Holding

Section 3(3) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976 includes coking coal mines within the definition of "coal mine" and therefore bans the extraction of coking coal.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 3(3) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976 barred the extraction of coking coal. Petitioners argued that the amendment applied only to ordinary coal mines, not to coking coal mines, relying on the separate legislative history of coking‑coal legislation. The Court held that the term "coal mine" in the 1976 Act is broad and includes coking coal mines, as coking coal is a species of coal and the definition in the 1973 Act covers any mine with coal seams. Consequently, Section 3(3) imposes a blanket prohibition on mining both ordinary and coking coal, and the statutory ban cannot be circumvented by private parties or court‑appointed receivers. All the writ petitions were dismissed with costs, reaffirming the constitutional validity of the 1976 amendment.

Issues considered

Does Section 3(3) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976 apply to coking coal mines?
Is the term "coal mine" in the 1976 Act inclusive of coking coal mines under statutory interpretation?
Can any court‑appointed receiver or private entity lawfully extract coking coal despite the 1976 amendment?

Legislation cited

Subjects

coal nationalisationcoking coalstatutory interpretationmining lawSection 3(3)Supreme Court of Indiawrit petitionpublic sector miningconstitutional validity

Judgment

195

MAHJ.Nl)RA NATII SHUKLA AND ORS.
v.
STATE OFI BIHAR AND ORS. ETC.
April 11, 1980
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, 0. CllINNAPPA REDDY AND A. p, SEN, JI.] a
Coal Mines (Natio1ialisatiQn) ACI, 1973 (Act 26 of 1973) as am<nded by
Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976, Section 3(3)-Whether
the a~ndment relates only to Coal Mines and not to Coking Coal Mines-
Worda 'Ind Phrases-MfQmng of "no person, other than the Central Govern·
ment ot a Govern111ent Compiiny or a ,Corporation owned, managed or controll·
ed iy. 1h1 CBntrql Governnient . .. , . , , ... shall carry on coal mining operatiom C,
in lndla, In any form".

Diuni..n.1 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 Cail
also [601B·CJ
D
Hiatory 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 legisla-
tion to implement the policy on a phased programme. The culmmalion came
in the blanket ban of 1976. [5991>-EJ &
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 ii broa4 and this is clear from the definition of coldng coal mine in 11'
Section 3(c) of the Cokins Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, [600E-G]
Go1'iwi ~ is QlDre precious, strategically speaking, than other forms of
coal and it would be an error, qay a blunder, to prevent private extraction of
) common coal and to permit removal of coking coal. It would be pathetic llnd
bathetic for any policy-maker to be so egregious. Parliament may err but not
bo abJitrd! So cotllltUtd, it is obvious that coking coal, which is more im·
portantly ne<ded for th• nation than other supplies of coal, muat be the last to G
be squandered away by permitting it to be privately exploited. [601A·BJ
3. Even OSlluming there is a fire clay or other layer somewhere in the bowels
ol the earth the statutory mandate is that once you come up on a coal seam
you shall stop •xll'N:ting 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 PQrpoae of the statnte by prohibition of mining H
other inincra!a wllic1' Jl!iY iJlci4entally \!cfeat the co.i IUltio~isation
lllWUll. [601l>-l')
18-289 SCJ/80
59B SUPRIME COURT !\!!PORTS (1980] 3 S.C.R.

A 4. Section 3(3) of the 1976 Act, being all.ino!usivo·imd·hhing been con·
stitutionally upheld it is no longer permissible for any Court in India to ~-
appoint a receiver for or Qtherwise pe'rmit extraction of coal or coking coal.
The Court cannot :sanction the com-mission of a Crime:- __ [6910, H 1 602A]

ORIGINAL JuRismcnoN: Writ Petition Nos. 112-115, 175, 297,
194-198, 489-90, 459, 215, 2-3 and 432/80, 1477 of 19.79, 1516-
B 1517/79.
(Un<ler 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. !ha for the Petitioners in WP No. 297 /80.
I>
Dr. Y. S. Chitale, B. P. Singh and Naresh· K. Sharma for the Peti-
tioners in WPs Nos. 112-115/80.
P. R. Mridul and D. P. Mukherjee for the Petitioners in WPs 489·
490 and 432 of 1980.
E 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.

