Tara Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors [1980] INSC 106 (7 May 1980)
1980 Latest Caselaw 106 SC

Tara Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors [1980] INSC 106 (7 May 1980)

CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BHAGWATI, P.N.

KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH UNTWALIA, N.L.

KAILASAM, P.S.

TULZAPURKAR, V.D.

CITATION: 1980 AIR 1682 1980 SCR (3)1042 1980 SCC (4) 179

CITATOR INFO :

RF 1980 SC2031 (2) O 1983 SC 239 (2) E 1984 SC1130 (49) RF 1986 SC2123 (6) D 1989 SC1629 (23)

ACT:

Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 67 of 1976- Legislative competence of the Parliament to enact Nationalisation Amendment Act-Whether the Amending Act is violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g) and 31 of the Constitution of India-Applicability of the Act to leases of composite mines in which there are alternate seams of coal and fire clay.

HEADNOTE:

Article 246(1) of the Constitution of India confers upon the Parliament, notwithstanding anything contained in clauses 2 and 3 of that Article, the exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I of the Seventh Schedule, called the Union List, Clause 2 of Article 246 deals with the power of the Parliament and the State Legislatures to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, while clause 3 deals with the power of the State Legislatures to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List.

Entry 23 List II, Schedule VII of the Constitution read with Article 246(3) confers legislative power on the State Legislatures in respect of "Regulation of mines and mineral development" but that power is "subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union". Entry 54 List I enables Parliament to acquire legislative power in respect of "Regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest". Entry 24 List II relates to "Industries subject to the provisions of entries 7 and 52 of List I". Entry 7, List I, relates to Industries declared by Parliament by law to be necessary for the purpose of defence or for the prosecution of war. Entry 52, List I, enables Parliament to acquire legislative power in respect of "Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest".

Pursuant to these powers the Parliament enacted the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 65 of 1951, the Mines Act 35 of 1952, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 67 of 1957, the Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 64 of 1971, the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 36 of 1972, the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 56 of 1972, the Coal Mines (Taking over of Management) Act, 15 of 1973 and the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 26 of 1973. Thereafter the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act 67 of 1976 was passed, the objects and reasons being:

1043 "After the nationalisation of coal mines, a number of persons holding coal mining leases unauthorisedly started mining of coal in the most reckless and unscientific manner without regard to considerations of conservation, safety and welfare of workers. Not only were they resorting to slaughter mining by superficial working of outcrops and thereby destroying a valuable national asset and creating problems of water- logging fires, etc. for the future development of the deeper deposits, their unsafe working also caused serious and fatal accidents. They were making larger profits by paying very low wages, and by not providing any safety and welfare measures. Thefts of coal from adjacent nationalised mines were also reported after the commencement of these unauthorised operations which had shown an increasing trend of late. Areas where illegal and unauthorised operations were carried on, were without any assessment of reserves in regard to quality and quantity of coal which could be made available after detailed exploration work was undertaken and results analysed. No scientific exploitation of these deposits could be undertaken in the nationalised sector without these details. It was, therefore, considered that it would not be appropriate either to nationalise these unauthorisedly worked mines after taking them over under the Coal Mines (Taking over of Management) Act, 1973 or to get the concerned mining leases prematurely terminated and regranted to Government Companies under the Mining and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. In view of the policy followed by the Central Government that the Coal Industry is to be in the nationalised sector, it was decided that the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973 should be enacted to provide for termination of all privately held coal leases except those held by privately owned steel companies, so that it may be possible for the Central Government, Government Company or Corporation to take mining leases where necessary, after necessary exploration has been made as to the extent of the deposits of coal etc." The petitioners who were the lessees of coal mines by the State Government, being aggrieved by the provisions of the Amendment Act 67 of 1976, challenged the competence of Parliament to enact the Amendment Act and also the validity of the Act and contended:

(a) Laws made in the exercise of power conferred by Entry 54 must stand the test of public interest because the very reason for the Parliament acquiring power under that entry is that it is in public interest that the regulation of mines and minerals should be under the control of the Union. In other words, Entry 54 confers a legislative power which is purposive, that is to say, any law made in the exercise of the power under Entry 54 must be designed to secure the regulation and development of coal mines in public interest or else it must fail. The Nationalisation Amendment Act is not such a law which Parliament can pass under Entry 54 because, that Act not only terminates all leases but it destroys the contracts of service of thousands of workmen, and indeed it destroys all other contracts and all securities for moneys lent without even so much as making a provision for priorities for the payment of debts.

Since the Nationalisation Amendment Act terminates all leases, it is a complete negation of the integrated scheme of taking over the management of mines, acquisition of the rights of lease-holders and the running of the mines.

(b) The word 'Regulation' in Entry 54 does not include 'Prohibition'. 'Regulation' should not also be confused with the expression 'Restrictions' occur- 1044 ring in Article 19(2) to (6) of the Constitution. In the very nature of things, there cannot be a power to prohibit the regulation and development of mines and minerals'.

Section 3(4) inserted by the Nationalisation Amendment Act imposes no obligation on the Central Government or any other authority to obtain a mining lease and work the mines, the leases in respect of which stand terminated under the Act.

The words "it shall be lawful" for the Central Government to obtain a lease are words of discretionary power which create no obligation. They only enable the Central Government to obtain a lease, making something legal and possible for which there would otherwise be no right or authority to do.

Section 3(4) does not confer a power coupled with a duty; it merely confers a faculty or power. No Court can by a Writ of Mandamus or otherwise compels the Central Government to obtain a lease of a coal mine and to run it under any of the provisions of the Nationalisation Amendment Act.

(c) Where the Legislative power is distributed among different legislative bodies, the Legislature may transgress its legislative power either directly or manifestly, or covertly or indirectly. In the instant case, the exercise of power by the Parliament is colourable because although in passing the Nationalisation Amendment Act it purported to act within the limits of its legislative power, in substance and in reality it transgressed that power, the transgression being veiled by what appears on proper examination to be a mere pretence or disguise.

