Back
1982 Supreme(Online)(SC) 15
PETITIONER:
SANJEEV COKE MANUFACTURING COMPANY Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT10/12/1982 BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)
BHAGWATI, P.N.
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)
CITATION:
1983 AIR 239 1983 SCR (1)1000
1983 SCC (1) 147 1982 SCALE (2)1193 CITATOR INFO :
F 1984 SC 326 (21,26,52,57,94,100)
F 1984 SC 374 (16,17) RF 1986 SC1466 (13,14) RF 1988 SC 782 (29,40)
R 1990 SC 123 (27) D 1990 SC1771 (13) R 1992 SC 847 (64)
RF&R 1992 SC 938 (22,33)
RF 1992 SC 999 (14)
ACT:
(A) Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226 and 32-
Practice and Procedure-In proceedings involving constitutional issues, courts cannot travel beyond their scope.
(B) Interpretation of Statutes-Rules of Construction-
Value of grammar.
(C) Constitution of India, 1950-Legislative validity of-Tests for determination-Affidavits made in the courts to sustain legislation, value of.
(D) Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 39(b), 31C and 14-Directive Principle of State Policy under Article 39(b)-Immunity of challenge under Article 31 C on ground of violation of Article 14 is not permissible, Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation)
Act 36 of 1972.
(E) Constitution of India, Article 14-Whether Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act is violative of Art. 14.
(F) Judicial review of matters of State policy like scheme of Nationalisation-Proceedings under Article 226.
(G) Constitution of India, Article 39(b)-Whether "material resources of the community" referred to is confined to "natural resources".
(H) Constitution of India, Article 31 C (as amended by the Constitution Forty Second Amendment Act 1976, and Articles 14 and 39 Scope of-Article 31 C with its extended protection is constitutionally valid.
(I) Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act (Act 36 of
1972) Sections 3 (g), 3(b) and 4(1)-The definition of "Coke oven plants" in Section 3(b) should be read together with clauses (vi) and (x) of 3(i) defining "mine" for understanding the correct description of "Mines" in the Act.
(J) Costs in proceedings under Articles 226 or 32 when the grievances are not frivolous, cost should not be awarded, when the petition is dismissed.
PETITIONER:
SANJEEV COKE MANUFACTURING COMPANY Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT10/12/1982 BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)
BHAGWATI, P.N.
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)
CITATION:
1983 AIR 239 1983 SCR (1)1000
1983 SCC (1) 147 1982 SCALE (2)1193 CITATOR INFO :
F 1984 SC 326 (21,26,52,57,94,100)
F 1984 SC 374 (16,17) RF 1986 SC1466 (13,14) RF 1988 SC 782 (29,40)
R 1990 SC 123 (27) D 1990 SC1771 (13) R 1992 SC 847 (64)
RF&R 1992 SC 938 (22,33)
RF 1992 SC 999 (14)
ACT:
(A) Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226 and 32-
Practice and Procedure-In proceedings involving constitutional issues, courts cannot travel beyond their scope.
(B) Interpretation of Statutes-Rules of Construction-
Value of grammar.
(C) Constitution of India, 1950-Legislative validity of-Tests for determination-Affidavits made in the courts to sustain legislation, value of.
(D) Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 39(b), 31C and 14-Directive Principle of State Policy under Article 39(b)-Immunity of challenge under Article 31 C on ground of violation of Article 14 is not permissible, Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation)
Act 36 of 1972.
(E) Constitution of India, Article 14-Whether Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act is violative of Art. 14.
(F) Judicial review of matters of State policy like scheme of Nationalisation-Proceedings under Article 226.
(G) Constitution of India, Article 39(b)-Whether "material resources of the community" referred to is confined to "natural resources".
(H) Constitution of India, Article 31 C (as amended by the Constitution Forty Second Amendment Act 1976, and Articles 14 and 39 Scope of-Article 31 C with its extended protection is constitutionally valid.
(I) Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act (Act 36 of
1972) Sections 3 (g), 3(b) and 4(1)-The definition of "Coke oven plants" in Section 3(b) should be read together with clauses (vi) and (x) of 3(i) defining "mine" for understanding the correct description of "Mines" in the Act.
(J) Costs in proceedings under Articles 226 or 32 when the grievances are not frivolous, cost should not be awarded, when the petition is dismissed.
1001
HEADNOTE:
Consequent to the passing of the Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971, which was replaced by the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973 and the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, all coal mines known to exist in the country were nationalised, whether they are coking coal mines or non-coking mines. Along with them coke oven plants in or belonging to the mines were also nationalised. In addition twelve specified coke oven plants not belonging to the owners of the mines, but known to exist near about the mines were also nationalised. All other coke oven plants were left out of the scheme of nationalisation for private exploitation.
Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company, Bhowra Coke Company who were owners of the coke oven plants described in items 2 and 9 of the Second Schedule filed writ petitions in the Calcutta High Court challenging the inclusion of their coke oven plants in the Second Schedule as violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. The writ petitions were withdrawn to the Supreme Court under Article139 A.
Dismissing the petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. It is not open to a court to answer academic or hypothetical questions on such considerations, such as that they dealt with Constitutional amendments and not ordinary law, which of their own force permitted violation of freedoms through laws passed for certain purposes, particularly so when serious constitutional issues are involved. Judges are not authorised to make disembodied pronouncements on serious and cloudy issues of constitutional policy without battle lines being properly drawn. Judicial pronouncements cannot be immaculate legal conceptions. It is but right that no important point of law should be decided without a proper lis between parties properly ranged on either side and a crossing of the swords. It is in expedient for the Supreme Court to delve into problems which do not arise and express opinion thereon. 1016 A-C]
2. Adjectives are attractive forensic aids but in matters of interpretation they are diverting intruders. They should not be allowed to get the better of the nouns which they qualify. [1020 G-H]
3:1. Validity of legislation is not to be judged merely by affidavits filed on behalf of the State, but by all the relevant circumstances which the court may ultimately find out and more especially by what may be gathered from what the legislature has itself said. [1029 F-G]
3:2. Courts are not really concerned with the hollowness or the self-condemnatory nature of the statements made in the affidavits filed by the respondents to justify and sustain the legislation. The deponents of the affidavits filed into court may speak for the parties on whose behalf they swear to the statements. They do not speak for the Parliament and Parliament is never before the Court. Once a statute leaves Parliament House, the Court’s is the only authentic voice which may echo (interpret) the Parliament. This the court will do with reference to the language of the statute and other permissible aids. [1029 A-D]
3:3. No act of Parliament can be struck down because of the under standing or misunderstanding of Parliamentary intention by the executive government or because their (the Government’s) spokesmen do not bring out relevant circumstances but indulge in empty and self defeating affidavits. They do not and cannot bind Parliament. [1029 E- F]
4:1. The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1972 is a legislation for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principle specified in Article 39(b) of the Constitution and is, therefore, immune under Article 31-C from attack on the ground that it offends the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 14. [1027 C-D]
4:2. By the Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation Act all coking coal mines known to exist in the country were nationalised. Other coke oven plants which did not belong to the owners of the mines but which were
