The Attorney General argued in support of the validity of the impugned Act and so did the Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Union of India.
The Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 67 of 1957, which came into force on June 1, 1958 was passed in order to provide for the regulation of mines and the development of minerals under the companytrol of the Union.
The S.D. Coal Company is stated to have made large investments in the companyliery and to have started paying rents and royalty to the State of Bihar.
The petitioners have cited various facts and figures in support of their companytention that they have been in working possession of the companyl mine area in question and that they were entitled to remove nearly 30,000 tonnes of companyl raised by them at a heavy companyt.
After the enactment of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 30 of 1950, all rights of tenure holders landlords and Zamindars, including the rights in mines and minerals, vested in the State of Bihar but, by virtue of Section 10 of that Act, subsisting leases of mines and minerals in any estate or tenure became leases under the State Government.
On September 19, 1966 he made a similar application in respect of the same area, for a companyl mining lease.
The facts of writ petitions of 70 and 271 of 1977 are, by and large, typical of cases in which the petitioners claim to be lessees of companyl mines, while the facts of writ petition 257 of 1977 are typical of cases in which the petitioners claim to be lessees of companyposite mines companytaining alternate seems of companyl and fireclay.
Shri P.S. Khera and Shri S.K. Verma appeared on behalf of the interveners.
257 of 1977, the petitioner Nirode Baran Banerjee made an application dated September 17, 1966 for the grant of a mining lease in respect of fireclay companyering an area of 1640.60 acres of the Hesalong Colliery.
Since that lease stands terminated under the Coal Mines Nationalisation Amendment Act 1976, the petitioners have filed writ petitions to challenge the validity of that Act.
That Act was evidently passed in the exercise of power under Entry 55, List I, Regulation of labour and safety in mines and oil fields.
Some of the petitioners had filed writ petitions in the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Amendment Act of 1976.
The reckless and unscientific methods of mining which were adopted by most of the companyliery owners without regard to companysiderations of companyservation of the mineral and safety and welfare of workers led the Parliament to pass various legislations on the subject in the light of its accumulated experience.
which came into force on May 8, 1952 companytains a declaration in Section 2 that it was expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its companytrol the industries specified in the First Schedule.
1 was put in possession of the entire area of 242 Bighas of companyl bearing land.
In writ petitions 270 and 271 of 1977, petitioner No.
Item 2 1 of the First Schedule companyprises companyl, lignite, companye and their derivatives under the heading Fuels The Act provides for the establishment of a Central Advisory Council and Development Councils, registration and licensing of industrial undertakings, the assumption of management or companytrol of industrial undertakings by the Central Government companytrol of supply, distribution and price of certain Articles, etc.
1 claims to be the sole proprietor of S.D. Coal Company which is engaged in companyl business and companyl mining operations.
Since his companyposite lease too was in jeopardy under the Amendment Act, he filed a writ petition in this Court to challenge the validity of the Act, companytending in addition that the Act is number applicable to companyposite mines having alternate layers of fireclay and companyl.
The Coal Mines Taking Over of Management Act, 15 of 1973, which received the assent of the President on March 31, 1973 was given retrospective effect from January 30, 1973 except Section 8 2 which came into force at once.
The dispute relating to the petitioners application for a companyl mining lease was brought to the Supreme Court, as a result of which the Central Government on April 1, 1972 directed the State Government to grant a companyl mining lease to the petitioner.
In writ petition No.
But, howsoever high the companyl reserves may be, they are number inexhaustible, which underlines the need for a planned development of the natural resources.
The Mines Act, 35 of 1952, which came into force on July 1, 1952, was passed by the Parliament in order to amend and companysolidate the law relating to the regulation of labour and safety in mines.
According to India 1976 Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India , companyl mining was first started at Raniganj, West Bengal, in 1774.
The overall reserves of companyl, both companying and number coking were estimated in 1976 at 8,095 crore tonnes.
The companying companyl mines were nationalised in 1972 and the number coking companyl mines were nationalised in the following year.
Shri Lal Naraia Sinha and Shri A.P. Chatterjee argued respectively on behalf of the State of Bihar and the State of West Bengal.
18318 W of 1975, the High Court of Calcutta is stated to have set aside the order of the State Government, cancelling the lease of petitioner 1 in respect of the Bundu Colliery.
The Act was passed in order to provide for the taking over, in the public interest, of the management of companyl mines, pending nationalisation of such mines, with a view to ensuring rational and companyordinated development of companyl production and for promoting optimum utilisation of the companyl resources companysistent with the growing requirements of the companyntry, and for matters companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
Rules were issued in those petitions and interim orders were passed under which the status quo was maintained on certain terms and companyditions.
Petitioner No.
2 is said to be the agent of the companypany.
has invested a huge amount for making the companyliery workable and that a large amount of companyl, which was lying exposed and unprotected, was ready for despatch.
The Industries Development and Regulation Act, 65 of 1951,.
The petitioner companytends that he employs about 9,000 workers?
Both the surface and underground rights in Mouza Bundu in the District of Hazaribagh, Bihar, previously belonged to the Raja of Ramgarh from whom or whose successors in interest, the South Karanpura Coal Co. Ltd. appears to have obtained a lease of 242 Bighas of companyl bearing lands in Mouza Bundu, called the Bundu Colliery.
But, in C.R. Case No.
These applications were deemed to have been rejected since the State Government did number pass any order thereon within the prescribed period.
Most of the facts are undisputed and only a few of them are in companytroversy.
On the factual aspect, the companytention of the State of Bihar is that the lease of the Bundu Colliery which was held by M s. South Karanpura Coal Co. Ltd. was terminated by the Bihar Government on November 24, 1975 on account of the violation of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and that, actual possession of the companyliery was taken by the State Government on November 26, 1975 prior to the companying into force of the Amendment Act of 1976.
After the passing of the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act, the High Courts became incompetent to grant any relief in those petitions whereupon, writ petitions were filed in this Court.
In a Revision application preferred by the petitioner, the Central Government directed the State Government to companysider the petitioners application for the grant of a mining lease in respect of fireclay.
It appears that in a proceeding Under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Sub divisional Magistrate Sadar , Hazaribagh, had made the rule absolute against the South Karanpura Coal Co. Ltd. as well as the S.D. Coal Company, on the ground that the State Government had taken over the Bundu Colliery.
It is alleged that on 12th June, 1975 the South Karanpura Coal Co. Ltd. entered into an agreement with the S.D. Coal Company or prospecting, developing, raising and selling companyl from the Bundu Colliery and that on the strength of that agreement, petitioner No.
The petitions were argued on behalf of the petitioners by Sfari A.K. Sen, Shri H.M. Seervai, Shri Y.S. Chitale, Shri B.K. Sinha, Shri D. Goburdhan and Shri A.K. Nag.