(d) In order to tear off the veil or disguise and in order to get at the substance of the law behind the form, the Court must examine the effect of the legislation and take into consideration its object, purpose and design.

Where the legislative entry is purposive, like Entry 54 of the Union List, it is the object or purpose of the legislation which requires consideration. The purpose for which the Parliament is permitted to acquire legislative power of Regulation and Development of mines must dictate the nature of law made in the exercise of that power because public interest demands that power. Under the provisions of the Nationalisation Amendment Act, not only is there no obligation on the Central Government to run a mine, but there is no obligation imposed upon it even to carry out prospecting or investigation in order to decide whether a particular mine should be worked at all. Section 3(4) merely authorises the Central Government to apply for "a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of the whole or part of the land covered by the mining lease which stands determined". A close examination of the Act thus discloses that far from providing for regulation and development of coal mines, it totally prohibits all mining activity even if the State Government wants to run a mine.

It does not impose prohibition as a step towards running the mines since there is neither any obligation to carry out the prospecting or investigation nor to run the mines.

(e) The Nationalisation Amendment Act runs directly counter to the whole policy of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act of 1973, to acquire and run the mines.

The Parent Act becomes a dead letter in regard to several of its provisions as a result of the Amendment Act. It only adopts a colourable device to amend the Nationalisation Act while completely negativing it in fact. The Act therefore lacks legislative competence and is, in the sense indicated, a colourable piece of legislation.

1045 (f) Article 31(A)(1)(e) only lifts a restriction on the legislative competence in so far as violation of fundamental rights is concerned. The most benign motive cannot make a law valid if the legislative competence is lacking.

(g) Under Article 31(1) of the Constitution, no person can be deprived of his property without the authority of law. Article 31A(1) which exempts the laws mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) from invalidity under Articles 14, 19 and 31 does not dispense with the necessity of the authority of law for depriving a person of his property, because the opening words of Article 31A(1) are "....... no law providing for ......." matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) shall be deemed to be void as offending Articles 14, 19 and 31.

(h) The Nationalisation Amendment Act confers no authority to terminate a composite lease for mining coal and fire-clay. The right to mine fire-clay is given to the petitioner by law and it can only be taken away by law.

(i) Though the Nationalisation Amendment Act does not in terms prohibit the petitioner from mining fireclay, the effect of the law, in a practical business sense, is to prohibit the petitioner from mining fireclay and, therefore, the position is the same as though the Act had enacted the prohibition in express terms. The Court must look at the direct impact of the law on the right of the party, and if that impact prohibits him from exercising his right, the fact that there is no express prohibition in the Act is immaterial.

(j) The Nationalisation Amendment Act by making it punishable, to mine coal, in substance and in a practical business sense, prohibits the petitioner from mining fireclay. For this prohibition the Amendment Act does not provide, and therefore, there is no authority of law for it.

Coal and fireclay are two distinct minerals as shown by Schedule II to the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 67 of 1957 wherein item 1 is coal and item 15 is fireclay. The dictionary meanings of coal and fireclay also show that they are two distinct minerals.

(k) The Nationalisation Amendment Act affects, in substance, two kinds of transfers: the transfer of the lease-hold interests of the lessees in favour of the lessor, namely the State; and the transfer of the mining business of the lessees in favour of the Central Government. Since these transfers amount to acquisition within the meaning of Article 31(2), the Act is open to challenge under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 31 of the Constitution.

(1) The Nationalisation Amendment Act is open to challenge under Article 14 because lessees who fall within that Act are patently discriminated against in comparison with lessees of other mines, both coking and non-coking, who were paid compensation when their property was taken over first for management under the Management Acts and then under the Nationalisation Acts.

(m) The Nationalisation Amendment Act is open challenge under Article 19(1)(g) because the prohibition against lessees from carrying on their business and the transfer of their business, in substance, to the Central Government or a Company is an unreasonable restriction on the right of the lessees to hold their lease-hold property and to carry on their business of mining.

(n) The Act is open to challenge under Article 31 because no provision is made for the payment of any amount whatsoever to the lessees whose mining business is taken over under the Act. No public purpose is involved either in the 1046 termination of the lessees' interest or in the acquisition of their business. Expropriation without payment of any amount requires a very heavy public purpose.

(o) Since no provision whatsoever is made for the payment of any amount to the lessees whose leases are terminated, the Nationalisation Amendment Act is not a 'Law' within the meaning of Article 31(2) and therefore Article 19(1)(f) is attracted.

(p) The Act is not saved from the challenge of Articles 14, 19 and 31 by Article 31A (1) (e) because that Article provides for extinguishment which does not amount to acquisition by the State. If extinguishment amounting to acquisition was intended to be saved under Article 31A(1) (e), the subject matter dealt with by clause (e) would have been included in clause (a) of that Article.

Dismissing all the Writ Petitions except Writ Petitions Nos. 111, 178, 220, 221, 257, 352, 600 & 1130-1134/77 which are allowed in part, the Court, ^

HELD : (1) The provisions of the Amendment Act 67 of 1976 are not a mere facade for terminating mining leases without any obligation in the matter of regulation of mines and mineral development. [1071H, 1072A] Grating that Entry 54, List I is purposive since it qualifies the power to pass a law relating to "Regulation of Mines and Mineral Development" by the addition of a restrictive clause, "to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest", the provisions of the Nationalisation Amendment Act show that they are designed to serve progressively the purpose of Entry 54. [1972 A-B] The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act was passed in order to provide for the acquisition and transfer of the right, title and interest of the owners in respect of the Coal mines specified in the Schedule to that Act. This was done with a view to re-organising and reconstructing such coal mines so as to ensure the rational, co-ordinated and scientific development and utilisation of coal resources consistent with the growing requirements of the country. The high purpose of that Act was to ensure that the ownership and control of such resources are vested in the State and thereby so distributed as best to subserve the common good.

