MINERAL DEVELOPMENT LTD. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 609 · Decided: 15-12-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
-
- , 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
609 
manufacturing process, 
namely sugarcane, 
were 
workers within the meaning of the Factories Act and 
accordingly they were excluded from the definition of 
' Commercial Establishment' under the Act. However, 
even if the Supervisors and Kamdars were employed 
"in any other kind of work connected with the subject 
of manufacturing process", unless they were employed 
in the factory, the provisions of the Factories Act do 
not apply to them, there is_ no dispute that they are 
employees of a ' Commercial Establishment ' within 
the meaning of the Act. 
. 
The High Court was therefore in error in acquitting 
the respondents of the offences of which they were 
convicted by the Trial Magistrate. The orders of 
acquittal passed by the High Court are set aside and 
the orders of conviction -and sentence passed by the 
Trial Magistrate are restored. In view of the order 
of this Court dated October I, 1956, made at the time 
of granting special leave, the respondents are entitled 
to their costs of hearing in this court. 
Appeal allowed. 
MINERAL DEVELOPMENT LTD. 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER 
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. SuBBA RAo, K. C. DAS GuPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Fundamental Rights-Restriction by State imposed by la1t1-
Reasonableness-Objective test-Duty 
of 
Court-Constitutionit 
validity-Bihar Mica Act, r947, s. 25(r)(c)-Constitution of India, 
Arts. Ig(r)(j), (g) and r9(5) & (6). 
The Secretary of the Government of Bihar in the Revenue 
Department issued a notice to the petitioner company who were 
the lessees of mining lease, charging it with violation of ss. IO, 12 
and 14 of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947, and calling upon it to show 
cause why action should not be taken to cancel its licence which 
was being issued from year to year for mining Mica. 
The 
company asked for particulars of the alleged violation of the 
provisions of the Act from the Government which was furnished. 
The company sent a written representation to the Government 
-
denying the allegations. After two years of the said representa-
.,. • 
tion, the Government issued a notification cancelling 
the 
78 
.r959 
TM State oj 
Ultar Pradesh 
v. 
M. P. Singh 
Shah]. 
.r959 
December .r5. 
610 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)] 
1959 
petitioner company's licence under the provisions of s. 25(r)(c) of 
the Act. 
Mineral 
Development Ltd. 
v. 
The Slate of 
Bihar 
The company moved th\> Supreme Court under Art. 32 of 
the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the 
said order of the Government of Bihar cancell!ng the licence and 
for the issue of writ of mandatnus directing them to forbear 
from giving effect to the said order of cancellation, on ground 
inter alia that the Government acted illegally and with mala fides 
and infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioner under 
Art. rg(r), sub-els. (f) and (g) of the Constitution and that the 
provision of s. 25(r)(c) of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947, operate as an 
unreasonable restriction on the said right, and even if the said 
section did not infringe its fundamental rights, the order of the 
Government in cancelling the lease without affording it a reason-
able opportunity to show cause within the meaning of the second 
proviso to that section, infringed its fundamental rights. 
Held, that the provisions of s. 25(1)(c) of the Bihar Mica Act, 
does not impose an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental 
rights under Art. rg(r)(f) & (g) of the Constitution. 
1 The restrictions 'vhich a State is authorised to impose under 
cls .. (5) & (6) of Art. rg of the Constitution, in the interest of the 
general public over the fundamental rights of a citizen under 
sub-els. (f) & (g) of clause (r) of Art. rg must be reasonable and 
must not depend upon the mere uncontrolled discretion of. the 
executive. 
It is the duty of this Court to decide having regard to the 
concept and principle of reasonableness which is correctly laid 
down in The State of Madras v. V. G. Row, whether a particular 
Statute satisfied the objective test of "reasonableness." 
The statutory conditions of the Bihar Mica Act, subject to 
which the licence is given are, obviously, reasonable and neces-
s_ary for regulating the mining industry. The power to cancel 
the licence which is conferred on the Government under s. 25 of 
the said Act is only to achieve the object of the Act, i.e., to 
enforce provisions which have been enacted in the interest 

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