Holding

The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 is a valid law giving effect to the policy under Article 39(b) and, by virtue of Article 31C, is immune from attack on the ground of violation of Article 14; the inclusion of the petitioners' coke‑oven plants is not arbitrary discrimination.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered writ petitions filed by Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co. and Sunil Kumar Ray challenging the inclusion of their coke‑oven plants in the Second Schedule of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 on the ground of arbitrary discrimination violating Article 14. The Court examined whether the Act, which nationalised all coking coal mines and certain coke‑oven plants situated in or near those mines, was a law giving effect to the policy under Article 39(b) and therefore protected by Article 31C. It held that the definition of "coke oven plant" falls within the definition of "mine" and that the Act’s purpose of securing material resources for the common good is a legitimate State policy. Consequently, the Act is constitutionally valid and immune from attack under Article 14, and the petitioners' claims of discrimination were rejected.

Issues considered

Whether the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the Act is protected from judicial scrutiny under Article 31C as amended by the Forty‑second Amendment.
Whether the inclusion of specific coke‑oven plants in the Second Schedule amounts to arbitrary discrimination.
Interpretation of the phrase "material resources of the community" in Article 39(b).
Whether the definition of "coke oven plant" is covered by the definition of "mine" for purposes of nationalisation.
Whether partial nationalisation of an industry is a matter of State policy beyond the scope of judicial review.

Legislation cited

Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973
Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973
Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971
Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972s. 3(b), s. 3(g), s. 4(1), s. 5
Constitution of Indias. Article 13, s. Article 14, s. Article 19, s. Article 226, s. Article 31C, s. Article 32, s. Article 39(b), s. Article 39(c)

Subjects

nationalisationcoke oven plantArticle 14Article 31CDirective Principlesmaterial resourcesdiscriminationconstitutional lawinterpretation of statutesjudicial reviewstate policy

Judgment

1000
A
SANJEEV COKE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
V.

BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ANOTHER
8
December 10, 1982

(P.N. BHAGWATI, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH,
_BHARUL ISLAM AND AMARENDRh NATH SEN, JJ.]
(A) Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226 and 32-Practice and
c Procedure-In proceedings Involving constitutional issues, courts
cannot travel beyond their scope.

(B) Interpretation of Statutes-Rules of Construction-Value . of
grammaf'. ...

(C) Con.titution of India, 1950-Legislative validity of-Tem for
determination-Affidavits made tn the courts to sustain legislation,
D value of.

(D) Constitution of /ndia, 1950, Articles 39(b), 3/C and 14-Directlve
• Principle of State Policy under Article 39(b)-lmmun/ly of
challenge under Article 31 Con ground of violation of Article 14 is
not permissible, Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 3~ of
1972.
E
(E} Constitution of India, Article 14-Whether Coking Coal Mines
(Nationalisation) Act is violative of Art. 14.

(F} Judicial review of matters of State policy like scheme of Nationalisa- :
tion-Proceedings under Article 226.
(G} Constitution of India, Article 39(b)- Whether "material resources
F of the community" referred to is confined to "natural resources".

( H) Constitution of India, Article 31 C (as amended by the Constitution
Forty Second Amendment A.ct 1976, and Articles 14 and 39. Scope
of-Article 31 C with its extended protection is constitutionally
valid.
G (I) Coking Coal Mines ( NatiOnalisation) Act (Act 36 of 1972) Sections
3 (g), l3(b) and 4(1)-The definition of "C1ke oven plants" In
Section 3(b) should be read together with claus.?S (vi) and (x) of 3(i)
defining "m;ne'' for understanding the correct description of ..Mines"
In the Act.
\
H (J) Costs in proceedings under -Articles 226 or 3;! whe11 the grievances
are not frivolous,,cost should not be award~d, when the petition is
dis/mssed~
SANJBEV COKB V. BHARAT COKING JOO!

Consequent I<> the passing of the Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Pro- A
visions) Act, 1971, which.was replaced by the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisa•
1. / tion) Act, 1972, the· Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973 and the
Coal Mines (l'lationaHsation) Act, 1973, all coat mines known to exist in the
country were nationalised. whether they are coking co3.I mines or non~coking
mines. Along with them coke o~en plants in or belonging to the mines were
also nationalised. Jn addition twelve specified coke oven plants not belonging
to the owners of the mines, but known to exist near about •the mines were alSo B
nationalised. All other coke oven plants were left out of the scheme of
nationalisation 'for private exploitation.

Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company, Bhowra Coke Company who
were own1::rs of fhe coke oven plants described in items 2 and 9 of the Second
Schedule filed writ petitions in the Calcutta High Court challenging the inclusion
of their coke oven plants in the Second Schedule as ·violative of the provisions c
--..........___ of Article 14 of the Constitution. Tho· writ petitions were withdrawn to the
Supreme Court under Article 139 A.

Dismissing the petitions, the Court.

HBLD: 1. It is not open to a court to answer academic or hypothetical
questions on such lcoD.siderations, such as that they dealt with ·eoDstitutional D
amendments and not ordinary law, which of their own force permitted violation
of freedoms:through laws passed for certain purposes, particularly so when serious
constitutional issues· are involved. Judges arc not authorised to make disembodied
pronouncements on serious and cloudy issues of constitutional Policy without
battle'lines being properly drawn. Judicial pronouncements cannot be immaculate
legal conceptions. It is but right that ·no, important point of law should be
decided without a proper /is between parties properly ranged on either side and
a croSsing of the swords. It is in 'expedient for the Supreme Court to delve into
problems which do not arise and express opinion thereon. [1016 A-CJ

2. Adjectives are attractive forensic aids but in matters of interpretation
they are divertiog intruders. They should not be allowed to get the better of the
nouns which they qualify. [1020 G-H] · f
'
3:1. Validity of legislation is not to be judged merely.by ·affidavits filed
ori behalf of the State, but by all the relevant circumstances which the court may
ultimately find out and more especially by what may be gathered from what the
legislature has itself said. [1029 F-G]

3:2. Courts are not really concemed with the hollowness or the self- G
condemnatory nature of the statements made in the affidavits filed by the
respondents to justify and sustain the legislation. The deponents of the affidavits
filed into court may speak for the parties on whose behalf they swear to the
statements. They do not speak for the Parliament and Parliament is never
before the Court. Once a statute leaves Pafliament House, _the Court's is the
only authenti1: Voice which may echo (interpret)· the Parliament. This the · H
cOurt will do with reference to the language of the statutC! llQ~ oth~r pt;rffii<J~ible
aids. [1029 A-DJ
1002 SUPREMB COURT REPORTS IJ983) J S.C.R

A 3:3. No act of Parliament can be struck dc•wn because of the under-
.standing or misunderstanding of Parliamentary inte 11tion by the executive
government or because ,theii' (the Government's) spo'i:esmen do not bring out.
relevant circumstances but indulge in empty and self defeating affidavits. They do ' ,_
not and cannot bind Parliament. [1029 E-F]

4:1. The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1972 is a legislation
8 for giving effect to the policy of the State ·towards securing the principle specified
in Article 39(b) of the Cons.titution and iS. t~efefol-1~. inimune under Article
31-C from attack on the ground that it offends the funCamental right suaranteed
by Article 14. (1027 C-D] '

4:2. By the Coking Coal Mines Nationalisalion Act all coking coal
mines known to exist in ~he country were1nationalised,; t Other coke :oven plants
whi~h did not belong to the owners ,of th'e mines but which were located near
c about the nationalised coking Coal mines were also i~·entified and ilationalised
,) by e~press provision to that effect. ·At~ that stage of the rationalisation and
natiqnalisatioa of the coal mining ind11stry, it was app1rently thought necessary
and sufficient to nationalise such •cok~. oven- ·plants~ as were in or belonged
to tbe nationalised coking coal mines or as were ide11tified as located near the
nationalised coking coal mines, leaving out 'all ·other col:e oven-oJants. :,
(1021 F-H; I 022 A-BJ
D I " i i1
4:3. The object of the coking .coal Mine~ (Nationalisation Act is to
recognise and reconstruct coking coal m~nes and coke. oven plants for the purpose
of protecting, conserving and promoting ·scientific development of the resources
\
of coking coal needed to meet the growing requ_iremen ts of the Iron and Steel
Industry and for matters connected therewith. and incidental thereto. The
requirements of the Iron and Steel. industry .a.rt'. recog11ised as 'Growing require-
E ments• and it is found necessary t~ protectr .conserve. aud promote the scientific
I development of resources Of coking coal so. as to m_eet thoSe '1;.rowirig require-
ments'. The Act is contemplating the future. If, the object or the Act is to
provide for the future, it does not make any, difference, if in the past or in tbe
present, the hard coke produCed by the nationalised cokitig coal mines is
diverted elsewhere than the Iron aad Steel Industry. The requirements of the
Iron and Steel lndu'!lry which are to be met by the nationalised coke ~vcn plants
are its growing requirements, that is to say.lits future requirements.
. [1026 E-H; l027 A]

