Judgement

JUDGMENT :- Despite substitute service effected by giving publication of the notice in Hindustan and Aaj published from Patna, no one has appeared for the respondents. The respondent instituted a suit for declaration that some machinery had not vested under the Coal Nationalisation Act. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent by following the definition of owner and mine under the Mines Act. It may be stated that the limited nature of definition of Mine in the Mines Act was noticed by this Court in the decision in Serajudin & Co. v. Workmen, AIR 1966 SC 921. It was held that mine in S. 2(1)(j) of the Mines Act excluded an office of mine which was separately defined by S. 2(k). The office of the mine even though 561 situated on the surface of the mine did not fall within the definition of mine. However, in the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973, an extended meaning was given to the expression mine and under the said Act, the Management of Coal Mines vested in the Central Government on and from the appointed day, namely, from 30th January, 1973 and the Coal Mines specified in the Schedule of the Act were deemed to be the mines of which the Ma