Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.@mdashAppellant company being the successor-in-interest of Thapar Intrafor Company of India Ltd., filed the above writ petition inter alia challenging the vires of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1973") as well as for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents directing to hand over the plant and machinery mentioned in Schedule B therein to the appellant.
2. According to the appellant Thapar Intrafor imported certain machineries for the purpose of coal extraction in Central Sounda Colliery in the District of Hazaribagh in the State of Jharkhand belonging to United Collieries Ltd. According to the appellant, Thapar Intrafor was engaged by United Colliery to provide technical assistance and/or mechanism for the purpose of extraction of coal in their Central Sounda Colliery in terms of a contract entered into on November 29, 1971. Initially the challenge to the relevant provisions of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act was not there, those were brought in by way of the amendment of the writ petition.
3. When the writ petition was initially moved the appellant obtained an interim order from the learned Single Judge on February 13, 1973 to the effect that the respondent be restrained from using or dealing with or disposing of the plant and machineries mentioned in Schedule B or removing the same from the places where they were kept. Such interim order continued till the writ petition was finally heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge.
4. During the pendency of the said writ petition, challenge to the vires of Coal Mines Nationalisation Act failed in other proceedings upto the Apex Court level.
5. The learned Single Judge by His Lordship''s judgment and order dated December 12, 2002 appearing at pages 143-152 of the paper book dismissed the writ petition.
6. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that it did not have any nexus with United Collieries being the owner of Central Sounda Colliery. Hence, the plant and machineries belonging to the appellant could not have been vested in the respondents by virtue of the provisions of Coal Mines Nationalisation Act. His Lordship was not inclined to accept such contention of the appellant and held that the plant and machinery stood vested by virtue of the provisions of the said Act of 1973.
7. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the judgment and order under appeal, the present appeal was filed by the appellant.
8. Mr. Dibbendu Narayan Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended before us that the learned Single Judge misconstrued the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
9. In support of this contention, Mr. Roy cited two decisions, one being the Apex Court decision in the case of
10. Mr. Alok Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent authorities contended that the plant and machineries lying at the colliery vested in the respondent authorities as it came within this ambit of Section 2(h) of the said Act of 1973. Mr. Banerjee also contended that identical issue was decided by the Apex Court in the case of the Union of India and Ors. v. United Collieries Ltd. and Ors. (supra) and the learned Judge rightly applied the said ratio while dismissing in the writ petition. Mr. Banerjee lastly contended that no interference should be made by the Court of Appeal.
11. To appreciate the controversy in any definition of mine as provided in Section 2(h) of the said Act of 1973 is required to be considered. Such provision is quoted below:
"Mine" means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals has been or is being carried on, and includes-
i) all borings and bore holds;
ii) all shafts, whether in the course of being sunk or not;
iii) all levels and inclined planes in the course of being driven;
iv) all open cast workings;
v) all conveyors or aerial ropeways provide for bringing into or removal from a mine of minerals or other articles or for the removal of refuse therefrom;
vi) all lands, buildings, works, audits, levels, plants, machinery and equipments, instruments, stores, vehicles, railways, tramways and sidings in, or adjacent to, a mine and used for the purpose of the mine;
vii) all workshops (including buildings, machinery, instruments, stores, equipment of such workshops and the lands on which workshops stand) in, or adjacent to, a mine and used substantially for the purposes of the mine or a number of mines under the same management;
viii) all coal belonging to the owner of the mine, whether is stock or in transit, and all coal under production in a mine;
ix) all power stations in a mine or operated primarily for supplying electricity for the purpose of working the mine or a number of mines under the same management;
x) all lands, buildings and equipments belonging to the owner of the mine, and in, adjacent to or situated on the surface of, the mine-where the washing of coal obtained from the mine or manufacture, therefrom, of coke is carried on;
xi) all lands and buildings [other than those referred to in Sub-clause (x)] wherever situated, if solely used for the location of the management, sale or liaison offices, or for the residence of offices and staff, of the mine;
xii) all other fixed assets, movable and immovable, belonging to the owner of a mine, wherever situated, and current assets, belonging to a mine, whether within its premises or outside.
11. Under Sub-clause (vi) all plants, machineries and equipments in or adjacent to a mine and used substantially for the purpose of the mine is included in the definition of "mine". This definition came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Union of India (supra). In the said case, a staff car used in North Chirtmiri Collieries owned by United Collieries Ltd. was the subject-matter. The Apex Court held that it came within the definition of 2(h). Paragraph 6 of the said decision being relevant herein is quoted below:
Parliament by an enlarged definition of mine in Section 2(h) of the Act has indicated the nature of the properties that vest and the question whether a particular asset is taken within the sweep of Section 2(h) depends on whether it answers the description given therein. The staff car in question was '' undoubtedly a fixed asset of the North Chirtmiri Collieries and it belonging to respondent No. 1 the United Collieries Ltd., the owners in relation to the said mine, being the staff car of the Technical Advisor, was a ''fixed asset'' belonging to the mine. It is rightly not suggested that the staff car was not a fixed asset. ''Fixed assets'' in general comprise those assets which are held for the purpose of conducting a business in contradistinction to those assets which the proprietor holds for the purpose of converting into cash, and they include real estate building machinery etc. : Words & Phrases, Permanent Edition, Vol. 17, P. 161: Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edn., P. 573: Stroud''s Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edn., Vol.1, P.201. The staff car therefore fell within the definition of ''mine'' as contained in Section 2(h)(xii) and vested in the Central Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973. Merely, because the Technical Advisor was putting the staff car to his personal use or for multifarious activities of the Thapar Group of Industries would not alter the true legal position since the subsequent user for a different purpose was not really germane.
12. Mr. Roy tried to distinguish the said case by contending that this staff car, although, belonged to Thapar Group stood transferred in favour of United Collieries. Hence, the Apex Court came to a conclusion that the same vested in the Government. We are, however, unable to draw any distinction herein. The plant and machinery were specifically brought by Thapar Group for running the Central Sounda Collieries of United Collieries Ltd. No document was disclosed to expressly show and prove that those did not belong to United Colliery. Moreover, considering the facts of this case as well as in the case of Union of India (supra), the nexus between United Colliery and Thapar Group in our view cannot be brushed aside. We asked Mr. Roy to take instruction as to whether United Colliery claimed any compensation on the basis of those plant and machineries. He could not throw any light on that aspect. Sitting in a Writ Court, it was difficult for the learned Single Judge and similarly would be difficult for us to hold that those did not come within the ambit of Section 2(h) in absence of concrete proof.
13. The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was in a civil suit where a regular trial was had. Considering the evidence which came out at the time of the hearing of the suit the Division Bench came to a finding that the articles mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(h) . We do not find any support of such decision in the instant case. Similarly, in the case of A.K. Ghosh (supra) a civil suit was filed where regular trial was had where there was a concurrent finding by all Courts in favour of the plaintiff that he had purchased the plot of land and constructed the building in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the colliery. On these facts, the property was declared to be out of the mischief of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act.
14. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the judgment and order of the appeal. We are of the view that no interference is called for.
15. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
16. There would be, however, no order as to costs.
17. Urgent xerox certified copy would be given to the parties, if applied for.
Tapan Mukherjee, J.
18. I agree.
