and Zamindars, including rights in mines and minerals, vested - Whether exclusively or in addition to any seam of other coal - Whether a particular mine should be worked at all – Held, There is no provision in Act by which interest so terminated is vested in State - It shall be lawful for Central Government or a Government Company or a corporation owned or controlled by Central Government to obtain a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of whole or part of land covered by mining lease which stands so terminated - These petitions are allowed partly in that petitioners therein shall be entitled for duration of unexpired portion of their existing leases, to carry on mining operations for purpose of winning fireclay so long as and to extent that they do not carry on any coal mining operation or engage in winning or mining coal - In these writ petitions there will be no order as to costs - Petitioners holding composite leases were permitted to carry on mining operations for purpose of winning fireclay, they, according to their own showing, cannot win or mine fireclay without doing a coal mining operation or without engaging in winning or mining coal - It is self-evident that in attempting to win fireclay, they will have to act at their own peril since they will run rist of being prosecuted - Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
CHANDRACHUD, CJI.- :— This is a group of 61 Writ Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) amendment Act, 67 of 1976, on the ground that it is violative of the provisions of arts. 14, 19 (1) (f), 19 (1) (g) and 31 of the Constitution. For understanding the basis of that challenge, it will be enough to refer to the broad facts of two representative groups of petitions. The facts of writ petitions 270 and 271 of 1977 are, by and large, typical of cases in which the petitioners claim to be lessees of coal mines, while the facts of writ petition 257 of 1977 are typical of cases in which the petitioners claim to be lessees of composite mines containing alternate seams of coal and fireclay. Most of the facts are undisputed and only a few of them are in controversy.
2. In writ petitions 270 and 271 of 1977, petitioner No. 1 claims to be the sole proprietor of S. D. Coal Company which is engaged in coal business and coal mining operations. Petitioner No. 2 is said to be the agent of the company. Both the surface and underground rights in Mouza Bundu in the District of Hazaribagh, Bihar, previously belonged to the Raja of Ramgarh from whom or whose successors-in-interest, the South Karanpura Coal Co. Ltd. appears to have obtained a lease of 242 Bighas of coal bearing lands in Mouza Bundu, called the Bundu Colliery. After the enactment of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 30 of 1950, all rights of tenureholders, landlords and Zamindars, including the rights in mines and minerals, vested in the State of Bihar but, by virtue of S. 10 of that Act, subsisting leases of mines and minerals in any estate or tenure became leases under the State Government. It is alleged that on 12th June, 1975 the South Karanpura Coal Co. Ltd. entered into an agreement with the S. D. Coal Company for prospecting, developing, raising and selling coal from the Bundu Colliery and that on the strength of that agreement, petitioner No. 1 was put in possession of the entire area of 242 Bighas of coal bearing land. The S. D. Coal Company is stated to have made large investments in the colliery and to have started paying rents and royalty to the State of Bihar. The petitioners have cited various facts and figures in support of their contention that they have been in working possession of the coal mine are in question and that they were entitled to remove nearly 30,000 tonnes of coal raised by them at a heavy cost. It appears that in a proceeding under S. 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Sadar), Hazaribagh, had made the rule absolute against the South Karanpura Coal Co. Ltd. as well as the S. D. Coal Company, on the ground that the State Government had taken over the Bundu Colliery. But, in C. R. Case No. 18318 (W) of 1975, the High Court of Calcutta is stated to have set aside the order of the State Government cancelling the lease of petitioner 1 in respect of the Bundu Colliery. Since that lease stands terminated under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act 1976, the petitioners have filed writ petitions to challenge the validity of that Act.
3. On the factual aspect, the contention of the State of Bihar is that the lease of the Bundu Colliery which was held by M/s. South Karanpura Coal Co. Ltd. was terminated by the Bihar Government on Nov. 24, 1975 on account of the violative of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and that, actual possession of the colliery was taken by the State Government on Nov. 26, 1975 prior to the coming into force of the Amendment Act of 1976.
4. In writ petition No. 257 of 1977, the petitioner Nirode Baran Banerjee made an application dated Sept. 17, 1966 for the grant of a mining lease in respect of fireclay covering an area of 1640.60 acres of the Hesalong Colliery. On Sept. 19, 1966 he made a similar application in respect of the same area, for a coal mining lease. These applications were deemed to have been rejected since t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