[1072 D-F] The several provisions of the Nationalisation Amendment Act, are, (1) by section 3(3) (a) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 which was introduced by the Nationalisation Amendment Act, no person other than those mentioned in clauses (i) to (iii) can carry on coal mining operations after April 29, 1976, being the date on which section 3 of the Nationalisation Amendment Act came into force; (2) by section 3 (3) (b) all mining leases and sub- leases stood terminated except those granted before April 29, 1976 in favour of the Central Government, a Government company or corporation owned, managed or controlled by the Central Government; (3) section 3(3) (c) prohibits the granting of a lease for winning or mining coal in favour of any person other than the Government, a Government company or a corporation of the above description provided that a sub-lease could be granted by these authorities to any person if the two conditions mentioned in the proviso are satisfied; and (4) when a mining lease stands terminated under section 3(3), "it shall 1047 be lawful" for the Central Government or the Government company or the corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government to obtain a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of the whole or part of the land covered by the mining lease which stands terminated. Section 4 of the Nationalisation Amendment Act introduced an additional penal provision in the parent Act. The provisions of Ss. 3 and 4 are not a direct negation of the principles of the parent Act and they do not destroy the integral scheme of taking over the management of mines, of acquiring the rights of lease-holders and continuing to run the mines.

On the contrary, the Nationalisation Amendment Act is manifestly in furtherance of the object of nationalisation mentioned in the preamble to the parent Act and effectuates the purpose mentioned in sections 3(1) and 3(2) of that Act by the addition of a new sub-section, sub-section (3), which terminates all coal mining leases and sub-leases except those referred in sub-section (3) (b). The circumstance that the marginal note to section 3 and the title of Chapter II of the Nationalisation Act are not amended by the Nationalisation Amendment Act, despite the addition of a new sub-section, is of little or no consequence. That sub- section is a logical extension of the scheme envisaged by the original sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 3. [1073 C- H, 1074A-B]

2. Besides, marginal notes to the sections of a statute and the titles of its chapters cannot take away the effect of the, provisions contained in the Act so as to render those provisions legislatively incompetent, if they are otherwise within the competence of the legislature to enact.

One must principally have regard to the object of an Act in order to find out whether the exercise of the legislative power is purposive, unless, of course, the provisions of the Act show that the avowed or intended objects is a mere pretence for covering a veiled transgression committed by the legislative upon its own powers. Whether a particular object can be successfully achieved by an Act, is largely a matter of legislative policy. [1074 B-D]

3. The Nationalisation Amendment Act needs no preamble, especially when it is backed up by a statement of objects and reasons. Generally, an amendment Act is passed in order to advance the purpose of the parent Act as reflected in the preamble to that Act. Acquisition of coal mines, is not an end in itself but is only a means to an end. The fundamental object of the Nationalisation Act as also of the Nationalisation Amendment Act is to bring into existence a state of affairs which will be congenial for regulating mines and for mineral development. In regard to the scheduled mines, that purpose was achieved by the means of acquisition. In regard to mines which were not included in the Schedule, the same purpose was achieved by termination of leases and sub-leases and by taking over the right to work the mines. Termination of leases, vesting of lease-hold properties in the State Governments and the grant of leases to the Central Government or Government Companies are together the means conceived in order to achieve the object of nationalisation of one of the vital material resources of the community. [1074 D-G]

4. Section 18 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act 67, 1957 contains a statutory behest and projects a purposive legislative policy. The later Acts on the subject of regulation of mines and mineral development are linked up with the policy enunciated in section 18.

Therefore, nothing contained in the later analogous Acts can be construed as in derogation of the principle enunciated in section 18 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 67 of 1957, which provides that it shall be the duty of the 1048 Central Government to take all such steps as may be necessary for the conservation and development of minerals in India. Therefore, even in regard to matters falling under the Nationalisation Amendment Act which terminates existing leases and makes it lawful for the Central Government to obtain fresh leases, the obligation of section 18 of the Act of 1957 will continue to apply in its full rigour. [1074 G- H, 1075 A-B]

5. Entry 54 refers to two things : (1) regulation of mines and (2) mineral development. It is true that the Entry is purposive, since the exercise of the power under Entry 54 has to be guided and governed by public interest. But neither the power to regulate mines nor the power to ensure mineral development postulates that no sooner is a mining lease terminated by the force of the statute, then the Central Government must begin to work the mine of which the lease is terminated. It is possible that after the Nationalisation Amendment Act came into force, there was a hiatus between the termination of existing leases and the granting of fresh ones. But, the Nationalisation Amendment Act does not provide that any kind of type of mine shall not be developed or worked. Conservation, prospecting and investigation, developmental steps and finally scientific exploitation of the mines and minerals, is the process envisaged by the Nationalisation Amendment Act. It is undeniable that conservation of minerals, which is brought about by the termination of existing leases and subleases, is vital for the development of mines. A phased and graded programme of conservation is in the ultimate analysis one of the most satisfactory and effective means for the regulation of mines and the development of minerals. [1075 D-G]

6. The Nationalisation Amendment Act is not destructive of the provisions of the Parent Act. The destruction which the Nationalisation Amendment Act brings about is of the lease or the sub-lease and not of its subject matter, namely, the mine itself. In terminating the lease of a house one does not destroy the house itself. It may be arguable that prohibiting the use of the house for any purpose whatsoever may, for practical purposes, amount to the destruction of the house itself. The Nationalisation Amendment Act neither contains provisions directed at prohibiting the working of mines, the leases in respect of which are terminated. A simple provision for granting sub- leases shows that the object of the Nationalisation Amendment Act is to ensure that no mine will lie idle or unexplored. Interregnums can usefully be utilised for prospecting and investigation. They do not lead to destruction of mines. In fact, it is just as well that the Amendment Act does not require the new leases to undertake an adventure, reckless and thoughtless, which goes by the name of 'scratching of mines', which ultimately results in the slaughtering of mines. [1075H, 1976A-D] Natural resources, however, large are not inexhaustible, which makes it imperative to conserve them.