F M. K. Banerjee Addi. Sol. Genl. and Miss A. Subhashlni 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, Addi. Sol. Genl. and S. B. Sinha and D. P.
Mukherjee for the Respondent No. 9 in WPs 112-115 of 1980.
Rathi11 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.
ff 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 are a kind of litigati~e pnppe:try,.
M. N. SHUKLA v. BIHAR (Krishna Iyer,!.) 597

the illicit mine exploiters being the puppeteers. This set of writ peti- A
tions, where some private managements 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 B
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 ceh-
tury shows that Parliament has treated coal and coking coal separately
for legislative purposes in regard to taking over of management,
nationalisation of onwership and the like. It all began with the year C
1971 when Parliament enacted the Coking Coal Mines (Emergency
Provisions) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the 1971 Act, for short).
H took over management of coking coal mines. Iron and Steel are
key industries requiring, importantly, coking coal for their very sur-
vival. When Parliament found that coking coal was not being made
available properly to the Industry on account of the unsatisfactory con- D
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
I public interest by 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 E
later, after mature planning and understanding of implications, Parlia-
ment 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 F
Mines (Taking over of Management) Act, 1973. The second step
after management came under the control of the Central Government
··----e.. was the actual nationalisation of ownership itself. This state of plan-
ning led to Parliamentary enactments of Coking Coal Mines (N ationa-
Iisation) Act, 1972 (36 of 1972) and the Coal Mines (Nationalisa-
tion) Act, 1973 (26 of 1973). The sequence of events shows the G
evolution of national policy in this regard. Coking coal, being abs<>-
lutely 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

•I and in certain instrumentalities created by Central Government. Thus
we see that the comprehensive plan behind coal nationil!isation did not
permit of private agencies operating in the field. Coking coal was
H

19-289 SCI/80
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 3 S.C.R.

A 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

B
take effective steps to put an end to clandestine mining by any private
agency. The jungle of laws haphzardly enacted partly helped the pri- •
vateers get round the law and clandestinely or eveu 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 reads thus:
c 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
D
(ii) a person to whom a sub-lease, referred to in the pro-
viso 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,
E in any form;
(b) excepting the mining leases granted before such com-
mencement in favour of the Government, company or
corporation, referred to in clause(a), and any sub-lease
granted by any such Government, company or corpora-
F tion, all other mining leases and sub-leases in force im-
mediately before such commencement, shall, in so far as
they relate to the winning or mining of coal, stand ter-
minated;
(
( c) no lease for winning or mining coal shall be granted in
G favour of any person other than the Government, com-
pany or corporation, referred to in clause(a) : •
....__
Section 4 of the same Act super-adds severe punishment for con-
travention of the prohibition contained in s. 3(3). The total effect
thus is clear. The Parliament wanted to prevent the mischief of coal
R 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.
M. N. SHUKLA v. BIHAR (Krishna Iyer, !.) 599

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the legislative history A
was relevant to the interpretatioo 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 mines. 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 B
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,
c
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 D
that in 1971 when Parliament was faced with a crisis regarding need
for coking coal in iron and steel industries a legislation, on an emer-
gency 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 pro- E
gramme. 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 stage :

3. ( 3 ) On and from the commencement of section 3 of
the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976,- F

(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 pro-
viso to clause (c) has been granted by any such
Government, company or corporation, or
(iii) a company engaged in the production of iron and H
steel, shall carry on coal mining operation, in India,
in any form;
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980) 3 S.C.R.

A (b) excepting the mining leases granted before snch
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
B 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) :

c Provided that the Government, company or corporation
to whom a lease for wjnning 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 cor-
poration is satisfied that-
D (i) the reserves of coal in the area are in isolated small
pockets or are not sufficient for scientific and economical
development in a co-ordinated and integrated manner, and
(ii) the coal produced by sub-lessee will not be required
to be tran_sported by rail.
E
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
F is semantically sweeping and is wide in meaning so as to spare no
class of coa•J, 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
G 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 rein-
forced 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 :
H "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.
M. N. SHUKLA v. BIHAR (Krishna Iyer, J.) 601

Indeed, it is irrefutable, viewed literally, lexically, semantically, tele- A
ologically 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 coal and it would be an error, nay a blunder, to preve'nt 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. B
Parliament may err but not be absurd ! So constrned, 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
ands. 3(3) of that Act clamps down the ban on extraction of coking c
coal also.

It was feebly submitted that some of the mines may have fire-clay
layers to reach which the mining operation may h~ve to pass through
coal seams; and, therefore, such operation cannot be prohibited. We D
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 prohibi- E
tion 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 dis-
miss them all with costs.
F
It has been mentioned on more than one occasion in this court
that interlocutory orders have been sought and obtained, that Re-
ceivers 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 G
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 this Court, it is no longer permissible for any court in India H
(!) [1584] 3 Rep. 7b.
20-289 SCI/80
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R.

A to appoint a receiver for or otherwise permit extraction of coal or
coking coal.
These observations and reasonings must converge to only one
conclnsion that the crowd of writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby
dismissed-of course, with costs. We would conclude with a cons-
B cientious 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.

c S.R. Petitions dismissed.

(

J