S:l. The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act is nOt violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution. There has been no such infringement, as could be
seen from the facts of the right guaranteed uiider J\tticlc 14. (1027 D; 1028 F]

G 5:2. The process of nationalisation of the Coal industr~ i~, of course,
not complete as yet, Nationalisation of any in9ustry or means of ,production
may not be and need not be effected all at once. It may be achieved in stages. If
in the process of nationalisation some units- are ·left out in the earlier stages j

either because it i'i so planned Or because of some mistake it cannot be said that
there has.been a violation of Article 14. Nof can any inference be drawn of
H discrimination from the Circu1nstance that subsequently eighty seven new coke
oven plants have been allowed to come up_' Obviously there is demand for \.
h~rd co~e fro!ll induitrie• oJber lh&u 1be iron and steel industry and normally,
SANJEBV COKB V. BHAllAT COKING 1003

the State does not want to stifle those industries by making· it d :fficult for them A
-/
to obtai~ their' requirement~,. espe~ially ~ince the prod1,1ction Or the ~ationalised
Coke Oven Plants bas tirSt to meet the requirements of the iron and steel industry.
What is important to note is that these eighty seven new coke oven plants are
riot situated in or af)out coal: .n\ines though tb~y are i~ lhe Coal field area, ·as
indeed they are bound to be. [lo2S E-HJ ·
' • '- • • ·• I
· ·

- · 6. The- distribution between public, Private alld joint sectors ·8:nd the B
exfent aD.d range of any scheme of oat ionalisatioii are essentially ·matters of State
policy which are inhere1,1tly inappropriate subjects for judicial reView. Scales· of
justice are just n~t d~signed tci 'we"igb Competing s«:ial and -eqo~omiC factors.
In suCh matters legisiative Wisdom inust Pr"ev~il arid ju~icial revie'w must abstain:
0

/ The ~ontention that Article 39(b) w0utd be attraCled, if the industry as a whole
Was -iiationalised and not if only a part of the industry was nationalised is,
therefore, mispla.;.;d. (1026 B-D) ·
"'·
· "
.
· · . c
7:1. The expresSioo '"Material resource& of "the community" as used JD
Article 39(b) of the Constitution is not confined to natural resources ; it is not
confined to resou;rceS owlied by the public;· it -ineans and includes all resour~s,
natural and _man-made, public and private•owned. [1026 A-Bl

7:2. 1~hc expression "material resources of the community" means all
things which are capable of producing wealth for the community. There is D
no warrant for interpreting the expression in so narrow a fashion as to confine it
to public-owned material resources and· exclude.private owned material resources.
The expression itivolves no dicl:totomy. The words must· be un.derstood in the
context of the constitutional goal of establishing a Sovreign. socialist, secularf
democratic republic. [1022 H; 1023 A.-B)

7:3_. When Article 39(b) refers to material resources of the community E
it does not refer only to fesourcos ow.oed by th~- community as a·,whole, but it
ref~is also to resources owned by individual members of the community.
Re~ources of the community. do not meaD pUblic resources only but include
private resource& as well The distribution envisaged by Article 39(b) necessarily
takes within its stride the transforlnation of.wealth. from private-ownership into
public-ownership and is not confiD;Cd to.that which is already public-owned.
.£1023 G-H;'I024 A·B] F
State of Karna_taka v. Ranganathan Reddy, [197R) I S.C.R. 641@ 689
followed.

8:1. The question of the validity of- Article 3 t C stands concluded by
the decision of the Supreme Court in Ktshavananda Bharafi's case. in which ir G
at
was expressly ruled that Article 31 C, as it stood that time i.e., as inserted by
the Constitution. (Twe~tY-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, was. constitutionally
valid. No doubt the protection of Article 31C was at that time confined to law
giving effect to the po~icy ~f the, clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39. · By the
Constitution Forty Second Amendment Act,' the protection was ex:teoded·to all
laws giving effect to aH or any of the principles laid down in Part IV~ Tht
d~alectics, the logic and the rationale involved in upholding the validity of H
Article 31C wh.eo it confiQcd its protection to Jaws enacted to further Article
39(li) or Article 39(c) shoulc! Q.Qcom"romisin'1f lea<! to \he ~~we resolute
1C04 SUPREME COURT REPOll.TS (1983] I S.C.11..

