BHUBANESHWAR SINGH AND BIMLA DEVI PODDAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 639 · Decided: 14-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, P.B. SAWANT, N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BHUBANESHWAR SINGH AND BIMLA DEVI PODDAR AND 
A 
ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JULY 14, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH, P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) 
Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986-Sub-Sec. 
(2) introduced in Section JO of Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 
1972 with retrospective effect and Section 19-Validity of-Amendnie11t i11 law 
stating anzount payable as conzpensation to owner shall include anzount in 
respect of stock in trad~Wliether effect of judgments of High CouTt and 
Supreme Co11Tt can be nullified by amending legislation with restrospective 
effect. 
The management of Coking Coal Mine was taken over by the Central 
Government in the year 1971. The ownership or the Mine continued to 
remain with the owner of the Mine. The Central Government and/or its 
Custodian were to account to the owner, profit and loss during the period 
while it was under the management of the custodian. Petitioners made a 
claim that the custodian had not credited the price for the quantity of coal 
raised, which was lying in stock on the date prior to the date the said coal 
mine vested under the Central Government. The High Court allowed the 
claim and issued adirection that payment be made to the petitioner. In 
appeal filed by the Central Coal Fields Ltd. , the Supreme Court was also 
of the view that the sale price of the stock or extracted coal lyi_ng at the 
commencement or the appointed date had to be taken into account for 
determining the profit and loss during the period or management of the 
mine by the custodian. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Thereafter the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Or-
dinance, 1986 was promulgated, which was later replaced by the Coal G 
Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986, Sub-section (2) was 
introduced in Section 10 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 
1972, with retrospective effect. The sub-section declared that the amount 
required to be given by the Central Government to its owner shall be 
deemed to include and deemed always to have included the amount in H 
639 
640 
SUPREME.COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. · 
A 
respect or all coke In stock on the date immediately before the appointed 
date. Writ application has been tiled by petitioners questioning the validity 
or the Amendment Act. 
B 
Dismissing the writ petition, this Cotirt 
HELD : 1.1 Ir the intention of the Legislatdre Is clearly expressed 
that it purports to introduce the legislation or to amend an existing 
legislation retrospectively then subject to the legislative competence and 
the exercise being not In violation of any of the provisions of the Constltu· 
tlon, such power cannot be questioned. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the 
C 
Coal Mine Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986 clearly and 
specifically says that the said amendment to the Coking Coal Mines 
(Nationalisation) Act, 1972 shall be deemed to have come Into force on the 
1st day of May, 1972. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 which has been 
introduced with retrospective effect says that the amount which bas been 
D mentioned In the schedule to be payable to the owner shall be deemed to 
Include and deemed always to have Included the amount required to be 
paid to such owner In respect or all coke In stoke on the date Immediately 
before the appointed day. The amount which Is to be paid as compensation 
for acquisition of right, title and Interest of the petitioner In the Coking 
E 
F 
G 
Coal Mine In question, shall Include the compensation for all coke In stock 
on the date Immediately before the appointed day. It can therefore be said 
that. the amendments which have been Introduced retrospectively have 
taken away the substratum of the claim made on behalf of the petitioner, 
In respect of the price of the stock of coke lying on the date Immediately 
before the appointed day. [646-E·H & 647-A) 
1.2. Reading sub-section (2) of Section 10 alongwith Section 19, It 
bas to be held that respondents are not required to take Into account the 
"tock of coke lying on the date prior to the appointed day, for the purpose 
of accounting during the period when the mine In question was under the 
managell!ent or the Central Government, because It shall be deemed that 
the compensation awarded to the petitioner included the price for such 
coal lying in stock on the date prior to the appointed day. Neither any 
compensation to be paid for su~b stock of coal nor the price thereof is to 
be taken into ac

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