BAIJNATH KADIO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) THIS judgment will also govern the disposal of Civil Appeals 686 {KantiPrasadPandey v. State of Bihar and Others), 687 (Shri Krishna Chandra Gangopadhya v. Staff of Bihar and Others) and 688 (M/s. Pakur Querries Private Ltd. and Another v. State of Bihar and Others) of 1967. These four appeals have been brought against a common judgment, 1/11/1966, of the High court of Patna and arise out of four petitions under Article 226 of the constitution filed to question the validity of proviso (2) to Section 10 (2) added by Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Bihar Act 4 of 1965), and the operation of the second sub-rule of Rule 20 added on 10/12/1964 by a notification of governor in the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964. The facts of all the four cases are similar and the same points arise for determination. It is, therefore, sufficient to state the facts in Civil Appeals 685 and 686 as illustrative of the others as well.

(3.) IN 1948 the Legislative Assembly enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 (Act 53 of 1948). It received the assent of the governor-General on 8/09/1948. It was an Act to provide for the regulation of mines and oil fields and for the development of minerals. IN Section 2 of that Act is to be found the declaration contemplated by Entries 36 and 23, 7th Schedule of the government of INdia Act, 1935 That declaration reads as follows :