LexMANOHAR LAL SHARMA versus THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2014] 8 S.C.R. 446 MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. (Writ Petition (Crl.) 120 of 2012) AUGUST 25, 2014. [R.M. LODHA, CJI MADAN, B. LOKUR AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1~50: Art. 39 (b) - Material resources of community- Allocation of coal blocks - Held: It cannot be said that auction is best D way to select private parties under Art. 39 (b). Art. 73 - Executive power of Union - Held: Executive instructions can fill up the gaps not covered by statutory provisions but the same cannot be in derogation of the E statutory provisions. Seventh Schedule - List I, Entry 54 - List II, Entry 23 - Regulation o~ mines and mineral development - Held: Requisite declarations made in s.2 of 'Mines and Mineral F (Development and Regulation) Act and s.1-A of CMN Act, have the effect of taking out regulation and development of coal mines from Entry 23 of List II of Seventh Schedule. G MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957: s. 2 of 1957 ACt rlw s. 1-A of CM Act - Allocation of coal H 446 MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 44 7 blocks - Held: The exercise undertaken by Central A Government in a/locating coal blocks or selection of beneficiaries between 1993 and 31.3.2011 is not traceable either to 1957 Act or CMN Act - Allocation of coal blocks made on the basis of recommendations of Screening B Committee as a/so by way of Government dispensation route (Ministry of Coal) is arbitrary and illegal - The practice and procedure followed by Central Government is clearly inconsistent with law already enacted and rules framed - c Executive instructions cannot be in derogation of statutory provisions -- Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 - s. 1-A - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 73 - Public Interest Litigation. COAL MINES (NATIONALISATION) ACT, 1973: D s. 3 (3) (a) (iii) - 'Company' - Held: The expression 'a company' occurring in s. 3 (3) (a) (iii) does not cover "consortium of companies" or "formulation of groups" or E "common pool" - The procedure followed by Screening Committee and finally by issuing allocation letters to one leader company with obligation to share associate's share of coal to associate company at a price determinable by F Government is in contravention to s. 3 (3) (A) (iii) - Recommendation of block~ jointly in favour of 2-3 companies is a/so in contravention of CMN Act. s. 3 (3) (a) (iii) - Expression 'engaged in' - Held: Means G that the company that was applying for coal blocks must have set up an iron and steel/power/cement plant and be engaged in the respective production - The prospective engagement H 448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A by a private company in production of steel, power or cement would not entitle such company to carry out coal mining operation. ss. 3 (4), 4, 5, 6 and 7 - Expression 'Government B company or a corporation owned, managed or controlled by the Central Government - Held: Means Government of India Public Undertaking - It does not include State Government Public Sector Undertaking - Thus, commercial mining cannot C be carried by State Government or State PSU, which became entitled only to obtain sub-lease of reserves of coal in isolated small pockets under clauses (i) and (ii) of proviso to s. 3 (3) (c). D INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: Interpretation to statute received from contemporary authority - Held: Is not binding upon courts and may have to E be disregarded if it is clearly wrong. In the instant writ petitions filed in public interest, the allocation of coal blocks for the period 1993 to 2010 made by the Central Government through the Screening F Committee route as well as the Government dispensation route was challenged as illegal and unconstitutional. Disposing of the writ petitions, the Court G HELD: 1. It cannot be said that auction is the best H way to select private parties as per Art. 39(b) of the Constitution. [para 99] [516-G] Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference MANOHAR LAL SHARMA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 449 No. 1 of 2012, 2012(9) SCR 311= (2012) 10 SCC 1; Goa A Foundation v. Union of India and Others (2014) 6 SCC 590 - relied on. Centre for Public Interest l..itigation & Ors. v. Union of B India &.Ors. 2012 (3) SCR 147 = (2012) 3 SCC 1; R.K. Garg vs. Union of India & Ors. 1982(1) SCR'947 = (1981) 4 SCC 675; D.K. Trivedi vs. State of Gujarat 1986 SCR 479 = 986 Suppl. SCC 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.