BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 744 · Decided: 17-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
AUGUST 17, 1990 
[K.N. SINGH AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.] 
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957: 
Sections 2, 3, 5, 13, 18--Coal slurry escaping from coal mine washery-
Deposited on river-bed and Raiyati /and-Lease for disposal thereof-· --=r _
Competence of State Government-Non-framing of Rules by Central 
C Government-Whether cunfers legislative competence on State Legisla-
ture-Extent of executive power in the execution of lease-Coal 
slurry-Whether constitutes mineral. 
Constitution of India, 
1950: Article 162-State's executive 
D power-Whether co-extensive with legislative power-State denuded of 
its legislative competence-Whether State's executive power extends. 
E 
F 
G 
Articles 245 and 246 and Schedule Vll List I Entry 54 and List II 
Entry 23-Subject matter falling under Union list-Absence of Parlia-
mentary legislation-Whether confers power on State Legislature. 
Practice & Procedure: Pleading-Party taking a particular stand 
throughout-Before the Courts-Deviation therefrom-Whether open "' 
to it-Operation of estoppel. 
Words & Phrases: "Conservation"-"Mine"-Meaningof. 
The three appellant companies claimed their respective right to 
the slurry that escaped from their washery plant/pond and got deposi-
ted in the Bokaro and Damodar River beds, as also in certain Raiyati 
land. The State Government did not accept their plea and leased out the 
.i, 
right to remove the said slurry to the respondent on payment of royalty. 
The first two appellants filed Writ Petitions before the Patna High 
Court challenging the State Government's action in leasing out the right 
to the Respondent's for removing the slurry. The third company 
instituted criminal proceedings against the contractors, who in turn 
filed Writ Petitions before the Calcutta High Court for quashing the 
criminal proceedings and for a direction permitting them to collect l_ 
H 
slurry under the lease granted by the State Government. 
744 
BHARAT COKING COAL v. STATE OF BIH/\.R 
745 
The Full Bench of the Patna High Court dismissed the Writ Peli· 
lions and held that slurry was neither coal nor mineral; jt was an 
industrial waste of coal mine which was not regulated by the provlslC)ns 
of the Act. It also held that collection of slurry did not lnvo.lve a·ny 
mining operations and the settlement made by the State Government In 
favour of the respondents was not a mining lease and so the State 
Government was not under any legal obligation to ubtain previous S8J1C· 
lion of the Central Government under the Mines and Minerals (l!.egula-
tion and Development) Act, 1957. It further held that after the slurry 
escaped into the river bed or to some other land, it ceased to belong to 
the appellants and the State Government was entitled to execute the 
lease for collection of the slurry. 
The Writ Petitions filed by tbe Contractors before the Calcutta 
High Court were dismissed by a Single Judge who held that tJte third 
appellnat-company was the owner of the slurry and the State Govern. 
ment had no authority to grant any lease to the respondent-contractors 
for removal of the same. On appeal by the contractors the Division 
Bench held that the lease granted by the State of Bihar in favour of the 
contractors was not a mining lease and the provisions of the Mines and 
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, were not applicable to the 
grant of lease. On the question of appellants' claim to the property 
rights for collecting slurry, the Bench held that the slurry deposited on 
the appellants' land, belonged to them and the respondents had no right 
to collect the same but if the slurry settled down on other's I.and the 
respondents have right to remove the same. 
Against the above decisions of the two High Courts, the appella11t-
companies have preferred the present appeals. 
A 
B 
c 
p 
t"' 
On behalf of the appellants, it was inter alia contended ·lbat the 
F 
slurry jSludge was in substance coal, a mineral specified in the First . 
f, 
schedule to the Act; that the State Government had no authority In law 
to grant any lease to the respondents for the collection, remov.al .or 
lifting of the slurry coal deposited in the river bed or on any l!.aiyati 
land without obtaining the sanction of the Centra.1 Government u11der 
Section 5 of the Act; that the deposit of the slurry in the .river bed ;!lid 
G 
the land was by natural process of flow of water discharged from the 
w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.