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