BARID BARAN BANERJEE Vs. COAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ petitioner has claimed that his father was the owner of a number of mines in the State of Bihar. But after the death of his father, the petitioner looked after his business. During the life time of his father all the coal mines which the petitioner's father enjoyed as lessee were nationalised. Notwithstanding such order the petitioner as well as his father claimed to have subsisting interest over those Collieries. It is, inter alia, claimed that since the petitioner's father's time petitioner was granted lease on composite mines having alternative layers of fire-clay and coal. The petitionner claimed the validity of the Amendment Act before this court. But anyway, since the matter was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1988 SSC page 1682 in the case of Tara Prasad Singh v. Union of India, the apex court disposed of the matter with a direction that the orders of stay in the matters of composite mines stood vacated. The petitioner has now claimed against the Union of India particularly, against the Coal Controller that appropriate direction be made for granting lease in favour of State of Bihar Mineral Development Corporation who could sub-let it in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. V.K. Gupta, the learned advocate appearing for the State of Bihar has raised an initial objection relating to exercise of territorial jurisdiction of this court. It has been contended that since the petitioner has not prayed any specific prayer against State of West Bengal nor any part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court, therefore, this court could not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been claimed under the Colliery Control Order, 1945 that Coal Controller means and includes the Joint Controller and the 'Deputy Controller'. Therefore since al the collieries over which reliefs having sought for by the petitioner are situated within the State of Bihar. It is the Deputy Controller who is having jurisdiction to decide such matters. Thus, the petitioner without taking recourse to filing of such writ in the Patna High Court could not have challenged it by invoking Article 226 of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this court.

(3.) The identical questioned come for consideration in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors. reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court cases 711. It has been held in the aforementioned judgment as follows :-