STATE OF ORISSA versus M.A. TULLOCH AND CO.

Citation: [1964] 4 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 16-08-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 25 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
• 
4 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
461 
STATE OF ORISSA 
v. 
M.A. TULLOCH AND CO. 
~ 
(AND CONNECTED APPEAL) 
) 
(B. P. SINHA C. J., K. SuBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, N. 
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Constitution of India-Sta.te legislation 
under Seventh Sche~ 
dule, l~ist If, entry 23-Union Legislation u11der List !, entry 54-
EjJect of Union legislation-General Clauses ,-1ct, s. 6, meaning 
af 'repeal'-Orissa Mining Areas Development 
Fund 
Act, 1952 
(XXV!l of 1952), ss. 4. 5-Mines and Minerals (Regulation and 
Development) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), s. 18(1)(2)-General 
Clauses 
Act, 
1897 (10 
of 
1897) 
s. 6-Constitution of India, 
.1rt. 246(1 ), Seventh Schedule, List ll, Entry 23, List I, Entry 54. 
()n a lease granted by the appellant under the Central Act 53 
ol 1948 the Respondent Tulloch & Co. \Vas \vorking a manganese 
1nine. 
~fhe State Legislature 
of Orissa, then passed the Orissa 
]vfining .-'\seas Developn1ent F un<l Act, 1952 whcreunder the State 
{;overn1nent v.1as empo\vered to levy a fee being intended for the 
developn1ent of the "mining areas" in the State. 
After bringing 
these provisions into operation, the appellant made demands on 
the respondent on August 1, 1960 for payn1ent of the fees due 
for the period July, 1957 to March, 1958. 
The respondent then, 
challenged the legality of the said demand before the High Court 
under .'\rt. 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition \Vas allowed on 
the ground that on the coming into force of the Central Act, 1957 
(Act 67 of 1957), as and from June I, 1958, the Orissa Act should 
he deen1eJ to be non-existent for eYery purpose. 
Thereafter, the 
appellant 1nade an application to the High Court to review its 
1u<lgn1ent on the ground that even if the Orissa Act of 1952 \Vas 
superseded by Central Act 67 of 1957, the liabilities which had 
accrued to the State prior to June l, 1958 could not be dee1ned 
to he \viped out because the Central Act \Vas not retrospective. This 
application \vas dismissed. 
It \Vas urged on behalf of the State, 
intl·r alia, that the supersession of the Orissa Act by the Central 
Act \Vas neither n1ore nor less than a 
repeal. 
If it thus \Vas a 
repeal. then s. 6 of the General Clauses ;\ct, 1897 'vas attracted. 
Held, (1) that since the Central Act 67 of 1957 contains the 
rtquisite declaration by the Union Parlia1nent under Entry 54 and 
that ,.\ct covers the san1e field as the :\ct of 1948 in regard to 
mines and mineral development, 
the 
decision of this Court in 
1-fingir~Ranipur Coal Co. v. State of Orissa concludes this 1natter 
unless there \Vere any material difference between the scope and 
ambit of Central Act 53 of 1948 and that of the Act of 1957. 
Besides, sub·ss. (l) and (2) of s. 18 of the Central Act of 
l 917 are wider in scope and a111plitude and confer larger po\vers 
on the (~entral Government than the corresponding proYisions of 
the ,\ct of 1948: 
1963 
August 16 
1963 
State of Orissa 
v. 
M. A. Tulloch 
and Co. 
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
Hi11gir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Oris;a, 
[1961 J 
2 S. C. R. 53i, followe<l. 
(2) that the test of t\VO legislations containing contradictory 
provisions is not, hovvever, the only criterion of repugnancy, for 
if a cotnpetent legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or im-
pliedly eYinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole 
field, the enactments of the other legislature \vhether passed before 
or after \Vould be overborne on the ground of repugnance. Where 
such is the position the inconsistency is dcn1onstrated not by a 
detailed comparison of provisions of the two statutes but by the 
lnere existence of the two pieces of legislation. 
Jn the present case, having regard to the terms of s. ] 8( 1) it 
must he held that the intention of Parlian1ent \Vas to cover the 
entire field and thus to leave no scope for the argu1nent that until 
rules \Vere framed, there \Vas no inconsistency and no supersession 
of the State Act; 
Ch. Tika Ramji & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh. [ 1956] S.C.R. 
393, inapplicable. 
(3) that if by reason of the declaration by Parliament the 
entire suhject-tnatter of "conservation and develop1nent of n1inerals" 
has been taken over, for being dealt \Vith by 
Parlia1nent~ thus 
depriving the State of the po"''er \Vithin it theretofore po<;sessed, it 
\.vould folJo,v that the "n1atter" in the State L.ist is, to the extent 
of the declaration, subtraced fron1 the scope and an1bit 
of

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