Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
MAHINDRA NATH SHUKLA AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT11/04/1980
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
SEN, A.P. (J)
CITATION:
1980 AIR 1308 1980 SCR (3) 595
1980 SCC (3) 353
ACT:
Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1973 (Act 26 of 1973)
as amended by Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act,
1976, Section 3(3)-Whether the amendment relates only to
Coal Mines and not to Coking Coal Mines-Words and Phrases-
Meaning of no person, other than the Central Government or a
Government Company or a Corporation owned managed or
controlled by the Central Government.......... shall carry
on coal mining operations in India, in any form.
HEADNOTE:
Dismissing 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 Coal also [601B-C]
History 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 legislation to
implement the policy on a phased programme. The culmination
came in the blanket ban of 1976. [599D-E]
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 is broad and this is
clear from the definition of coking coal mine in Section
3(c) of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972.
[600E-G]
Coking coal is more precious, strategically speaking,
than other forms of coal and it would be an error, nay a
blunder, to prevent private extraction of common coal and to
permit removal of coking coal. It would be pathetic and
bathetic for any policy-maker to be so egregious. Parliament
may err but not be absurd! So construed, it is obvious that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
coking coal, which is more importantly needed for the nation
than other supplies of coal, must be the last to be
squandered away by permitting it to be privately exploited.
[601A-B]
3. Even assuming there is a fire clay or other layer
somewhere in the bowels of the earth tho statutory mandatory
is that once you come up on a coal seem you shall stop
extracting it to proceed beyond. May be some injury may be
caused, fancied or real, but it is permissible for
Parliament to make provision to prevent evasion of the
purpose of the statute by prohibition of mining other
minerals which may incidentally defeat tho coal
nationalisation measure. [601D-F]
596
4. Section 3(3) of the 1976 Act, being all inclusive
and having been constitutionally upheld it is no longer
permissible for any Court In India to appoint a receiver for
or otherwise permit extraction of coal or coking coal. The
Court cannot sanction the commission of a crime. [601G, H,
602A]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 112-115, 175,
297, 194-198, 489-90, 459, 215, 2-3 and 432/80, 1477 of
1979, 1516B 1517/79.
(Under 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. Jha for the Petitioners in WP No. 297/80.
Dr. Y. S. Chitale, B. P. Singh and Naresh K. Sharma for
the Petitioners in WPs Nos. 112-115/80.
P. R. Mridul and D. P. Mukherjee for the Petitioners in
WPs 489- 490 and 432 of 1980.
A. K. Sen, S. K. Sinha and C. K. Ratnaparkhi for the
Petitioners in WPs. 194-198/80.
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 Addl. Sol. Genl. and Miss A. Subhashini
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 Bihar and Its official in WP Nos. 112-
115/80, 1477/79, 175, 213, 2-3, 459, 489-90/80 and SLP No.
2746/80.
M. K. Banerjee, Addl. Sol. Genl. and S. B. Sinha and D.
P. Mukherjee for the Respondent No. 9 in WPs 112-115 of
1980.
Rathin Das for the Respondents (State of West Bengal)
in WPs. Nos. 1516-1517/79.
S. S. Jauhar for the Interveners in WP No. 175/80.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
KRISHNA IYER, J.-We have a hunch-we leave it at that-
that these "Workers" writ petitions arc a kind of litigative
puppetry.
597
the illicit mine exploiters being the puppeteers. This set
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
of writ petitions, where some private management claim to
have the right to extract coking coal on the score that
prohibition enacted in the Coal Mines (Nationalisation)
Amendment Act, 1976 does ’not affect or operate on coking
coal mines, must be dismissed as devoid of deserts.