Without a wise and planned conservation of such resources, there can neither be a systematic regulation of mines nor a scientific development of minerals. The importance of conservation of natural resources in any scheme of regulation and development of such resources can be seen from the fact that the Parliament had to pass in August 1974 an Act called the Coal Mines (Conservation and Development) Act, 28 of 1974, in order, principally, to provide for the conservation of coal and development of coal mines, Section 4(1) of that Act enables the Central Government, for the purpose of conservation of coal and for the development of coal mines, to exercise such powers and take or cause to be taken such measures as it may be necessary or proper or as may be prescribed. By section 5(1), a duty is cast on the 1049 owners of coal mines to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure the conservation of coal and development of the coal mines owned by them. Measures taken for judicious preservation and distribution of natural resources may involve restrictions on their use and even prohibition, upto a degree, of the unplanned working of the repositories of such resources. [1076 D-F, 1077 B] Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for Canada [1896] A.C. 348, 363; Municipal Corporation of City of Toronto v. Virgo [1896] A.C. 88 explained and referred to.

7. Section 3(4) of the Act uses an enabling or permissive expression in order that regulation of mines and mineral development may be ensured after a scientific prospecting, investigation and planning. It is doubtless that, in the language of Lord Cairns in Julius (1880) 5 Appeal Cases 214, 222, there is something in the nature of the things which the Nationalisation Amendment Act empowers to be done, something in the object for which it is to be done and something in the conditions under which it is to be done which couples the power conferred by the Act with a duty, the duty being not to act in haste but with reasonable promptitude depending upon the nature of the problem under investigation. An obligation to act does not cease to be so merely because there is no obligation to act in an ad-hoc or impromptu manner. It is in the context of a conglomeration of these diverse considerations that one must appreciate why, in section 3(4) which was introduced by the Nationalisation Amendment Act, Parliament used the permissive expression "it shall be lawful". [1078 H, 1079 A- C] A broad and liberal approach to the field of legislation demarcated by Entry 54, List I, an objective and practical understanding of the provisions contained in the Nationalisation Amendment Act and a realistic perception of constitutional principles will point to the conclusion that the Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the Nationalisation Amendment Act. [1079 C-D] Julius v. Bishop of Oxford [1880] 5 Appeal cases 214,222 referred to.

8. The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act of 1972 and the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act of 1973 cover the whole field of "Coal" which was intended to be nationalised.

The titles of the two Acts and the various provisions contained therein show that what was being nationalised was three distinct categories of mines: mines containing seams of coking coal exclusively; mines containing seams of coking coal along with seams of other coal; and mines containing seams of other coal. Though Parliament had power under Article 31A(1)(e) of the Constitution to terminate mining leases without payment of any compensation or 'amount', it decided to nationalise coal mines on payment of amounts specified in the Schedules to the Nationalisation Acts of 1972 and 1973. Besides, even when something apart from coking coal mines was acquired, namely, 'coke oven plants', provision was separately made in section 11 of the Nationalisation Act of 1972, read with the 2nd Schedule, for payment of amounts to owners of coke oven plants. Thus, whatever was intended to be acquired was paid for. This scheme is prima facie inconsistent with the Parliament intending to acquire leasehold rights in other minerals, like fireclay, without the payment of any amount. [1082 B-E] Coupled with this is the unambiguous wording of section 3(3)(b) and section 3(3)(c) of the Nationalisation Act of 1973 which were introduced therein by 1050 section 3 of the Nationalisation Amendment Act. These provisions carry the scheme of the Nationalisation Acts to their logical conclusion by emphasising that the target of those Acts is coal mines, pure and simple. What stands terminated under section 3(3)(b) is certain mining leases and sub-leases in so far as they relate to the winning or mining of coal. The embargo placed by section 3(3)(c) is on the granting of leases for winning or mining coal to persons other than those mentioned in section 3(3)(a). [1082 E-F, H, 1083-A] The definition of 'coal mine' in section 2(b) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 has an uncertain import and the scheme of that Act and of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 makes it plausible that rights in minerals other than coke and coal were not intended to be acquired under the two Nationalisation Acts.

A comparison of the definition of "coal mine" in section 2(b) of the Act of 1973 with the definition of "coking coal mine" in section 3(c) of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act of 1972 makes it clear that whereas in regard to coking coal mines, the existence of any seam of other coal was regarded as inconsequential, the existence of any seam of another mineral was not considered as inconsequential in regard to a coal mine. The definition of coal mine in section 2(b) of the Act of 1973 scrupulously deleted the clause, "whether exclusively or in addition to" any other seam. The same Legislature which added the particular clause in the definition of 'coking coal mine' in the 1973 Act, deleted it in the definition of 'coal mine in the 1973 Act. In so far as coal mines are concerned, by reason of the definition of coal mine contained in section 2(b) of the Act of 1973, and the definition of coking coal mine in section 3(c) of the Act of 1972 which presents a striking contrast to the definition in section 2(b), composite coal mines, that is to say, coal mines in which there are seams of coal and fireclay do not fall within the scope of the definition of "coal mine" in section 2(b) of the Act of 1973. [1083 A-B, C-E, G-H]

