KUNDORI LABOUR CO OP SOCY LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the industrial effluent commonly known as 'slurry' flowing away from a colliery washery is 'coal' and thus within the ambit of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 ? If no, whether it is otherwise a mineral within the meaning of the said Act? These are the two significant questions which emerge at the very threshold in this set of four closely connected writ petitions before this Full Bench. The reference has been necessitated by a frontal challenge to the correctness of the recent Division Bench judgment in Keshri Mai Jain v. State of Bihar, AIR 1985 Pat 114.

(2.) Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the facts herein are similar and the issues of law virtually identical. The matrix of relevant facts giving rise to the pristinely legal questions aforesaid may be noticed with brevity from C.W.J.C. 472 of 1985(R) (The Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited and another v. State of Bihar) despite the large volume of pleadings on the record.

(3.) The 1st petitioner-Messrs Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited - owns and is possessed of various captive mines in the districts of Hazaribagh and Dhanbad meant primarily for the consumption of its well-known steel factory in the town of Jamshedpur. These coal-mines and collieries are commonly known as West Bokaro Collieries and there are two coal washeries belonging to the petitioner company, which are part and parcel of the aforementioned West Bokaro Collieries. The history of the original lease in favour of Messrs Bokaro and Ramgarh Ltd. is traced to a grant in 1946 by Maharaja Kamakhya Narain Singh of Ramgarh. Subsequently there were sub-leases in favour of Messrs West Bokaro Ltd., and it is not in dispute that at all material times the petitioner company has been working the said mines and the West Bokaro Collieries, and one of the coal washeries is averred to be the oldest coal washery plant in India. In the wake of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the Ramgarh Raj came to vest absolutely in the State of Bihar free from all encumbrances with effect from the 3rd Nov. 1951 and consequently the earlier leases came to be statutory mining leases under the State of Bihar by virtue of S.10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Reference is made to a compromise agreement arrived at betwixt the State of Bihar and Messrs West Bokaro Ltd. and to the merger of the other subsidiary companies of the petitioner. It is sought to be claimed that the coal washing plants owned by the petitioner company are also a mine in view of the definition contained in S.2(1)(j) of the Mines Act, 1952. Reference has even been made to certain litigation in the High Court of Calcutta to which any detailed reference is unnecessary in view of what follows. The industrial process for washing coal in order to materially reduce its ash content and render it fit for high metallurgical use has been detailed in para 50 of the petition with repeated assertions that the petitioners cannot afford to abandon or forsake the slurry, sludge or middlings escaping from the coal washeries into the Bokaro river. The core of the claim laid is that the slurry escaping from the washery into the river is, in essence, coal and thus squarely within the ambit of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act'). In the alternative it is suggested that it is in any case a mineral and thus equally within the scope of the Act aforesaid. Consequently, it is the claim that the State of Bihar has no right or jurisdiction to give what is labelled as mining leases for the collection of slurry from the river bed or the raiyati land to the private respondents 5 and 6. It is stated that the respondent State of Bihar wrongfully and illegally entertained the purported applications for grant of lease in respect of slurry coming out from the washeries owned by the petitioner company because, inter alia, the said slurry or sludge continued to remain the property of the petitioner. It is claimed that the leases executed or sought to be executed in favour of respondents 5 and 6 are mining leases in contravention of the statutory provisions and in any case the State of Bihar has no claim over the same. Equally, it is averred that the collection and removal of slurry from the river bed or raiyati land would amount to winning a mineral and thus constitute a mining operation and, therefore, the leases in favour of the private party respondents would be mining leases. Without prejudice to other claims, it is stated that the petitioners are ready and willing to take settlement of surface lands from the State of Bihar and grievance is made that notice should have been given to them before entertaining the applications filed by respondents 5 and 6. It is averred that the approval for the grant of mining leases in favour of respondents 5 and 6 is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary and unconstitutional.