1994 Supreme(SC) 636

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh, P.B. Sawant and N.P. Singh, JJ.
Writ Petition (C) No. 1642 of 1986
Decided On: 14.07.1994
Bhubaneshwar Singh and Anr. Appellants
Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Respondent
Counsel for the Parties
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, A.K. Sen, R.F. Nariman, R.N. Sachthey and S.B. Sanyal, Sr. Advs., D.N. Goburdhan, Suman Khaitan, Advs. for Khaitan & Co., R.N. Banerjee, K.J. John, Anip Sachthey, Himanshu Munshi, C.D. Singh, A.K. Banerjee, Amlan Ghosh, R.C. Bhatia, P. Parameswaran, Rathin Das, Roxna Swamy, Bharat Sangal, A. Mariarputham, Sushma Suri, C.V.S. Rao and Naresh Bakshi, Advs.

Headnote:

Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Section 10 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, - Section 10,3,8,22,10(2) – Constitution of India,1950 – Articles 136, 226 - challenge - owner of Turiyo Colliery, a Coking Coal Mine, listed under Serial No. 7 in the first schedule of the Nationalisation Act. Along with other Coking Coal Mines, the Management of the aforesaid Coking Coal Mine had been taken over by the Central Government on 17. 10.1971 and it remained under the management of the Central Government upto 30.4.1972. During the period aforesaid, the ownership of the said Coking Coal Mine continued to remain with the petitioner. As such the Central Government and/or its custodian were account to the petitioner, profit and loss during the aforesaid period while it was under the management of the Custodian.The petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court, making a grievance that the custodian had debited the expenses for raising the coal while the Coking Coal Mine was under the management of the Custodian but had not credited the price for the quantity of coal raised, which was lying in stock on the date prior to the date the said Coal Mine vested under the Central Government. The High Court allowed the said applicationjiolding that the petitioner was the owner of the said coal Mine and was entitled to credit for the stock of coal lying unsold as on 30.4.1972. A direction was given that account be recast and payment be made to the petitioner. - whether by introduction of Sub-section (2) in Section 10 with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 1.5.1972, the respondents are absolved of their liability and are exonerated from the responsibility of complying with the direction given by the High Court and this court in the earlier writ application filed on behalf of the petitioner. - whether by this process which negatives the claim made on behalf of the petitioner, even the effect of the judgment of the High Court and this Court has been nullified - whether the effect of judicial pronouncements of the High Court or the Supreme Court can be made wiped out by amending the legislation with retrospective effect – Held, Section 3 of the Mysore Sales Tax (Amendment) Act 1969 was unreasonable, in so far as it sought to nullify the High Court judgment which had become final and binding on parties. From a bare reference to the aforesaid judgment it shall appear that this Court pointed out that the amendment did not proceed to cure the defect or to remove the lacuna pointed out in the earlier judgment by bringing in an amendment. As such it was not a validating Act and it could not nullify the judgment of the High Court, because the defect had not been removed by the said Act. In other words, the validating Act had not served its purpose. In the present case, the lacuna or defect has been removed by introduction of Sub-section (2) in section of the Act with retrospective effect. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 as Well as Section 19, both have specified that the amount which is be paid as compensation mentioned in the schedule shall be deemed to include and deemed always to have included, the amount required to be paid to such owner in respect of all coal in stock on the date immediately before the appointed day. As such the earlier Judgment of this Court is of on help to the petitioner. - there was no occasion for the High Court or this Court to issue a direction for taking into account the price which was payable for the stock of coke lying on the date before the appointed day. The authority to introduce Sub-section (2) in Section 10 of the aforesaid Act with retrospective effect cannot be questioned. Once the amendment has been introduced retrospectively, Courts have to act on the basis that such provision was there since the beginning. The role of the deeming provision need not be emphasised in view of series of judgments of this Court. Hence reading Sub-section (2) of Section 10 along with Section 19, it has to be held that respondents are not required to take into account the stock of coke lying on the date prior to the appointed day for the purpose of accounting, during the period when the mine in question was under the management of the Central Government, because it shall be deemed that the compensation awarded to the petitioner included the price for such coal lying in stock on the date prior to the appointed day. Neither any compensation is to be paid for such stock of coal nor the price thereof is to be taken into account for the purpose of Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1972. It need not be pointed out that Sub-section (1) of Section 22 shall be applicable where the statement of accounts is to be prepared in respect of each coking coal mine taking into account the expenditure incurred in raising the Coal and the price of the coal raised during the period when such coking coal mine was under the management of the Central Government or the Government company. In view of the aforesaid Sub-section (2) introduced in Section 10 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 and Section 10 of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972, it shall be deemed that the compensation has been paid even for the stock of coal lying on the date prior to the appointed day. - Writ Application is dismissed