9. The lessees of composite mines, therefore, who hold composite mining leases of winning coal and fireclay, cannot continue their mining operations unabated despite the provisions of the Nationalisation Amendment Act. It is one thing to say that a composite mine is outside the scope of the definition of coal mine in section 2(b) of the Nationalisation Act of 1972 and quite another to conclude therefrom that the other provisions introduced into that Act by the Nationalisation Amendment Act will have no impact on composite leases for winning coal and fireclay. Section 3(3) (a) which was introduced into the parent Act by the Nationalisation Amendment Act provides expressly that on and from the commencement. Of section 3 of the Amendment Act, that is, from April 29, 1976, no person other than those mentioned in clauses (i) to (iii) shall carry on "coal mining operation, in India, in any form." These provisions of sections 3(3)(a) and 30(2) of the parent Act will apply of their own force, whether or not the lessee holds a composite lease for winning coal and fireclay and whether or not the mine is a composite mine containing alternate seams of coal and fireclay. In other words, if a person holding a composite lease can do fireclay mining without mining coal, he may do so. But if he cannot win or mine fireclay without doing a coal mining operation, that is, without winning or mining coal, he cannot do any mining operation at all. If he does so, he will be liable for the penal consequences provided for in section 30(2) of the Nationalisation Act of 1973. The provision contained in section 3(3)(a) totally prohibiting the generality of persons from carrying on coal mining operation in India in any form and the penal provision of section 30(2) 1051 virtually leave with the lessees of composite mines the husk of a mining interest. That they cannot win or mine coal is conceded and, indeed, there is no escape from that position in view of the aforesaid provisions. [1084 B-H, 1085 A] The lessees of composite mines cannot win or mine fireclay though their composite lease is outside the scope of section 2(b) of the Nationalisation Act of 1973. The lessees of composite mines will, for all practical purposes, have to nurse their deeds of lease without being able to exercise any of the rights flowing from them. On their own showing, they will be acting at their peril if they attempt to win fireclay. If they cannot win fireclay without winning coal, they cannot win fireclay either, even if they hold composite leases under which they are entitled to win coal and fireclay. [1085 C-D] (10). Though the Parliament provided for the payment of amounts for acquisition of certain interests under the Nationalisation Acts of 1972 and 1973, it did not intent to pay any compensation or amount for the termination of lease- hold rights in respect of composite mines. Mines which have alternate seams of coal and fireclay are in a class by themselves and they appear to be far fewer in number as compared with the coking coal mines and coal mines, properly so called. The authority of law for the termination of the rights of composite lessees is the provision contained in section 3(3)(a), the violation of which attracts the penal provisions of section 30(2) of the Nationalisation Act of 1973. The Parliament has deprived composite lessees of their right to win fireclay because they cannot do so without winning coal. The winning of coal by the generality of people is prohibited by section 3(3)(a) of the Act of 1973.

[1085 E-H] This is just as well, because Parliament could not have intended that such islands of exception should swallow the main stream of the Nationalisation Acts. Obviously, no rights were intended to be left outstanding once the rights in respect of coking coal mines and coal mines were brought to an end. [1085 G-H]

11. A close and careful examination of the provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 and of the amendments made to that Act by Nationalisation Amendment Act makes it clear that by the Nationalisation Amendment Act, neither the petitioners' right to property has been acquired without the payment of any amount nor they have been unreasonably deprived of their right to carry on the business of mining. [1087 E-F] The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 nationalised coal mines by providing by section 3(1) that on the appointed day, that is on May 1, 1973, the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to the coal mines specified in the Schedule shall stand transferred to, and shall vest absolutely in, the Central Government free from all incumbrances. The scheduled mines, 711 in number and situated in reputed coal bearing areas, were the ones which were engaged openly, lawfully and uinterruptedly in doing coal mining business. Since it was possible to ascertain and verify the relevant facts pertaining to these undertakings, they were taken over on payment of amounts mentioned in the Schedule to the Act, which varied from mine to mine depending upon the valve of their assets, their potential and their profitability. In the very nature of things, the list of mines in the Schedule could not be exhaustive because there were, and perhaps even now there are, unauthorised mines worked by persons who did not possess the semblance of a title or right to do mining business. Persons falling within that category cannot cite the Constitution as their charter 1052 to continue to indulge in unauthorised mining which is unscientific, unsystematic and detrimental to the national interest by reason of its tendency to destroy the reserve of natural resources. But alongside these persons, there could conceivably be mine operators who may have been doing their business lawfully but who were not easily or readily identifiable. Section 3(2) of the Nationalisation Act, 1973 made provision for taking over the management of such mines by declaring for "the removal of doubts" that if, after the appointed day, the existence of any other coal mine comes to the knowledge of the Central Government, the provisions of the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973, shall, until that mine is nationalist by an appropriate legislation, apply to such mine. Owners of mines whose mines were not included in the Schedule but whose right, title and interest was to vest eventually in the Central Government under "an appropriate legislation" envisaged by section 3(2) of the Nationalisation Act were, by this method, placed on par with the owners of mines of which the management was taken over under the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973. That Act provides by section 7(1) that every owner of a coal mine shall be given by the Central Government an amount in cash for the vesting in it, under section 3, of the management of such mine. By section 7(2), for every months during which the management of a coal mine remains vested in the Central Government, the amount referred to in sub-section (1) shall be computed at the rate of twenty paise per ton of coal on the highest monthly production of coal from such mine during any month in the years 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972. The two provisos to that subsection and the other sub-sections of section 7 provide for other matters relating to payment of amounts to the owners of coal mines of which the management was taken over.

The Nationalisation Amendment Act carried the scheme of these two Acts to its logical conclusion by terminating the so-called leases and sub-leases which might have remained outstanding. [1087 G-H, 1088 A-G] Thus, the purpose attained by these Acts is (1) to vest in the Central Government the right of management of all coal mines; (2) to nationalise the mines mentioned in the Schedule; (3) to provide for the taking over of management of coal mines the existence of which comes to the knowledge of the Central Government after the appointed day and lastly (4) to terminate all mining leases. The Management Act and the Nationalisation Act provide for payment of amounts, by no means illusory, to the owners of coal mines whose rights were taken over. In the normal course of human affairs, particularly business affairs, it is difficult to conceive that owners of coal mines who had even the vestige of a title thereto would not bring to the notice of the Central Government the existence of their mines, when such mines were not included in the Schedule to the Nationalisation Act. Those who did not care to bring the existence of their mines to the knowledge of the Central Government, even though amounts are payable under the Management Act for the extinguishment of the right of management did not evidently possess even the semblance of a title to the mines. The claims of lessees, holding or allegedly holding under such owners, would be as tenuous as the title of their putative lessors. [1088 G-H, 1089 A-C]

12. The Nationalisation Amendment Act by section 3(3) (b) undoubtedly terminates all existing leases and sub- leases except those already granted in favour of persons referred to in clauses (i) to (iii) of section 3(3)(a).

