SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(SC) 293

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
21st November, 1960.
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
The Hingir-Rampur Coal Co., Ltd. and others, Petitioners
Versus
The State of Orissa and others, Respondents.
Petition No. 87 of 1959.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. M. P. Amin, Sr. Advocate, (M/s Dara P. Mehta and P. M. Amin, Advocates and M/s. S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s Rajinder Narain and Co., with him), for Petitioners; Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastry, Sr. Advocate, (M/s R. Ganapathy Iyer, P. Kesava Pillai and T. M. Sen, Advocates with him), for Respondents; Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Addl, Solicitor-General of India and Mr. B. Sen, senior Advocate (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate with them), for Intervener.

Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.SEN, DARA P.MEHTA, H.N.SANYAL, J.B.DADACHAN, M.P.AMIN, P.Kesava Pillai, P.L.VOHRA, P.M.AMIN, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY, T.M.SEN

Headnote:COMPULSION OR COERCIVENESS IS PRESENT IN ALL KINDS OF IMPOSITION IN DIFFERENT DEGREES AND IS NOT ABSENT IN FEES -

       

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. (on behalf of himself and A. K. Sarkar, K. Subba Rao and Mudholkar JJ.) : This is a petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution in which the validity of the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 (XXVII of 1952), is challenged. The first petitioner is a public limited company which has its registered office at Bombay. A large majority of its shareholders are citizens of India; some of them are themselves companies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 are the Directors of Petitioner No. 1, the second petitioner being the Chairman of its Board of Directors. These petitioners are all citizens of India. At all material times the first petitioner carried on and still carries on the business of producing and selling coal excavated from its collieries at Rampur in the State of Orissa. Two leases have been executed in its favour; the first was executed on October 17, 1941, by the Governor of Orissa whereby all that piece or parcel of land in the registration district of Sambalpur admeasuring about 3341.79 acres has been demised for a period of 30 years commencing from September 1, 1939, in consideration of the rent reserved thereby and subject to the covenants and conditions prescribed thereunder; and the second is a surface lease executed in its favour by Mr. Mohan Brijraj Singh Deo; on April 19, 1951, in relation to a land admeasuring approximately 211.94 acres for a like period of 30 years commencing from February 4, 1939, in consideration of the rent and subject to the terms and conditions prescribed by it.

2. Pursuant to S. 5 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, all the right, title and interest of the Zamindar of Rampur in the lands demised to the first petitioner under the second lease vested in respondent 1, the State of Orissa. Since then the first petitioner has duly paid the rent reserved by the said lease to the appropriate authorities appointed by respondent 1, and has observed and performed all the conditions and covenants of the said lease. In exercise of its rights under the said two leases the first petitioner entered upon the lands demised and has been carrying on the business of excavating and producing coal at its collieries at Rampur.

3. In December, 1952, the Legislature of the State of Orissa passed the impugned Act; and it received the assent of the Governor of Orissa on December 10, 1952. It was, however, not reserved for the consideration of the president of India nor has it received his assent. In pursuance of the rule-making power conferred on it by the impugned Act respondent 1 has purported to make rules called the Orissa Mining Areas Development Act Rules, 1955; these rules have been duly notified in the State Gazette on January 25, 1955.

4. Subsequently, the Administrator, respondent 2, appointed under the impugned Act issued a notification of June 24, 1958, whereby the first petitioner s Rampur colliery has been notified for the purpose of liability for the payment of cess under the impugned Act. The area of this colliery has been determined at 3341.79 acres. In its appeal filed under Rule 3 before the Director of Mines the first petitioner objected to the issue of the said notification, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned Act and the rules framed under it were ultra vires and invalid; no action has, however, been taken on the said appeal presumably because the authority concerned could not entertain or deal with the objections about the vires of the Act and the rules.

5. Thereafter on March 26, 1959, the Assistant Administrative Officer, respondent 3, called upon the first petitioner to submit monthly returns for the assessment of the cess. The first petitioner then represented that it had filed an appeal setting forth its objections against the notification, and added that until the said appeal was disposed of no returns would be filed by it. In spite of this representation respondent 3, by his letter of May 6, 1959 cal












































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top