conclusion that Article 31 C with its extended protection is also constitutionally
A valid. It cannot also be said that the nature of the Directive Principles
enunciated in other Articles of Part iV of the Constitution is so drastic or
different rrom the Directive Principle in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39, that
the extensipn of constitutional immunity to laws made to further thoso principles
would afford the basic structure of the constitutioti Any observations made to
the contrary in Minerva Mills' case, (1981] I S.C.R. 206 may be held to be obiter.
B (1016 D-H]

9:2. ·To contend that a law founded· on discrimination is not entitled
to the protection of Article 31 C. as such a law can never be said to furth"er the
directive principles affirmed io Article 39(b) would be to put the cart before the
hOrse. If the law made to further directive principle is necessarily non-di~crimi
natOry or is based on a reasonable classification, then such law does not need
c any protection such as that afforded by Article 31 C. Such law would be valid
on its oWn strength, with no aid from Article 31 C. To make it a condition
precedent that a law seeking the haven .of Article 31 C must not be discrimina-
tory or based on reasonable classification is to make Article 31 C meaningless.
i:r Article 14 is not offended, no one need give any immunity from an attack based
on Article 14. (1019 A; 1020 A-Bl

The broad egalitarian principle of social and economic justice for all
was implicit in every Directive Principle, and, therefore, a law 'designed to
D promote a directive principle, even if it came into conflict with the formalistic
and doctrinaire view of equality before the law, would most certainly advance
the broader egalitarian principle and the desirable constitutional goal of social
and economic justice to all~ If the law was aimed at the broader egalitarianism
of the Directive Principles, Article 31 C protected the law from needless,·unending
and rancourous debate on the question whether the law Contravened Article 14's
concept of equality before the law. The law seeking the immunity afforded by
E Article 31 C must be a law directing t~.e policy of the State towards securing a
Directive Principle. The object of the law must be to give effect to the Directive
Principle" and the connection with the Directive Pri~ciple must not be "same
remote or tenuous connection". [1020 B-F] ;

9:3. When Article 31 C comes in, Artic'Je 14 goes out. There is no scope
for bringing in Article 14 by a side wind as it were 9 that is, by equating the rule
F of equality before the law of Article 14 with the broad egalitarianism or Article
39(b) or by treating the principle of Article 14, as included in t~e Principle of
Article 39(b). To insist on nexus between the law for which protection is claimed
and the principle of Article 39(b) is not to insist on fulfilment of the requirement
of Article 14. They are different concepts ·and in certain circqmstances, may
even run counter to each other. That is why the need. for the immunity atfofded
G by Articles 31 C. (1021 A-BJ ·

10:1: T~e "'.'ord ''Mine as defined in Section 3(j) of the Coking Coal
0
.
Mines (Nat1onahsat1on) Act 36 of 1972 does include 'Coke Oven Plant'. If the
definition of 'Coke Oven Plant' in Section 3(b) is read alongside clauses (vi) and
(x) of ~ection 3Cp whi~h d~fines mine, it becomes plain tbat ~coke oven plant'
H
belonging to or 1n a m1n.) is treated as comprised in 'mine' as defined. iThereforC,
all coke oven plants beJong to Qf jq ttie niines lllentiOoed in the First Schedule,
SANIEEV COKE v. BHAJ,l.AT COKING 1005
•
by the very force of definition of 'mine', go with the mines and the right, title, A
and interest thereto vest in the Central Government under Section 4(1) of
the Act. [1008 D-F; 10!0 DJ

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. P.K. Agarwala and Anr, [1979] 3 S.C.R. 609,
over ruled.
10:2. The object of the Coking 'coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act was B
to nationalise all coking coal mines and coke oven plants situated in Or about
the mines whether or not .they belonged to the ·owners of the mines. Those
which belonged to the owners of ihe min~s, went with the mines 1 but ~those which
did not belong to the owners of the rilines, obviously did not go with the mines,
an<l separate Provision had to be made for their nationalisation, and payment
of compensation etc. .That was the reason for the separate definition of "Coke
Oven Pla11:t" and the separate pr9vision for the nationalisation of certain coke
oven plants. The reason wa.s not any dichotomy. between the word •mine• on
c
the one hand and the words ucoke oven plant'" on the other. [1010 B-F]