Similarly section 3(3)(a) imposes an embargo on all future coal mining operations except in regard to the persons mentioned in clauses (i) to (iii). But the 1053 generality of leases which are alleged to have remained outstanding despite the coming into force of the Management Act and the Nationalisation Act, were mostly precarious, whose holders could at best present the familiar alibi that the origin of their rights or of those from whom they derived title was lost in antiquity. Neither in law, nor in equity and justice, nor under the Constitution can these lessees be heard to complain of the termination of their lease-hold rights without the payment of any amount. The provision contained in section 3(3)(b) of the Nationalisation Amendment Act was made ex majore cautela so as not to leave any lease of a coal mine surviving after the enactment of the Management Act and the Nationalisation Act.

There was no reasonable possibility of a lawful lease surviving the passing of those Acts; but if, per chance, anyone claimed that he held a lease, that stood terminated under section 3(3)(b). [1089 C-G]

13. Section 3(3)(b) of the Nationalisation Amendment Act brings about an extinguishment simpliciter of coal mining leases within the meaning of Article 31A(1) (e) of the Constitution. The termination of the mining leases and sub-leases brought about by section 3(3)(b) of the Nationalisation Amendment Act is not a mere pretence for the acquisition of the mining business of the lessees and sub- lessees. The true intent of the Nationalisation Amendment Act was not to "acquire" anyone's business. This would be so whether the word 'acquire' is understood in its broad popular sense or in the narrow technical sense which it has come to possess. Whatever rights were intended to be acquired were paid for by the fixation of amount or by the laying down of a formula for ascertaining amounts payable for acquisition. Having provided for payment of amounts for acquisition of management and ownership rights, it is unbelievable that the legislature resorted to the subterfuge of acquiring the mining business of the surviving lessees and sub-lessees by the device of terminating their leases and sub-leases. The legislative history leading to the termination of coal-mining leases points to one conclusion only that, by and large, every lawful interest which was acquired was paid for; the extinguishment of the interest which survived or which is alleged to have survived the passing of the Management Act and the Nationalisation Act was provided for merely in order to ensure that no loophole was left in the implementation of the scheme envisaged by those Acts. Persons dealt with by section 3(3)(b) of the Nationalisation Amendment Act are differently situated from those who were dealt with by the two earlier Acts, namely, the Management Act and the Nationalisation Act. No violation of Article 14 is, therefore, involved.

[1089 G-1090 D-H, 1091 A-B]

14. The public purpose which informs the Nationalisation Amendment Act is the same which lies behind its two precursors, the Management Act and the Nationalisation Act. The purpose is to re-organise and re- structure coal mines so as to ensure the rational, co- ordinated and scientific development and utilisation of coal resources consistent with the growing requirements of the country. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Nationalisation Amendment Act points in the same direction.

Public purpose runs like a continuous thread through the well-knit scheme of the three Acts under consideration.

[1091 B-D]

15. Making every allowance in favour of the right to property which was available at the relevant time and having regard to the substance of the matter and not merely to the form adopted for terminating the interest of the lessees and the sub-lessees, the Nationalisation Amendment Act involves no acquisition of the interest of the lessees and the sub- lessees. It merely brings about in 1054 the language of Article 31A(1)(e) "the extinguishment" of their right, if any, to win coal. Whichever right, title and interest was lawful and identifiable was acquired by the Management Act and the Nationalisation Act. And whichever interest was acquired was paid for. Tenuous and furtive interests which survived the passing of those Acts were merely extinguished by the Nationalisation Amendment Act.

[1091 F-H, 1092 A] The interest of the lessees and sub-lessees which was brought to termination by section 3(3)(b) of the Nationalisation Amendment Act does not come to be vested in the State. The Act provides that excepting a certain class of leases and sub-leases, all other leases and sub-leases shall stand terminated in so far as they relate to the winning or mining of coal. There is no provision in the Act by which the interest so terminated is vested in the State;

Nor does such vesting flow as a necessary consequence of any of the Provisions of the Act. Sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act provides that where a mining lease stands terminated under sub-section (3), it shall be lawful for the Central Government or a Government Company or a corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government to obtain a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of the whole or part of the land covered by the mining lease which stands so terminated. The plain intendment of the Act, which is neither a pretence nor a facade, is that once the outstanding leases and sub-leases are terminated, the Central Government and the other authorities will be free to apply for a mining lease. Any lease-hold interest which the Central Government, for example, may thus obtain does not directly or immediately flow from the termination brought about by section 3(3)(b). Another event has to intervene between the termination of existing leases and the creation of new interests. The Central Government etc. have to take a positive step for obtaining a prospecting licence or a mining lease. Without it, the Act would be ineffective to create of its own force any right or interest in favour of the Central Government a Government Company or a Corporation owned, managed or controlled by the Central Government. The essential difference between "acquisition by the State" on the one hand and "modification or extinguishment of rights" on the other, is that in the first case the beneficiary is the State while in the second the beneficiary is not the State. The Nationalisation Amendment Act merely extinguishes the rights of the lessees and the sublesses. It does not provide for the acquisition of those rights, directly or indirectly, by the State. Article 31A(2A) will therefore come into play. It follows that the Nationalisation Amendment Act must receive the protection of Article 31A(1)(e) of the Constitution, that is to say, that the Act cannot be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31.

[1092 F-H, 1093 A-H] Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab [1967] 2 SCR 143; Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India & Ors. [1978] 3 SCR 334 discussed and distinguished.

Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. The Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. [1954] SCR 674, 733-734 applied.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions Nos. 111,150-151, 180, 205-210, 220,226, 270-271, 346-352, 355, 403, 396-398, 599, 541, 543, 626, 635-639, 661, 687-692 and 758/77, 154, 178, 571-574, 600, 603, 605, 610, 611,257,221 and 1134- 1134/77.

1055 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution) A. K. Sen, S. C. Banerjee, Y. S. Chitale, K. K. Sinha, S. K. Sinha, Pradeep Hajela, S. K. Verma, A. K. Srivastava, M. P. Jha, C. K. Ratnaparkhi, B. N. Lala, Surajdeo Singh, D. P. Mukherjee and A. K. Ganguli for the Petitioners in W.Ps. Nos. 111, 150-151, 154, 178, 610-611 661, 180, 270-271, 599, 220, 226, 205-210, 396-398 and 600 of 1977.

H. M. Seervai, Kamal Nayan Choubey, A. K. Srivastava, B. P. Singh and Bimal Kumar Sinha for the Petitioners in WP Nos. 237, 571-574, 603, 605, 355, 346 of 1977.

D. Goburdhan for the Petitioners in WP Nos. 687, 692, 635-639, 352, and Respondent No. 12 in WP Nos. 150-151/77.

A. K. Sen, S. C. Bannerjee, Y. S. Chitale, S. B.

Sanyal, A. K. Banerjee and A. K. Nag for the Petitioners in WP Nos. 626, 541, 543 and Respondent No. 15 in WP 154/77.

S. V. Gupte, S. N. Kacker, U. R. Lalit, S. P. Nayar, R. N. Sachthey and Gobind Mukhoty for the Respondents Nos. 1, 9-12 in WP No. 111, RR. 1, 7, 11 in WP Nos. 150-151, RR. 1, 8 to 12 in WP. 154, RR. 1&7 in WP. 178, RR. 1&7 in WPs. 610- 611 RR. 1,5,6 & 8 in WP. 661, RR. 1 & 7 in WP Nos. 270-271, RR 1 & 7 in WP in 599, RR. 1, 8, 9-12 & 15 in WPs. Nos 571- 574, RR. 1, 8-13 & 16 in WP No. 603. RR. 1,2&9 in WP 605,RR.1,2,10,11,14&15 in WP. 355, RR. 1, 8-12 in WP 346, RR. 1, 3-5, 8, 9 in WP No. 626, RR. 1, 6-10 & 14 in WP. 541, RR. 1-5 & 9 in WP. 543, RR. 1, 8 & 12 and 15 in WP. 758, RR 1, 7 in WP. 257, RR. 1&7 in WPs. 220 and 226 RR. 1&8 in WPs. 205-210, RR. 1&8 in WP. 600, RR. 1, 3, 11-15 in WP 403, RR. 1, 9 & 10 in WP No. 180/77.

Lal Narain Sinha, U. P. Singh, Shambhu Nath Jha and U. S. Prasad for the Respondents Nos. 2-8 in WP Nos. 111, 2-7 in 154, 2-6 in 610-611, 2-4, 7 & 8 in 661, 2-8 in 180, 2-6, 10-12 in 270-271, 2-6 and 10-13 in 599, 2-7 in 571-574, 2-7, 14-15, 17-20 & 23 in 603, 2-7 in 605, 3-8, 12, 13, 16-18 in 335, 2-6 in 687-692, 2-6 in 635-637, 2-6 in 352, 2, 6, 7 & 10 in 626, 2-5, 11-13 in 541, 6-8 in 543, 2-6 in 758/77, 2- 7, 13, 14 & 16 in 257, 2-6 in 220 and 226, 2-6, 13, 14 in 205-210, 2-7 in 600, 2-6 in 638-639, 2, 4 to 10 in 403/77.

Mr. P. S. Khera for Intervener No. 1 in WP. 111/77.

S. K. Verma for the Intervener No. 2 in WP. 111/77.

A. P. Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee for Respondents 2 & 6 in WPs. 150-151 & 2 to 6 in 396-398/77. M. P. Jha for the Petitioner in WP. No. 758/77.

1056 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C. J.-This is a group of 61 Writ Petitions under article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act 67 of 1976, on the ground that it is violative of the provisions of articles 14, 19(1)(f), 19(1) (g) and 31 of the Constitution. For understanding the basis of that challenge, it will be enough to refer to the broad facts of two representative groups of petitions. The facts of writ petitions 270 and 271 of 1977 are, by and large, typical of cases in which the petitioners claim to be lessees of coal mines, while the facts of writ petition 257 of 1977 are typical of cases in which the petitioners claim to be lessees of composite mines containing alternate seems of coal and fireclay. Most of the facts are undisputed and only a few of them are in controversy.

In writ petitions 270 and 271 of 1977, petitioner No. 1 claims to be the sole proprietor of 'S.D. Coal Company' which is engaged in coal business and coal mining operations. Petitioner No. 2 is said to be the agent of the company. 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 coal bearing lands in Mouza Bundu, called the 'Bundu Colliery'.

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. 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 coal from the Bundu Colliery and that on the strength of that agreement, petitioner No. 1 was put in possession of the entire area of 242 Bighas of coal bearing land. The S. D. Coal Company is stated to have made large investments in the colliery 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 contention that they have been in working possession of the coal mine area in question and that they were entitled to remove nearly 30,000 tonnes of coal raised by them at a heavy cost. 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 1057 the State Government had taken over the Bundu Colliery. But, in C.R. Case No. 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. 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.

On the factual aspect, the contention 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 colliery was taken by the State Government on November 26, 1975 prior to the coming into force of the Amendment Act of 1976.

In writ petition No. 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 covering an area of 1640.60 acres of the Hesalong Colliery.

On September 19, 1966 he made a similar application in respect of the same area, for a coal mining lease. These applications were deemed to have been rejected since the State Government did not pass any order thereon within the prescribed period. In a Revision application preferred by the petitioner, the Central Government directed the State Government to consider the petitioner's application for the grant of a mining lease in respect of fireclay. The dispute relating to the petitioner's application for a coal 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 coal mining lease to the petitioner.

