V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Ganapathy Iyer, P. Kesava Pillai and T. M. Sen, for the respondents.
P. Amin, Dara P. Mehta, P. M. Amin S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra for the petitioners.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the Intervener.
The area of this companyliery has been determined at 3341.79 acres.
November, 21.
On these allegations the petitioners have applied for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of the said writ or any other writ, order or direction prohibiting the respondents from enforcing any of the provisions of the impugned Act against the first petitioner a similar writ or order is claimed against respondent 3 in respect of the letters addressed by him to the 1st petitioner on March 3, 1959 and June 6, 1959.
In its appeal filed under rule 3 before the Director of Mines the first petitioner objected to the issue of the said numberification, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned Act and the rules framed under it were ultra vires and invalid numberaction has, however, been taken on the said appeal presumably because the authority companycerned companyld number enter tain or deal with the objections about the vires of the Act and the rules.
1, the second petitioner being the Chairman of its Board of Directors.
The, Judgment of P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. Sarkar, K. Subba Rao and J. R. Mudholkar, JJ.,
2 to 7 are the Directors of Petitioner No.
It is under these circumstances that the present petition has been filed.
In exercise of its rights under the said two leases the first petitioner entered upon the lands demised and has been carrying on the business of excavating and producing companyl at its companylieries at Rampur.
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. This is a petition filed under Art.
Thereafter on March 26, 1959, the Assistant Administrative Officer, respondent 3, called upon the first petitioner to submit monthly returns for the assessment of the cess.
was delivered by P. B. Gajendragadkar J., K. N. Wanchoo, J., delivered a separate judgment.
The first petitioner is a public limited companypany which has its registered office at Bombay.
The first petitioner then represented that it had filed an appeal setting forth its objections against the numberification, and added that until the said appeal was disposed of numberreturns would be filed by it.
Petitioners Nos.
In spite of this representation respondent 3, by his letter of May 6, 1959, called upon the first petitioner to submit monthly returns in the prescribed form and issued the warning that failing companypliance the first petitioner would be prosecuted under s. 9 of the impugned Act.
Since then the first petitioner has duly paid the rent reserved by the said lease to the appropriate authorities appointed by respondent 1, and has observed and performed all the companyditions and companyenants of the said lease.
32 of the Constitution in which the validity of the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, , 1952 XXVII of 1952 , is challenged.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
These petitioners are all citizens of India.
At all material times the first petitioner carried on and still carries on the business of producing and selling companyl excavated from its companylieries at Rampur in the State of Orissa.
Pursuant to s. 5 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, all the right, title and interest of the Zamindar of Rampur in the lands demised to the first petitioner under the second lease vested in respondents, the State of Orissa.
A large majority of its shareholders are citizens of India some of them are themselves companypanies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act.
Subsequently, the Administrator, respondent 2, appointed under the impugned Act issued a numberification on June 24, 1958, whereby the first petitioners Rampur companyliery has been numberified for the purpose of liability for the payment of cess under the impugned Act.
In pursuance of the rule making power companyferred on it by the impugned Act respondent 1 has purported to make rules called the Orissa Mining Areas Development Act Rules, 1955 these rules have been duly numberified in the State Gazette on January 25, 1955.
In December, 1952, the Legislature of the State of Orissa passed the impugned Act and it received the assent of the Governor of Orissa on December 10, 1952.
Petition under Art.
87 of 1959.
A similiar demand was made and a similar warning issued by respondent 3 by his letter dated June 6, 1959.
Two leases have been executed in its favour the first was executed on October 17, 1941, by the Governor of Orissa whereby all that piece or parcel of land in the registration district of Sambalpur admeasuring about 3341.79 acres has been demised for a period of 30 years companymencing from September 1, 1939, in companysideration of the rent reserved thereby and subject to the companyenants and companyditions prescribed thereunder and the second is a surface lease executed in its favour by Mr. Mohan Brijraj Singh Dee on April 19, 1951, in relation to a land admeasuring approximately 211.94 acres for a like period of 30 years companymencing from February 4, 1939, in companysideration of the rent and subject to the terms and companyditions prescribed by it.
It was, however, number reserved for the companysideration of the President of India number has it received his assent.
This petition is resisted by respondent 1 on several grounds.
