BISWANATH PRASAD versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 49 · Decided: 14-08-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BISWANATH PRASAD 
v. 
UN!ON 01<' INDIA & OTIIERS 
August 14, 1964 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., M. ffIDAYATULLAH, J .. C. SHAH, 
B 
RAGHUBAR .DAYAL .AND S. 'M. SIKRI JJ.) 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Mines and Minerals (Regu/all'on and Development) Act, 1948 (Act 
53 of 1948), s. 
5.;_A.cqu/sition~Not/ficatlo,,,_Ma/a fid,,_lf delay tvi· 
iience of-Opening of mines-Rule 39 'if valid and authorised by s. 11-
'Granf. 111 s . . 5 if connotes tra11Sfer of property-Co11Stitutio11al validity 
of r. 39-lf could be challenged by person not having •uf]icient interest-
Coal Mi11e1 (Coruervation and Safety), Act, 1952 (Act 12 of 1952), 
s. 17-. Coal Mines (Coruervalion a11d Safety) Rules, 1954, r. 39-
Mineral Concession Rules, 1948, rr. 37, 48-Constlt11tion of India, Arts. 
14, 19.. 
. 
By.notifications under s. 4(1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acqolaitlon 
and Development) Act (20 of 1957), the Central Oovernment gave notice 
of its intention to prospect for coal in the colliery of the l'etitioner. The 
petitioner did not file any objection to the proposed acquia1tion under s. 8 
of the Act (20 of 1957). In reply to the intimation by the Government 
that the area in question appears to .have been notified, the petitioner assert-
ed that he was not bound in law by the aforesaid notifications. According 
to bini, he started working the colliery immediately after purchasing it in 
1956. This was denied by the respondents and on this issue the High Court 
fowid against the petitioner. Under s. 4(4) of the Act (20 of 1957) the 
Union Government was prohibited from acquiring "that portion of land 
in which coal mining operations are actually being carried on in conformity 
with the provisions of any enactment, rule, or order for the time being 
in force". 
The respondents relying on the provision, however, said fur-
. !her that even if it be assumed that the petitioner worked the mines, this 
was not done in accordance with ·law. On this point also the High Court 
held against the petitioner. Against this the petitioner araued that r. 39 
of the Coal Mines (Conservation.and Safety) Rules, 1954, under which 
the Coal Board refused permission to open the colliery was ultra vlres 
as the Union Government could not make this rule under s. 17 of the 
Act (12 of 1952) and it was this illegal refusal to open the mines that 
resulted in the colliery not being worked at the time of the notifications. 
The petitioner further coutended that even if r. 39 was valid permisaion was 
refused ma/a fide, with the ulterior object of avoiding the prohibition laid 
dowit ins. 4(4). of the Act (20 of 1957). The respondents objected that 
the. petitioner had acquired the lease in contravention of the law and 
therefore had no right to allege that r. 39 of the Coal Mines (Conser-
vation and Safety) Rules was violative of Art. 19 of the Constitution. 
To defeat this objection the petitioner raised the point that rr. 37 and 
48 of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation and Development) Rules were 
ultra vlres the Mines & Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 
1~8. 
HELD : ( i) The notifications were not vitiated on account of any 
11UJla (ides. 
That there was delay in dis~g of the petitioner's repr.e-
sentationa is evident but delay, by itself, 1s hardly evidence of ma/a fide, 
H 
specially as the Coal Board had long ago declined to revise its earlier 
decision not. to give permission to reopen the mines. · [54C-E] 
(ii) Rule 39 was not invalid and it was authorised by s. 17 of the 
Act (12 of 1952) [55C-D]. 
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1965] I S.C.R. 
Rule 39 is designed, inter alia, to secure conservation of coal. If a 
A 
mine has to be opened or reopened the Coal Board has to consider whether 
ii is necessary to do so and it must take into consideration the requirement' 
of the country for the particular grade at that time. [55B-C] 
(iii) The word 'grant' in the context of s. 5 of the Act (53 of 1948), 
inter alia, connotes transfer of property and mining leases are property. 
The Parliament, while using the word 'grant' ins. 13(1) of the Act 67 
of 1957 in s. 13(2)(1) specially provided for rules being made regard-
B 
ing the manner in which and the conditions subject to which a pros-
pecting licence or a mining lease might be transferred. 
If theoe rules 
were intra vires, the result was lhat the petitioner acquired the colliery 
in transgrc!Sion of these rules. Consequently he had not sufficient intenst 
in the property to raise question about the con>litutional

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