10:3. All coke oven plants were not nationalised; only those which ,were
situated in or abo.ut the natiQnalised coking coal mines were nationalised. There
was no separate legislation Providing for the take over of alJ coke oven plants
but as a part of the legislation to take over coking coal mines~ suCh Coke oven D'
plants were a~so nationalised. Quite obviously coke· oven plants situated in or·
about coal mines bad to be nationalised along with the mines in the inter"ests
of convenience and efficiency of the coal industry and to minimise the oppor·
tunities for clandestine operations for which thC co.al industry has become
notorious. Coke oven plants away from the mines were not touched either by
the· Coking Coal (BmergCncy Provisions)· Act or the Coking Coal
(Nationalisation) Act. [1010 H; 1011 A-CJ l!l
~· Amarendra Nath Sen, J. (Contra) costs generally follow event. When a
citizen is, deprived of his property by a State action and feels ~ggrieved by the
act of the State and approaches the Court and if it ·cannot be said that his
gricvanc:e is absolutely frivolous, the citizen in such a case should not be saddled
with the costt simply because _the q,ur,t finds that his grievance has no valid.
-., legal basis. [1034 G-H]
\,'\ .
F
'----- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transferred Cases Nos. 1 and 2 of 1980.
Transferred from the Calcutta High Court Matter No. 307 of
1979 with the petitions pending in the Court.
WITH·-
G
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2020 of 1980.

From the Judgment and Order dated· the 27th November,
1979 of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A.T. No. 3124 of 1979.

S.N. Kacker, A.K- Ganguli and G.S. Chatterjee for the Petitioner H
in Transfered Case No. I of 1980.
tbOll ti 983 i 1 s.c.il.
A M.C. Bhandare, Sukumar Bose, G.S. Chatterjee and Miss
Mirdula Ray for Transferred Case No. 2 of 1980• '·...,_

. G .S. Chatterjee for the Petitioner.

L.N. Sinha, Attorney General, M.L. Verma and. Miss A.
B Subhashini for the Respondents.

The following Judgment were delivered

CllJNNAPPA REDDY, J.
In these cases, Sanjeev Coke Manu-
facturing Co. and Sunil Kumar Ray, representing the Bhowra Coke

----
Company question the nationalisation of the Coke Oven Plants
c belonging to them.

The history of the legislation concerning the take· over of the
Management and the Nationalisation of Coal Mines bas been set out
in some of the earlier judgments of this Court (Tara Prasad Singh
D v. Union of India, etc.(') and it is not necessary for us to recall here
that history in any great detail. The Coking Coal Mines (Emergency
Provisions) Act, 1971, the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation)
Act, 1972, the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act,
1973, and the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 were respec-
tively enacted in that order.

First came the Coking Coal Mines (Emergency) Provision Act
1971 which provided for the taking over of the manage~ent of
coking' coal mines and coke oven plants pending nationalisation of
such mines and plants. Sec. 3(1) of the Act declared that on and
F from the appointed day, the management of air coking coal mines
shall vest in the Central Government. All coking coai mines which
were known to exist were specified in the First Schedule to the Act
and Sec. 3(2) declared that those were the coking coal mines whose
management vested in the Central Government under sub-sec: (1).
It was further provi<!ed that if any· coal mine was found, after
c investigation made by the Coal Board, to contain coking coal, a
declaration to the effect shall be made by the Board and thereupon
the management of such' min'e sha11 vesrin the Central Government
and the mine shall be deemed to be included
. .in the \ First . Schedule.
'

The idea clearly was not to leave out of the management of the
Central Government any coking coal mine. The words 'mine',
B 'coking: coal mine' _and 'coke oven pla~t' were separately defined in