The short point sharply focussed by Dr. Chitale and echoed
with some variant notes by other counsel, in support of
these writ petitions may be briefly stated thus. According
to him, the history of coal nationalisation legislation in
this country in the seventies of this century shows that
Parliament has treated coal and coking coal separately for
legislative purposes in regard to taking over of management,
nationalisation of ownership and the like. It all began with
the year 1971 when Parliament enacted the Coking Coal Mines
(Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the
1971 Act, for short). It took over management of coking coal
mines. Iron and Steel are key industries requiring,
importantly, coking coal for their very survival. When
Parliament found that coking coal was not being made
available properly to the Industry on account of the
unsatisfactory con- duct of the private sector operating in
this field, the entire management of coking coal mines. was
taken over on an emergency footing in the public interest be
the 1971 Act. Thereafter, with more deliberation and
detailed investigation, the management of coking coal mines
(and of other coal mines) was taken over by appropriate
legislation. Still later, after mature planning and
understanding of implications, Parliament enacted
legislation for vesting of ownership of coking coal Mines
and eventually of all coal mines. The Management of coking
coal was taken over by the Central Government under Coking
Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971. The management
of all other coal mines was taken over by the Central
Government under the Coal Mines (Taking over of Management)
Act, 1973. The second step after management came under the
control of the Central Government was the actual
nationalisation of ownership itself. This state of planning
led to Parliamentary enactments of Coking Coal Mines
(Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (36 of 1972) and the Coal Mines
(Nationalisation) Act, 1973 (26 of 1973). The sequence of
events shows the evolution of national policy in this
regard. Coking coal, being absolutely essential, was first
taken over urgently. Later on, the entire coal industry came
under Parliamentary consideration and management thereof was
taken over. Finally, the ownership of all coal mines,
including coking coal mines, was vested in the Central
Government and in certain instrumentalities created by
Central Government. Thus we see that the comprehensive plan
behind coal nationalisation did not permit of private
agencies operating in the field. Coking coal was 19-289
SCI/80
598
more strategic than ordinary coal having regard to its use
for iron and steel industries. Nevertheless, it was found as
a fact that on account of these mines being located in
remote places and in jungles, especially in the State of
Bihar and Bengal, the Central Government wanted to take
effective steps to put an end to clandestine mining by any
private agency. The jungle of laws haphazardly enacted
partly helped the privateers get round the law and
clandestinely or even through court receivers extract coal
as there was big money in it. Therefore, the 1976 Act was
enacted to plug all loopholes, virtually banish the private
sector and to ensure legal success for Project Public Sector
in the field of coal mining. Section 3(3) of the 1976 Act
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
reads thus:
3.(3) on and from the commencement of section 3 of
the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act. 1976:-
(i) the Central Government or a Government
company or a corporation owned, managed or
controlled by the Central Government, or
(ii) a person to whom a sub-lease, referred to in
the proviso to clause (c) has been granted by
any such Government, company or Corporation,
or
(iii) a company engaged in the production of iron
and steel, shall carry on coal mining
operation in India, in any form;
(b) excepting the mining leases granted before such
commencement in favour of the Government, company
or corporation, referred to in clause(a), and any
sub-lease granted by any such Government, company
or corporation, all other mining leases and sub-
leases in force immediately before such
commencement, shall, in so far as they relate to
the winning or mining of coal, stand terminated;
(c) no lease for winning or mining coal shall be
granted in favour of any person other than the
Government, company or corporation, referred to in
clause(a):
Section 4 of the same Act super-adds severe punishment
for contravention of the prohibition contained in s. 3(3).
The total effect thus is clear. The Parliament wanted to
prevent the mischief of coal P! mining and other illicit
extraction of coal to the national detriment. Scratching,
slaughter mining and such like activities on the sly were
regarded as defeating the nationalisation scheme.
599
Counsel for the petitioners contended that the
legislative history A was relevant to the interpretation of
s. 3(3) of the 1976 Act. In his submission, the amendment
brought about in 1976 incorporating total interdict of
mining applied only in relation to coal mines and not in
relation to coking coal mine. For this argument he sought
sustenance from the existence of two sets of legislation
dealing with coal mines and coking coal mines throughout the
1970s. He further pointed out that even as late as 1978 when
amendments were contemplated in regard to coal mines’ and
coking coal mines’ nationalisation there were separate
provisions separately inserted in both the nationalisation
measures. He cited the 1978 Act as illustrative, even
decisive. The absence of any mention of coking coal mines in
the 1976 Act, was, in his submission, conclusive of the
parliamentary intent in his favour, especially when read in
the light of the history of the package of nationalisation
legislations.
We are far from satisfied that there is substance in
this submission. History 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 a legislation, on an emergency footing,
was made solely confined to coking coal mines. As we have
earlier explained, the plan of the nation in regard to these
natural resources was then embryonic and later final and
there was step-by-step legislation to implement the policy
on a phased programme. The culmination came in the blanket
ban of 1976. We are concerned here with the interpretation
of s. 3(3) which we reproduce again for facility of
reference at this state:
3.(3) on and from the commencement of section 3 of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976,
(a) no person, other than-
(i) the Central Government or a Government
company or a corporation owned, managed or
controlled by the Central Government. Or G
(ii) a person to whom a sub-lease, referred to in
the proviso to clause (c) has been granted by
any such Government, company or corporation,
or
(iii) a company engaged in the production of iron
and steel, shall carry on coal mining
operation, in India, in any form; .
