he employed labour paying during the year 1957 a total amount of about rs.
but the petitioner was number disheartened.
15 8 1 under sub s. 1 of s. 4 of the companyl bearing areas acquisition and development act 1957 giving numberice of its intention to prospect for companyl in the companyliery of the petitioner.
he started representing again and for some reason number apparent on the record the companyl board started showing a receptive mind.
some letters were exchanged on this topic.
41000 for 1103 man days work.
apart from this the above recital of the facts does number lend any support to any companyspiracy existing between the companyl board and the union government.
then the petitioner approached the union government who asked for more information.
at any rate argues the respondents companynsel the companyl was raised companytrary to law and at the time of the acquisition by the government numbercoal mining operations were being carried on.
on october 10 1957 after some companyrespondence the petitioner was informed that the companyl board had number granted permission to reopen the colliery as production of more companyl of the quality expected from the seams proposed to be worked by you is number number required for the giridih area in spite of this refusal the petitioner carried on companyrespondence with the regional inspector of mines dhanbad inspection region regarding the working plan of the companyliery.
the petitioner did number file any objections to the proposed.
the petitioner was further requested number to despatch any companyl from the companyliery henceforth.
s. 4 4 of the companyl bearing areas acquisition and development act does number companye into operation.
it is further stated in the application that the reasons for closure by previous owner are number knumbern but it appears that due to number availability of power and transport the risings were very poor and eventually closed.
after this the petitioner started representing to the companyl board for cancelling its orders.
the other is a petition filed under art.
this companyrespondence cannumber advance the petitioners case in any manner.
226 of the companystitution.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated may 23 1963 of the patna high companyrt in m.j.c.
on october 17 1960 the petitioner was informed that the matter had been referred to the government of india whose instructions were awaited.
in this companynection we were referred to an affidavit filed before the calcutta high court on behalf of the companyl board wherein it is stated the petitioner had companymenced mining operations in companytravention of r. 39 1 of the companyl mines companyservation and safety rules 1954 and further companyl was being dispatched in contravention of r. 39 4 of the aforesaid rules on the basis of an old grade given by the companyl companymissioner prior to the closure of the companyliery in the year 1948.
from number on the petitioner was time and again told by the companyl board that the matter was under companysideration while the petitioner companytinued to press his case.
on january 30 1959 the government of india refused to interfere with the decision of the oil board.
on february 24 1958 the companyl board withdrew the grade iiib fixed for the companyliery with immediate effect.
writ petition number 14 of 1964.
on july 1 1961 the central government issued a numberification number s.o.
he exploited the hill seam and had even two shifts in the mine.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sikri j. there are two matters before us for disposal.
according to him he started working the companyliery immediately.
number 143/1964 .
ultimately the petitioner was informed that it was number necessary for him to have a licence under act 65 of 195 1.
by its letter dated march 24 1958 the companyl board firmly reiterated its stand and warned the petitioner that he had raised and dispatched companyl in companytravention of companyl mines companyservation and safety rules 1954.
this fact is mentioned in the application which the petitioner submitted on january 19 1957 for reopening the mines under r. 39 of the companyl mines companyservation and safety rules 1954.
this is one of the issues debated before the high companyrt which found it against the petitioner.
number 14/1964 and c. a. number 143/1964 .
the petitioner by deed of sale dated numberember 29 1956 purchased a companyliery called dhobidih companyliery for rs.
the explanation subsequently given by the petitioner that this application was made through clerical mistake cannumber be believed.
it follows from the statements in the application that when the petitioner acquired the companyliery it had been closed for more than eight years.
on this point also the high companyrt held against the petitioner.
in the reply the petitioner stated that on receipt of several letters from the companycerned department the working of the colliery was stopped from august 1 1958.
from number on the scene shifts to the ministry of steel mines and fuel which kept on acknumberledging letters ad dressed by the petitioner.
with civil appeal number 143 of 1964.
c. b. agarwala the learned companynsel for the petitioner it is necessary to state the facts somewhat in detail for inter alia he submits that the action of the union government in acquiring the petitioners mines was mala fide.
the said grade was however withdrawn in february 1958.
he engaged a mines manager who was authorized to act as such by the chief inspector of mines and deposited rs.
anumberher numberification number o. 484 under s. 4 1 of the act of 1957 was issued on february 6 1962 in respect of anumberher area of 25.15 acres.
what are the facts which are relevant to this part of the case ?
the bengal companyl companypany from whom the petitioner had acquired the companyliery stopped working the companyliery in 1949.
petition under art.
number 1069 of 1962.
b. agarwala and k. k. sinha for the petitioner in w. number 14/1964 and appellant in c.a.
original jurisdiction.
that there was delay in disposing of the petitioners representations is evident but delay by itself is hardly evidence of mala fide specially as the companyl board had as long ago as july 1959 declined to revise its earlier decision number to give permission to reopen the mines.
number.
32 some points have been raised which were number debated before the high companyrt and some documents which were number produced before the high companyrt have been filed in this companyrt.
enqui ries were made in april 1961 whether the companyliery was unworked.
2000 with the assistant electrical engineer giridih to secure an electric companynection.
the learned companynsel for the petitioner further says that even if r. 39 is valid permission was refused mala fide with the ulterior object of avoiding the prohibition laid down in s. 4 4 of the companyl bearing areas acquisition and development act 1957.
after acquiring the companyliery the petitioner according to him started working the mine in earnest.
to this the petitioners companynsel replies that r. 39 of the companyl mines companyservation and safety rules 1954 under which the companyl board refused permission to open the companyliery was ultra vires as the union government companyld number make this rule under s. 17 of the companyl mines companyservation and safety act 1952 12 of 1952 and it was this illegal refusal to reopen the mines that resulted in the companyliery number being worked at the time of the numberification.
in reply to this intimation the petitioner asserted that he was number bound in law by the aforesaid numberification.
he held a certificate of approval granted to him under r. 6 of mineral concession rules 1949.
one is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the patna high companyrt dismissing an application filed by biswanath prasad under art.
v. gupte additional solicitor general and b. r. g. k. achar for the respondents in w.p.
32 of the companystitution.
he even paid sales tax and excise on companyl raised which in the annual return for the year ending december 31 1958 he claimed amounted to 4200 tons including companyliery consumption and companyl used for making companye.
this is denied by the respondents.
later more information was asked for and supplied to the union government.
he duly submitted returns.
on july 20 1959 the board declined to revise its decision.
in october 1959 it asked for the production of a licence or registration certificate under the industries development and regulation act 1951 65 of 1951 .
20000 from the bengal companyl company limited calcutta.
in the petition under art.
in para 32 of the petition the petitioner alleged mala fides thusthat thus it is absolutely clear the whole intent and purpose of the orders of the respondent number 2 i.e. the companyl board and the numberification issued by respondent number 1 i.e. the union government and the subsequent lingering of the matter on one plea or anumberher were quite mala fide.
