BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. versus KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 13-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. 
A 
v. 
KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. PVT. LTD. AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 13, 2002 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972; Section 3lj)(vi): Right, 
title and interest of owners of coke oven plants/properties vesting in the Central 
Government -Transferred to-Notice to Coal mines owners-Challenge to- C 
Single Judge held, since properties not in use for any mining activities, 
possession thereof cannot be taken over by the Central Governmentlappellant-
Upheld by Division Bench-On appeal, Held: There exist no co-relation in 
coal mine activities vis-a-vis use of properties-Thus, vesting of properties 
with the Central Government/appellant would not arise and it can not take 
over possession of such properties-Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized D 
Occupants) Act, 1971. 
Constitution of India-Article 136-!nvoking of-Held, the Article has 
been engrafted for the purpose of avoiding mischief of injustice on the wrong 
assumption of law to avoid adverse effect on society and infraction of law-
Where matter involves more of factual issues than a legal one intervention E 
under Article l 36 not warranted 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of User-Meaning and Scope of 
F 
Words and Phrases: 
'Vest'-Meaning of 
Right, title and interest of the owners of Coke Oven Plants vested 
in the Central Government have been transferred to the appellant and it G 
issued notice to respondent to make over the possession of certain 
properties. Respondent clarified that the properties did not belong to them. 
Besides, it was not being used for any activities of coking coal mines, and 
therefore, vesting of same with the appellant would not arise. Respondent 
moved the High Court for issuance of Writ of Mandamus for quashing of H 
165 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A the notice. In the meanwhile, Estate Officer initiated proceedings under 
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act against the 
respondent/occupants of buildings. Estate Officer rejected the prayer of 
stay of proceeding and accordingly writ petition was amended. Single 
Judge of the High Court held that since the Secretaries of tht;! respondent 
Company were the owners of the properties and there was no coking coal 
B mine activities undertaken on it, therefore, such properties cannot be taken 
possession of. In appeal, Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the 
Order. Hence appeal before this Court. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The word 'vest' in common English acceptation mean 
and imply conferment of ownership of properties upon a person and in 
the similar vein it gives immediate and fixed right of present and future 
enjoyment. Significantly, however, the expression 'vest' is a word of 
variable import since it has no fixed connotation and the same has to be 
D understood in different contexts under different set of circumstances. 
E 
(168-A-B] 
The Fruit & Vegetable Merchants Union v. The Delhi Improvement 
Trust, AIR (1957) SC 344 and Dr. M Ismail Faruqui, etc. v. Union of India 
and Ors. AIR (1995) SC 604 at 645, relied on. 
1.2. It is trite that there must be some co-relation with the activity 
of a coal mine-the user must be there for the purposes of the coal mine, 
but it must relate to the affairs of the coal mine concerned and not de hors 
the same. The nexus concept introduc~d by the High Court can not be 
taken exception to since there is no factual justification in support of the 
F issuance of the notice on ~he wake of the reply to the show-cause notice 
by Respondent No.l. In any event the user being the requirement of the 
statute and since the contextual facts did not have the factual support to 
prove the same, question of vesting within the meaning of the Coking Coal 
Mines (Nationalisation) Act of 1972 would not arise. 1175-C-E) 
G 
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Madan Lal Agrawal, (1997) l SCC 177, 
referred to. 
Valley Refractories Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. K.S. Grewal and Ors., (1990) 
CWN 615, approved. 
H 
2. The appeal involves more of a factual issue than a legal issue and 
,•· 
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD >. K.C. THAPAR & BROS. PVT.LTD [BANERJEE. J] J 67 
as such intervention under Article 136 is not \Varranted. Intervention A 
under Article 136 can be had when the judgment is tainted with serious 
legal infirmities or is founded on a legal construction which cannot but 
be attributed to be otherwise wrong. The jurisdiction under Article 136
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.