Mahindra Nath Shukla & Ors Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors [1980] INSC 75 (11 April 1980)
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) SEN, A.P. (J)
CITATION: 1980 AIR 1308 1980 SCR (3) 595 1980
SCC (3) 353
ACT:
Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1973 (Act 26
of 1973) as amended by Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976,
Section 3(3)-Whether the amendment relates only to Coal Mines and not to Coking
Coal Mines-Words and Phrases- Meaning of no person, other than the Central
Government or a Government Company or a Corporation owned managed or controlled
by the Central Government.......... shall carry on coal mining operations in
India, in any form.
HEADNOTE:
Dismissing the petitions, the Court
HELD 1. "Coal Mine" in the 1976 Act
includes coking coal mine and section 3(3) of that Act clamps down the ban on
extraction of Coking Coal also [601B-C] History may illumine but cannot
imprison interpretation. It is true that in 1971 when Parliament was faced with
a crisis regarding need for coking coal in iron and steel industries, on an
emergency footing was made solely confined to coking coal mines. The plan of
the nation in regard to these natural resources was then embryonic and later
final and there was step-by-step legislation to implement the policy on a
phased programme. The culmination came in the blanket ban of 1976. [599D-E] The
expression in Section 3(3) is semantically sweeping and is wide in meaning so
as to spare no class of coal, including even coking coal, because coking coal is
a species of coal, coal itself being the genus. Section 2(b) of the 1973 Act
defines coal mine to mean "a mine in which there exists one or more seams
of coal". Even a coking coal mine is a coal mine because the definition is
broad and this is clear from the definition of coking coal mine in Section 3(c)
of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972.
[600E-G] Coking coal is more precious,
strategically speaking, than other forms of coal and it would be an error, nay
a blunder, to prevent private extraction of common coal and to permit removal
of coking coal. It would be pathetic and bathetic for any policy-maker to be so
egregious. Parliament may err but not be absurd! So construed, it is obvious
that coking coal, which is more importantly needed for the nation than other
supplies of coal, must be the last to be squandered away by permitting it to be
privately exploited.
[601A-B]
3. Even assuming there is a fire clay or
other layer somewhere in the bowels of the earth tho statutory mandatory is
that once you come up on a coal seem you shall stop extracting it to proceed
beyond. May be some injury may be caused, fancied or real, but it is
permissible for Parliament to make provision to prevent evasion of the purpose
of the statute by prohibition of mining other minerals which may incidentally
defeat tho coal nationalisation measure. [601D-F] 596
4. Section 3(3) of the 1976 Act, being all
inclusive and having been constitutionally upheld it is no longer permissible
for any Court In India to appoint a receiver for or otherwise permit extraction
of coal or coking coal. The Court cannot sanction the commission of a crime.
[601G, H, 602A]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos.
112-115, 175, 297, 194-198, 489-90, 459, 215, 2-3 and 432/80, 1477 of 1979,
1516B 1517/79.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution) AND
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2746 of 1980.
From the judgment and order dated the 11th
February, 1980 of the High Court of Calcutta in Appeal from an order No. Nil of
1980.
A. K. Srivastava for the Petitioners in WP
Nos. 213 and 175/80.
H. K. Puri for the Petitioners in WP Nos.
1516, 1517, 1477/79 and 2-3 of 1980.
M. P. Jha for the Petitioners in WP No.
297/80.
Dr. Y. S. Chitale, B. P. Singh and Naresh K.
Sharma for the Petitioners in WPs Nos. 112-115/80.
P. R. Mridul and D. P. Mukherjee for the
Petitioners in WPs 489- 490 and 432 of 1980.
A. K. Sen, S. K. Sinha and C. K. Ratnaparkhi
for the Petitioners in WPs. 194-198/80.
Dr. Y. S Chitale, G. S. Chatterjee, and D. P.
Mukherjee for the Petitioners in SLP No. 2746 of 1980.
S. K. Jain for the Petitioners in WP No.
439/80.
M. K. Banerjee Addl. Sol. Genl. and Miss A.
Subhashini for the Respondent No. 3 in WP Nos. 112-115, 175/80.
Lal Narain Sinha Att. Genl. and U. P. Singh
for the Respondent State of Bihar and Its official in WP Nos. 112- 115/80,
1477/79, 175, 213, 2-3, 459, 489-90/80 and SLP No. 2746/80.
M. K. Banerjee, Addl. Sol. Genl. and S. B.
Sinha and D.
P. Mukherjee for the Respondent No. 9 in WPs
112-115 of 1980.
Rathin Das for the Respondents (State of West
Bengal) in WPs. Nos. 1516-1517/79.
S. S. Jauhar for the Interveners in WP No.
175/80.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
KRISHNA IYER, J.-We have a hunch-we leave it at that- that these
"Workers" writ petitions arc a kind of litigative puppetry.
597 the illicit mine exploiters being the
puppeteers. This set of writ petitions, where some private management claim to
have the right to extract coking coal on the score that prohibition enacted in
the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976 does 'not affect or
operate on coking coal mines, must be dismissed as devoid of deserts.
