SANJEEV COKE MANUFACTURING COMPANY versus BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1983] 1 S.C.R. 1000 · Decided: 10-12-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 22 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1000 
SANJEEV COKE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 
V. 
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ANOTHER 
December 10, 1982 
(P.N. BHAGWATI, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, 
_ BHARUL ISLAM AND AMARENDRh NATH SEN, JJ.] 
(A) Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226 and 32-Practice and 
Procedure-In proceedings Involving constitutional issues, courts 
cannot travel beyond their scope. 
(B) Interpretation of Statutes-Rules of Construction-Value . of 
grammaf'. 
... 
(C) Con.titution of India, 1950-Legislative validity of-Tem for 
determination-Affidavits made tn the courts to sustain legislation, 
value of. 
(D) Constitution of /ndia, 1950, Articles 39(b), 3/C and 14-Directlve 
• 
Principle of State Policy under Article 39(b)-lmmun/ly of 
challenge under Article 31 Con ground of violation of Article 14 is 
not permissible, Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 3~ of 
1972. 
(E} Constitution of India, Article 14-Whether Coking Coal Mines 
(Nationalisation) Act is violative of Art. 14. 
(F} Judicial review of matters of State policy like scheme of Nationalisa-
tion-Proceedings under Article 226. 
(G} Constitution of India, Article 39(b)- Whether "material resources 
of the community" referred to is confined to "natural resources". 
( H) Constitution of India, Article 31 C (as amended by the Constitution 
Forty Second Amendment A.ct 1976, and Articles 14 and 39. Scope 
of-Article 31 C with its extended protection is constitutionally 
valid. 
(I) Coking Coal Mines ( NatiOnalisation) Act (Act 36 of 1972) Sections 
3 (g), l3(b) and 4(1)-The definition of "C1ke oven plants" In 
Section 3(b) should be read together with claus.?S (vi) and (x) of 3(i) 
defining "m;ne'' for understanding the correct description of .. Mines" 
In the Act. 
(J) Costs in proceedings under -Articles 226 or 3;! whe11 the grievances 
are not frivolous,,cost should not be award~d, when the petition is 
dis/mssed~ 
\ 
: 
SANJBEV COKB V. BHARAT COKING 
JOO! 
Consequent I<> the passing of the Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Pro-
visions) Act, 1971, which.was replaced by the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisa• 
1. / 
tion) Act, 1972, the· Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973 and the 
Coal Mines (l'lationaHsation) Act, 1973, all coat mines known to exist in the 
country were nationalised. whether they are coking co3.I mines or non~coking 
mines. Along with them coke o~en plants in or belonging to the mines were 
also nationalised. Jn addition twelve specified coke oven plants not belonging 
to the owners of the mines, but known to exist near about •the mines were alSo 
nationalised. All other coke oven plants were left out of the scheme of 
nationalisation 'for private exploitation. 
Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company, Bhowra Coke Company who 
were own1::rs of fhe coke oven plants described in items 2 and 9 of the Second 
Schedule filed writ petitions in the Calcutta High Court challenging the inclusion 
of their coke oven plants in the Second Schedule as ·violative of the provisions 
--..........___ 
of Article 14 of the Constitution. Tho· writ petitions were withdrawn to the 
Supreme Court under Article 139 A. 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court. 
HBLD: 1. It is not open to a court to answer academic or hypothetical 
questions on such lcoD.siderations, such as that they dealt with ·eoDstitutional 
amendments and not ordinary law, which of their own force permitted violation 
of freedoms:through laws passed for certain purposes, particularly so when serious 
constitutional issues· are involved. Judges arc not authorised to make disembodied 
pronouncements on serious and cloudy issues of constitutional Policy without 
battle'lines being properly drawn. Judicial pronouncements cannot be immaculate 
legal conceptions. It is but right that ·no, important point of law should be 
decided without a proper /is between parties properly ranged on either side and 
a croSsing of the swords. It is in 'expedient for the Supreme Court to delve into 
problems which do not arise and express opinion thereon. [1016 A-CJ 
2. Adjectives are attractive forensic aids but in matters of interpretation 
they are divertiog intruders. They should not be allowed to get the better of the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
nouns which they qualify. [1020 G-H] · 
f 
' 
3:1. Validity of legislation is not to be judged merely.by ·affidavits filed 
ori behalf of the State, but by all the relevant circumstances which the court may 
ultimately find out and more especially by what may be gathered from

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