Back
1970 Supreme(Cal) 37
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
D. Basu, A. K. Basu
ONDAL COAL CO. - Appellant
Versus
SONEPUR COAL FIELDS LTD. - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 254 Of 1966 And Matter No. 198 Of 1963
Decided On : FEBRUARY 18, 1970
A quasi-judicial tribunal must give the parties an opportunity to make representations before making a decision that affects their rights.
Headnote:
COAL MINES (CONSERVATION AND SAFETY) ACT, 1952 - RULES 39(2), 39(3C) - OWNERSHIP - OCCUPIER - REPRESENTATION - NATURAL JUSTICE - NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE - COAL BOARD'S DECISION WITHOUT HEARING PETITIONER - QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a sub-lessee of disputed coal mines, applied to the Coal Board for permission to reopen the mines. The Board, without giving the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard, granted permission to the Ondal Coal Co., the Petitioner's alleged lessor. The Petitioner challenged the Board's decision by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Petitioner was an 'owner' within the meaning of the Coal Mines (Conservation and Safety) Act, 1952, as it was in possession of the mines under a sub-lease agreement. The Court further held that the Board was required to give the Petitioner an opportunity to make a written representation before making the impugned order. The Court found that the Board did not provide the Petitioner with a genuine opportunity to produce evidence and make representations, and that the Board's decision was therefore ultra vires and without jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the Petitioner was an 'owner' within the meaning of the Coal Mines (Conservation and Safety) Act, 1952? 2. Whether the Coal Board was required to give the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard before making the impugned order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'owner' in the Coal Mines (Conservation and Safety) Act, 1952 refers to the definition in the Indian Mines Act, 1923, which includes 'any person who is the immediate proprietor or lessee or occupier of the mine'. 2. Rule 39(3c) of the Rules made under the Act requires the Board to give the 'owner concerned' an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed order before passing an order under Rule 39(3a) or (3b).
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment and order of the Court below. The Rule was made absolute, the impugned order of the Coal Board was quashed, and the Coal Board was directed to decide the application in accordance with the law, in light of the observations made by the Court.
( 2 ) THE Petitioner Co. 's case was that the Ondal Coal Co. , a lessee of the disputed coal mines, granted a sub-lease in favour of the Petitioner Co. , arid delivered possession on June 1, 1946, since when the Petitioner Co. has been in possession and has also fulfilled the other terms of the agreement of sub-lease, so that, the only interest now left with the Ondal Co. , in the said Mines is the right to receive royalty from the Petitioner Co. The Petitioner's case, in the aforesaid circumstances, is that the Petitioner Co. has become the 'owner' of the disputed Mines within the meaning of that term in the Coal Mines (Conservation and Safety) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and as such is entitled to obtain permission under the Act, from the Coal Board (Respondent No. 1 in the Petition), for opening and reopening the Mines.
( 3 ) THE Petitioner, in fact, did obtain such permission in 1947 under the Coal Control Order of 1945 (p. 23) but the Mines could not then be worked by the Petitioner Co. The Company subsequently made an application to the Coal Board under the Rules made under the Act for reopening the Mines in July 1957 and the Coal Board advised the Petitioner Co. to obtain a licence from the Central Government under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 to establish an industrial undertaking for production of Coal. Before the application of the Petitioner to the Board could be disposed of in March 1961, the Board informed the Petitioner that a similar application had been received from the Ondal Coal Co. The Petitioner Co. , protested against the granting of any permission in favour of the Ondal Coal Co. but the Board did not pay any heed to that. Coming to know that the Board was going to hold a meeting for disposing of the application of the Ondal Co. , without issuing any notice to the Petitioner Co. , the Petitioner sent a formal letter to the Board through its Solicitors, on February 4, 1963, raising objections (p. 23 ). The Board asked for certain information from the Petitioner Co. (p. 28) and eventually, by its impugned letter at p. 31, informed the Petitioner Co. , that since the latter had not produced the documents called for by the Board, the Board had taken final decision "granting" reopening permission to the Ondal Coal Co. ".
( 4 ) IN the Petition, the petitioner prayed for quashing the impugned order of the Board in favour of the Ondal Co, and for directing the Board to grant the permission to the Petitioner. The learned Trial Court came to the following conclusions: (a) That the Petitioner was an 'owner' within the meaning of the Act and was entitled to apply for the permission; (b) That the duty to lie performed by the Board in the matter was quasi-judicial and that the impugned order made, without hearing the Petitioner, was violative of the requirements of natural justice. (c) As to whether the Petitioner Co. , had obtained possession, the Court did not come to a finding, presumably because it was considered unnecessary.
( 5 ) THE Appellant Co. , has challenged the findings of the Court below and has also contended that the Board has, in fact, offer- ed to the Petitioner sufficient opportunity to represent its case.
( 6 ) THE first question for determination is whether the Petitioner is an 'owner' within the meaning of Rule 39 (2) of the Rules made under the Act. Sub-rule (1) of this Rule says that no mine can be opened or reopened without the prior permission in w