On October 17, 1973 a formal lease was executed by the State of Bihar in favour of the petitioner in respect of both coal and fireclay. The lease was registered on October 18.

According to the petitioner, the Hesalong Colliery in respect of which he holds the mining lease for coal and fireclay is situated in an interior area of the hilly portion of the District of Hazaribagh which has its own peculiar nature, trait and character. The reserves of coal in the area are said to be in isolated small pockets and are not sufficient for scientific or economical development in a co-ordinated and integrated manner. The coal is ungraded and is not required to be transported by rail.

On the composite nature of the mine, the petitioner has made a specific averment in paragraph 6 of his writ petition to the following effect:

1058 The coal and fireclay deposits in the said area are so mixed up that one cannot work either for extraction of coal or for extraction of fireclay without disturbing each of the said two minerals. The deposits are such that at one layer there is coal, the next layer is fireclay, the other layer is coal, the next layer is again fireclay and so on.

In paragraph 15 of his writ petition the petitioner has stated that in the Hesalong Mines, the deposit of fireclay is spread over the entire area of 1640.60 acres in the first layer and just beneath that, there is a deposit of coal in the second layer, so on and so forth. According to the petitioner, it is absolutely impossible to carry on mining operations in coal without disturbing the fireclay and any such disturbance and inadvertent extraction of either coal or fireclay by different lessees, if the composite lease is split up, will amount to unauthorise mining.

The petitioner contends that he employs about 9,000 workers, has invested a huge amount for making the colliery workable and that a large amount of coal, which was lying exposed and unprotected, was ready for dispatch. Since his composite lease too was in jeopardy under the Amendment Act, he filed a writ petition in this Court to challenge the validity of the Act, contending in addition that the Act is not applicable to composite mines having alternate layers of fireclay and coal.

Some of the petitioners had filed writ petitions in the High Court’s under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Amendment Act of 1976. Rules were issued in those petitions and interim orders were passed under which the status quo was maintained on certain terms and conditions. After the passing of the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act, the High Court’s became incompetent to grant any relief in those petitions whereupon, writ petitions were filed in this Court.

The petitions were argued on behalf of the petitioners by Shri A. K. Sen, Shri H. M. Seervai, Shri Y. S. Chitale, Shri B. K. Sinha, Shri D. Goburdhan and Shri A. K. Nag. 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. Shri Lal Narain Sinha and Shri A. P. Chatterjee argued respectively on behalf of the State of Bihar and the State of West Bengal. Shri P. S. Khera and Shri S. K. Verma appeared on behalf of the interveners.

Before examining the contentions advanced before us by the various learned counsel, it will be useful to trace briefly the history of laws bearing on the working of mines and exploitation of minerals, 1059 the taking over of management and the nationalisation of mines and finally the termination of certain leases under the impugned Act.

According to "India 1976" (Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India), coal mining was first started at Raniganj, West Bengal, in 1774. Coal is an important mineral as a source of energy and in India it constitutes a prime source of energy.

On the attainment of independence, the importance of coal to industrial development was realised by the Planners and the problems of the coal industry were identified by the Planning Commission in its report on the First Five Year Plan. The Fifth Plan provided for a production target of

13.5 million tonnes of coal by 1978-79, which amounted to an increase of 5.7 million tonnes from the level of production of 7.79 million tonnes at the end of the Fourth Five Year Plan. In 1950, after coal mining was stepped up, the production was 32 million tonnes. In 1974-75 it reached a record figure of 88.4 million tonnes. The overall reserves of coal, both coking and non-coking were estimated in 1976 at 8,095 crore tonnes.

But, howsoever high the coal reserves may be, they are not inexhaustible, which underlines the need for a planned development of the natural resources. The reckless and unscientific methods of mining which were adopted by most of the colliery owners without regard to considerations of conservation 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. The coking coal mines were nationalised in 1972 and the non- coking coal mines were nationalised in the following year.

The production of coal in the country is now almost completely controlled by the public sector with the exception of isolated pockets wherein reserves are not sufficient for scientific and economical development and the production is consumed locally. The only important mines which are not nationalised are the captive coking coal mines of the two private sector Steel Companies coking coal being a vital ingredient in the production of Steel.

The production of coal in the public sector is organised through three companies: the Coal Mines Authority Ltd., the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., and the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. A holding company, Coal India Limited, was formed in 1975 incorporating the Coal Mines Authority, the Bharat Coking Coal and the Coal Mines Planning and Design Institute as separate Divisions, besides other subsidiaries.

Entry 23 List II, Schedule VII of the Constitution read with article 246(3) confers legislative power on the State legislatures in respect of 1060 "Regulation of mines and mineral development" but that power is "subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union".

Entry 54 List I enables Parliament to acquire legislative power in respect of "Regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest".

Entry 24 List II relates to "Industries subject to the provisions of entries 7 and 52 of List I". Entry 7, List I, relates to Industries declared by Parliament by law to be necessary for the purpose of defence or for the prosecution of war. Entry 52, List I, enables Parliament to acquire legislative power in respect of "Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest".

The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 65 of 1951, which came into force on May 8, 1952 contains a declaration in section 2 that it was expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the industries specified in the First Schedule. Item 2(1) of the First Schedule comprises 'coal, lignite, coke 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 control of industrial undertakings by the Central Government control of supply, distribution and price of certain articles, etc.

The Mines Act, 35 of 1952, which came into force on July 1, 1952, was passed by the Parliament in order to amend and consolidate the law relating to the regulation of labour and safety in mines. 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".

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 control of the Union.

Section 2 of that Act contains a declaration that it was expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent provided in the Act.

The Act provides, inter alia, for general restrictions on undertaking prospecting and mining operations, the procedure for obtaining prospecting licences or mining leases in respect of lands in which the minerals vest in the Government, the rule making power for regulating the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases, special powers o