LexMAHINDRA NATH SHUKLA AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) 195 MAHJ.Nl)RA NATII SHUKLA AND ORS. v. STATE OFI BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. April 11, 1980 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, 0. CllINNAPPA REDDY AND A. p, SEN, JI.] a Coal Mines (Natio1ialisatiQn) ACI, 1973 (Act 26 of 1973) as am<nded by Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976, Section 3(3)-Whether the a~ndment relates only to Coal Mines and not to Coking Coal Mines- Worda 'Ind Phrases-MfQmng of "no person, other than the Central Govern· ment ot a Govern111ent Compiiny or a ,Corporation owned, managed or controll· ed iy. 1h1 CBntrql Governnient . .. , . , , ... shall carry on coal mining operatiom C, in lndla, In any form". Diuni..n.1 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 Cail also [601B·CJ Hiatory 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 legisla- tion to implement the policy on a phased programme. The culmmalion came in the blanket ban of 1976. [5991>-EJ 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 ii broa4 and this is clear from the definition of coldng coal mine in Section 3(c) of the Cokins Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, [600E-G] Go1'iwi ~ is QlDre precious, strategically speaking, than other forms of coal and it would be an error, qay a blunder, to prevent private extraction of common coal and to permit removal of coking coal. It would be pathetic llnd bathetic for any policy-maker to be so egregious. Parliament may err but not bo abJitrd! So cotllltUtd, it is obvious that coking coal, which is more im· portantly ne<ded for th• nation than other supplies of coal, muat be the last to be squandered away by permitting it to be privately exploited. [601A·BJ 3. Even OSlluming there is a fire clay or other layer somewhere in the bowels ol the earth the statutory mandate is that once you come up on a coal seam you shall stop •xll'N:ting it to proceed beyond. May be some injury may be caused, fancied or real, but it is permissible for Parliament to make provision D & 11' G to prevent evasion of the PQrpoae of the statnte by prohibition of mining H other inincra!a wllic1' Jl!iY iJlci4entally \!cfeat the co.i IUltio~isation lllWUll. [601l>-l') 18-289 SCJ/80 59B SUPRIME COURT !\!!PORTS (1980] 3 S.C.R. A 4. Section 3(3) of the 1976 Act, being all.ino!usivo·imd·hhing been con· stitutionally upheld it is no longer permissible for any Court in India to ~- appoint a receiver for or Qtherwise pe'rmit extraction of coal or coking coal. The Court cannot :sanction the com-mission of a Crime:- __ [6910, H1 602A] ORIGINAL JuRismcnoN: Writ Petition Nos. 112-115, 175, 297, 194-198, 489-90, 459, 215, 2-3 and 432/80, 1477 of 19.79, 1516- B 1517/79. I> (Un<ler 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. !ha for the Petitioners in WP No. 297 /80. Dr. Y. S. Chitale, B. P. Singh and Naresh· K. Sharma for the Peti- tioners in WPs Nos. 112-115/80. P. R. Mridul and D. P. Mukherjee for the Petitioners in WPs 489· 490 and 432 of 1980. E A. K. Sen, S. K. Sinha and C. K. Ratnaparkhi for the Petitioners in WPs. 194-198/80. F 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 Addi. Sol. Genl. and Miss A. Subhashlni 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 B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.