The short point sharply focussed by Dr.
Chitale and echoed with some variant notes by other counsel, in support of
these writ petitions may be briefly stated thus. According to him, the history
of coal nationalisation legislation in this country in the seventies of this
century shows that Parliament has treated coal and coking coal separately for
legislative purposes in regard to taking over of management, nationalisation of
ownership and the like. It all began with the year 1971 when Parliament enacted
the Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the
1971 Act, for short). It took over management of coking coal mines. Iron and
Steel are key industries requiring, importantly, coking coal for their very
survival. When Parliament found that coking coal was not being made available
properly to the Industry on account of the unsatisfactory con- duct of the
private sector operating in this field, the entire management of coking coal
mines. was taken over on an emergency footing in the public interest be the
1971 Act. Thereafter, with more deliberation and detailed investigation, the
management of coking coal mines (and of other coal mines) was taken over by
appropriate legislation. Still later, after mature planning and understanding
of implications, Parliament enacted legislation for vesting of ownership of
coking coal Mines and eventually of all coal mines. The Management of coking
coal was taken over by the Central Government under Coking Coal Mines
(Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971. The management of all other coal mines was
taken over by the Central Government under the Coal Mines (Taking over of
Management) Act, 1973. The second step after management came under the control
of the Central Government was the actual nationalisation of ownership itself.
This state of planning led to Parliamentary enactments of Coking Coal Mines
(Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (36 of 1972) and the Coal Mines (Nationalisation)
Act, 1973 (26 of 1973). The sequence of events shows the evolution of national
policy in this regard. Coking coal, being absolutely essential, was first taken
over urgently. Later on, the entire coal industry came under Parliamentary
consideration and management thereof was taken over. Finally, the ownership of
all coal mines, including coking coal mines, was vested in the Central
Government and in certain instrumentalities created by Central Government. Thus
we see that the comprehensive plan behind coal nationalisation did not permit
of private agencies operating in the field. Coking coal was 19-289 SCI/80 598
more strategic than ordinary coal having regard to its use for iron and steel
industries. Nevertheless, it was found as a fact that on account of these mines
being located in remote places and in jungles, especially in the State of Bihar
and Bengal, the Central Government wanted to take effective steps to put an end
to clandestine mining by any private agency. The jungle of laws haphazardly
enacted partly helped the privateers get round the law and clandestinely or
even through court receivers extract coal as there was big money in it.
Therefore, the 1976 Act was enacted to plug all loopholes, virtually banish the
private sector and to ensure legal success for Project Public Sector in the
field of coal mining. Section 3(3) of the 1976 Act reads thus:
3.(3) on and from the commencement of section
3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act. 1976:- (i) the Central
Government or a Government company or a corporation owned, managed or
controlled by the Central Government, or (ii) a person to whom a sub-lease,
referred to in the proviso to clause (c) has been granted by any such
Government, company or Corporation, or (iii) a company engaged in the production
of iron and steel, shall carry on coal mining operation in India, in any form;
(b) excepting the mining leases granted
before such commencement in favour of the Government, company or corporation,
referred to in clause(a), and any sub-lease granted by any such Government,
company or corporation, all other mining leases and sub- leases in force
immediately before such commencement, shall, in so far as they relate to the
winning or mining of coal, stand terminated;
(c) no lease for winning or mining coal shall
be granted in favour of any person other than the Government, company or
corporation, referred to in clause(a):
Section 4 of the same Act super-adds severe
punishment for contravention of the prohibition contained in s. 3(3).
The total effect thus is clear. The
Parliament wanted to prevent the mischief of coal P! mining and other illicit
extraction of coal to the national detriment. Scratching, slaughter mining and
such like activities on the sly were regarded as defeating the nationalisation
scheme.
599 Counsel for the petitioners contended
that the legislative history A was relevant to the interpretation of s. 3(3) of
the 1976 Act. In his submission, the amendment brought about in 1976
incorporating total interdict of mining applied only in relation to coal mines
and not in relation to coking coal mine. For this argument he sought sustenance
from the existence of two sets of legislation dealing with coal mines and
coking coal mines throughout the 1970s. He further pointed out that even as
late as 1978 when amendments were contemplated in regard to coal mines' and
coking coal mines' nationalisation there were separate provisions separately
inserted in both the nationalisation measures. He cited the 1978 Act as
illustrative, even decisive. The absence of any mention of coking coal mines in
the 1976 Act, was, in his submission, conclusive of the parliamentary intent in
his favour, especially when read in the light of the history of the package of
nationalisation legislations.
