Collection of sludge or slurry from a dumping ground does not constitute winning or a mining operation, and therefore, a lease granted for such purpose is not a mining lease.

( 1 ) THE appellants, M/s. Industrial Fuel Marketing Company and others have, in this appeal, challenged the propriety of the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Judge discharged the Rule Nisi issued on the application of the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE Coal Washeries known as Kathara, Kargali and Swang, situate in the district of Giridih, in the State of Bihar admittedly belonged to the Central Coal Fields Ltd. , the respondent No. 3. In these washeries, a large quantities of coal from Hazaribagh/giridih coal fields are brought in for processing in order to bring out good quality of coal required for the steel plants. In the course of such processing, water containing very fine particles of coal known as 'sludge' or 'slurry' overflows and run into the neighbouring raiyati fields and also into the river Damodar. As a result, this ejected sludge or slurry is deposited on raiyati lands as well as on the river bed and becomes a part and parcel of the same.

( 3 ) BY an indenture of lease dated April 9, 1975, the State of Bihar granted and demised to the appellants the sludge or slurry as deposited on the lands and the bed of the river Damodar as described in paragraph 1 of the schedule to the said Indenture together with liberties, powers and privileges and on terms and conditions as mentioned therein. It is alleged that the appellants have been regularly lifting coal ejects from the lands and river bed as mentioned in the Indenture of lease. On April 2, 1980, six lorries which were loaded with sludge or slurry and soft coke manufactured out of the same were seized by the Police on the complaint of the Central Coal Fields Ltd. , the respondent No. 3. It is alleged that the respondent No. 3 has been trying to remove the accumulated ejected sludge or slurry already lifted by the appellants and deposited on the southern side of the Damodar river. On the complaint of the respondent No. 3, a case being Petarbar P. S. Case No. 2, dated April 4, 1980, under section 379 I. P. C. , was started against the appellants. The appellants and their representatives were also prevented from going to the concerned sites for the purpose of lifting any ejected sludge or slurry for manufacturing soft coke by the officers of the respondent No. 3. Accordingly, the appellants filed a writ petition, inter alia, praying for the quashing of the said Petarbar P. S. Case No. 2, dated April 4, 1980 and for restraining the respondent No. 3, the Central Coal Fields Ltd. , and Coal India Ltd. , from interfering with the rights of the appellants under the said Indenture dated April 9, 1975 to lift the ejected sludge or slurry from the concerned sites.

( 4 ) THE respondents, except the State of Bihar, contested the Rule Nisi issued on the writ petition and opposed the prayer of the appellants. The State of Bihar, however, supported the appellants' case. On behalf of the respondent No. 3, the Central Coal Fields Ltd. , it was contended that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ-petition. The respondent No. 3 also challenged the title of the appellants to the ejected sludge or slurry to which, exclusive title was claimed by the respondent No. 3. Further, it was contended on behalf of the respondent No. 3 that the lease granted in favour of the appellant No. 1 M/s. Industrial Fuel Marketing Company was a mining lease, and that such lease not having been granted in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957, was void.

( 5 ) THE learned Judge came to the finding that this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The learned Judge, however, accepted the contention of the respondent No. 3 that the appellants had no title to the ejected sludge or slurry, and that the respondent No. 3 was the exclusive owner thereof. The contention of the appellants that there was an abandonment of title by the respondent No.