600
(b) excepting the mining leases granted before
such commencement in favour of the Government, company
or corporation, referred to in clause (a), and any sub-
lease granted by any such Government, company or
corporation, all other mining leases and sub-leases in
force immediately before such commencement, shall, in
so far as they relate to the winning or mining of coal.
stand terminated;
(c) no lease for winning or mining coal shall be
granted in favour of any person other than the
Government, company or corporation, referred to in
clause (a):
Provided that the Government, company or
corporation to whom a lease for winning or mining coal
has been granted may grant a sub-lease to any person in
any area on such terms and conditions as may be
specified in the instrument granting the sub-lease, if
the Government, company or corporation is satisfied
that-
(i) the reserves of coal in the area are in
isolated small pockets or are not sufficient for
scientific and economical development in a coordinated
and integrated manner, and
(ii) the coal produced by sub-lessee will not be
required to be transported by rail.
The short question of statutory construction turns on
the meaning to be assigned to the expression "no person,
other than the Central Government or a Government company or
a corporation owned, managed or controlled by the Central
Government.. shall carry on coal mining operations in India,
in any form". The expression 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. What is more, there is a
definition of ’coal mine’ in the Coal mines
(Nationalisation) Act, 1973. Section 2(b) of the 1973 Act
defines coal mine to mean "a mine in which there exists one
or more seams of coal". It is apparent that even a coking
coal mine is a coal mine because the definition is broad. It
is inarguable that coking coal is not coal. This conclusion
is reinforced by looking at the definition of coking coal
mine in s. 3(c) of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation)
Act, 1972. Section 3(c) reads thus:
"coking coal mine" means a coal mine in which
there exists one or more seams of coking coal, whether
exclusively or in addition to any seam of other coal.
601
Indeed, it is irrefutable, viewed literally, lexically,
semantically, teleologically or applying the rule in
Heydon’s case that coking coal mine is a coal mine. If it is
a coal mine it is covered by the 1976 Act. Coking coal is
more precious,, strategically speaking, than other forms of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
coal and it would be an error, nay a blunder, to prevent
private extraction of common coal and to permit removal of
coking coal. It would be pathetic and bathetic for any
policy-maker to be so egregious. Parliament may err but not
be absurd ! So construed, it is obvious that coking coal,
which is more importantly needed for the nation than other
supplies of coal, must be the last to be squandered away by
permitting it to be privately exploited. We have no
hesitation in holding that ’coal mine’ in the 1976 Act
includes coking coal mine and s. 3(3) of that Act clamps
down the ban on extraction of coking coal also.
lt was feebly submitted that some of the mines may have
fire-clay layers to reach which the mining operation may
have to pass through coal seams; and, therefore, such
operation cannot be prohibited. We are not impressed with
this argument at all. Even assuming there is fire clay or
other layer somewhere in the bowels of the earth the
statutory mandate is that once you come up on a coal seam
you shall stop extracting it to proceed beyond. Maybe, some
injury may be caused, fancied or real, but it is permissible
for Parliament to make provision to prevent evasion of the
purpose of the statute by prohibition of mining other
minerals which may incidentally defeat the coal
nationalisation measure.
In this view we find no merit in any of the writ
petitions and dismiss them all with costs.
It has been mentioned on more than one occasion in this
court that interlocutory orders have been sought and
obtained, that Receivers have been appointed by other courts
and that they have been working these mines. In the face of
the statutory prohibition which is imperative in tone and
all-embracing in language, even punishable for violation, it
is surprising that any Receiver could at all dare to work
mines without running a grave risk. The court cannot
sanction the commission of a crime. We make it perfectly
plain that there will be no more authorisation for any
receiver or other officer of court to extract coal or coking
coal from any mine in India. Section 3(3) of the 1976 Act,
being all-inclusive and having been constitutionally upheld
by thus Court, it is no longer permissible for any court in
India n
602
to appoint a receiver for or otherwise permit extraction of
coal or coking coal.
These observations and reasonings must converge to only
one conclusion that the crowd of writ petitions deserve to
be and are hereby dismissed-of course, with costs. We would
conclude with a conscientious query-will the State keep the
coal mafia out, break the coal racket where government
agencies are suspect and demonstrate that, the court having
come to the aid of the Executive, nationalisation will
fulfil the targets and tide over the crisis ? Caesar’s wife
must be above suspicion.
S.R. Petitions dismissed.
603