We are far from satisfied that there is
substance in this submission. History may illumine but cannot imprison
interpretation. It is true that in 1971 when Parliament was faced with a crisis
regarding need for coking coal in iron and steel industries a legislation, on
an emergency footing, was made solely confined to coking coal mines. As we have
earlier explained, the plan of the nation in regard to these natural resources
was then embryonic and later final and there was step-by-step legislation to
implement the policy on a phased programme. The culmination came in the blanket
ban of 1976. We are concerned here with the interpretation of s. 3(3) which we
reproduce again for facility of reference at this state:
3.(3) on and from the commencement of section
3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976, (a) no person, other
than- (i) the Central Government or a Government company or a corporation
owned, managed or controlled by the Central Government. Or G (ii) a person to
whom a sub-lease, referred to in the proviso to clause (c) has been granted by
any such Government, company or corporation, or (iii) a company engaged in the
production of iron and steel, shall carry on coal mining operation, in India,
in any form; .
600 (b) excepting the mining leases granted
before such commencement in favour of the Government, company or corporation,
referred to in clause (a), and any sub- lease granted by any such Government,
company or corporation, all other mining leases and sub-leases in force
immediately before such commencement, shall, in so far as they relate to the
winning or mining of coal.
stand terminated;
(c) no lease for winning or mining coal shall
be granted in favour of any person other than the Government, company or
corporation, referred to in clause (a):
Provided that the Government, company or
corporation to whom a lease for winning or mining coal has been granted may
grant a sub-lease to any person in any area on such terms and conditions as may
be specified in the instrument granting the sub-lease, if the Government,
company or corporation is satisfied that- (i) the reserves of coal in the area
are in isolated small pockets or are not sufficient for scientific and
economical development in a coordinated and integrated manner, and (ii) the
coal produced by sub-lessee will not be required to be transported by rail.
The short question of statutory construction
turns on the meaning to be assigned to the expression "no person, other
than the Central Government or a Government company or a corporation owned,
managed or controlled by the Central Government.. shall carry on coal mining
operations in India, in any form". The expression is semantically sweeping
and is wide in meaning so as to spare no class of coal, including even coking
coal, because coking coal is a species of coal, coal itself being the genus.
What is more, there is a definition of 'coal mine' in the Coal mines
(Nationalisation) Act, 1973. Section 2(b) of the 1973 Act defines coal mine to
mean "a mine in which there exists one or more seams of coal". It is
apparent that even a coking coal mine is a coal mine because the definition is
broad. It is inarguable that coking coal is not coal. This conclusion is
reinforced by looking at the definition of coking coal mine in s. 3(c) of the Coking
Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. Section 3(c) reads thus:
"coking coal mine" means a coal
mine in which there exists one or more seams of coking coal, whether
exclusively or in addition to any seam of other coal.
601 Indeed, it is irrefutable, viewed
literally, lexically, semantically, teleologically or applying the rule in
Heydon's case that coking coal mine is a coal mine. If it is a coal mine it is
covered by the 1976 Act. Coking coal is more precious,, strategically speaking,
than other forms of coal and it would be an error, nay a blunder, to prevent
private extraction of common coal and to permit removal of coking coal. It
would be pathetic and bathetic for any policy-maker to be so egregious.
Parliament may err but not be absurd ! So construed, it is obvious that coking
coal, which is more importantly needed for the nation than other supplies of
coal, must be the last to be squandered away by permitting it to be privately
exploited. We have no hesitation in holding that 'coal mine' in the 1976 Act
includes coking coal mine and s. 3(3) of that Act clamps down the ban on
extraction of coking coal also.
lt was feebly submitted that some of the
mines may have fire-clay layers to reach which the mining operation may have to
pass through coal seams; and, therefore, such operation cannot be prohibited.
We are not impressed with this argument at all. Even assuming there is fire clay
or other layer somewhere in the bowels of the earth the statutory mandate is
that once you come up on a coal seam you shall stop extracting it to proceed
beyond. Maybe, some injury may be caused, fancied or real, but it is
permissible for Parliament to make provision to prevent evasion of the purpose
of the statute by prohibition of mining other minerals which may incidentally
defeat the coal nationalisation measure.
In this view we find no merit in any of the
writ petitions and dismiss them all with costs.
It has been mentioned on more than one
occasion in this court that interlocutory orders have been sought and obtained,
that Receivers have been appointed by other courts and that they have been
working these mines. In the face of the statutory prohibition which is
imperative in tone and all-embracing in language, even punishable for
violation, it is surprising that any Receiver could at all dare to work mines
without running a grave risk. The court cannot sanction the commission of a
crime. We make it perfectly plain that there will be no more authorisation for
any receiver or other officer of court to extract coal or coking coal from any
mine in India. Section 3(3) of the 1976 Act, being all-inclusive and having
been constitutionally upheld by thus Court, it is no longer permissible for any
court in India n 602 to appoint a receiver for or otherwise permit extraction
of coal or coking coal.
These observations and reasonings must
converge to only one conclusion that the crowd of writ petitions deserve to be
and are hereby dismissed-of course, with costs. We would conclude with a
conscientious query-will the State keep the coal mafia out, break the coal
racket where government agencies are suspect and demonstrate that, the court
having come to the aid of the Executive, nationalisation will fulfill the
targets and tide over the crisis ? Caesar's wife must be above suspicion.
S.R. Petitions dismissed.
Back