fl) [1980) 3 S.~.R.1042.
'SANJBBV COKB •. BH4RAT c6KING (thinnappa b.eddy, 1.) 1001
,. "'I .~ i f . ' ' •·. ' • ~ '' 'i •"
the Act. 'Mine' was defined widely enough that 'coking coal mine'
would take within its expanse 'coke oven plants' belonging to or in
a mine. By the very force -of the definition of 'mine', the manage-
ment of coke oven plants belonging to or in coking' coal' mines also
stood vested in the Central Government from the appointed day,.
This aspect of the matter '.will. be considered in slightly greater detail .I
when we refer to the provisions of the Coking Coal Mines Nati onali• 8
. sation Act.· . As one may weU expect, there were some .coke oven
plants which 'were situated near about coking coal miries but which
/ did not belong to the owners of such mines and the managemeilt of
which did not, therefore, automatically vest in the Central Govern-
ment along with the, vesting of the management of the coking
coal mines. It was apparently ·thought necessary and desirable
c
that the management of such coke oven plants also · should be
taken over. Twelve such coke oven plants were identified and
' specified in the Second Schedule and by Sec. 7 of the.Act the mana-·
y· gement of the coke oven plants specified in Second Schedule were
I
. declared to vest in the Central Government. · D
J •• l ....
Next, The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 was
enacted "to provide for the acquisition and transfer of ihe right,
title and interest of the owner of the coking· coal mines specified in
the First Schedule, and the right, title and interest of.. the owners of
such coke oven plants as are in or about the said coking coal mines E
with a view to reorganising .and reconstr,ucting such mines and plants
for the.purpose of.. protecting, conserving and p,romoting scientific
d.evelopment. ~f,the resourc;es ,of coking coal needed to meet the
growing requirei;ne~!~ of-,tlle..irp.n;and steel industry and for , matters
co11nected therewith 91' incidental t.her~to." .. _By .Section .4'. of the Act
\ the right,. title and·inter~i l)fthe owners .in relation to the coking
coal mines specified.in the Pirst;:Schedule stands. transferred .to-, and.
v.ests absolutely in , the ce.ntral Go~ernment. The First. Schedule
mentions the names (!f,214 coking coal mines, with. their location
and with the names and •.addresses . of. the owners of the mines.
'Coking coal mine'. i.s. d~flned, by, Section 3(c) to mean ·"a· coal
min,e in which there exist,one or more.seams of coking coai, whether
exclusively or in addition.to. any seam ,of other coal". 'Mine' is.
defined by s. 3(j). to mean "any e.x23.vation where .any· operation .. for
the purpose of searching. for or' obtaining minerals . bas been or . is
being carried on".. and to include, among other things.
.H
"(vi) all lands, building's; ·~orks, adits~ leveis, pl~nes,
machinery and equipment, vebicies, railways, tramways and
toos stJl'R.eMI! ci>tlRt Rl!l'Okts (I983J 1 s.c.li..

A sidings bei.ongi n,g to, or about, a mine;" and "~-

"(x) all lands, buildings and equipment belonging to,
or hi, a mine where the washing of coal or manufacture of
coke is carried ·on ;"

B We may also notice here the definition of 'Coke Oven Plants' as in
B. 3(b) which is as follows :

"coke oven plant" means the plant and equipment with
which the manufacture of hard coke has been, or is ·being, '
carried on, and includes-
c (i) .. . ...
·

(ii) .. .
.,
(iii) .. .
(iv) .. .
D
(v) all lands, buildings and equipment belonging to the
coke oven plant where the washing of coal is
carried on,

(vi) ...
E
If the definition of 'coke oven plant' in s. 3(b) is read alongside clause
..
(vi) and (x) of s. 3(j) which defines mine, it becomes plain that 'coke
oven plant' belonging to or .in a mine is treated as comprised in 'mine'
as defined. Therefore, all coke oven plants belong .to or in the mines •
mentioned in the First Schedule, by the very force of the definition of
F 'mine', go with the mines and the right, title and interest thereto vest
in the Central Government under s. 4(1) of the Act. But the object
of the Act was not merely to acquire the right, title and interest of
the owners -of the coking coal mines specified in the First Schedule
induding the coke oven plants in or belonging to such coking coal
mines but also io acquire the right, title and interest ·of the owners
G of coke oven plants which were generally, in or about such coking
poal mines, even if they did not belong to the owners of such mines.
Apparently, it was not thought sufficient to acquire the coke oven,
pla.ilts in the acquired mines or belonging to the owners of the
acquired mines but it was thought necessary, also, to acquire the
H cdke oven plants which were near about the acquired •mines. So a
separate .provision had to . he made in the Act to · aequire such
SANllll!v cOKE v. BHARAT COKING (Chinnappa. Reddy,/.) 1009

coke oven plants as were near about the acquired mines but A
did not belong to the owners of the mines. Twelve such coke oven
plants, the same twelve coke oven plants which were mentioned in
the Second Schedule to the Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Pro-
visions) Act, are again specified in the Second Schedule to the
Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation Act too and s. 5 of the Act
pro~ides that the right, title and interest of the owners of each of B
the coke oven plants specified in the Second Schedule, being the
coke oven plants which are situated in or about the coking coal
mines specified in the First Schedule also vest in the Cenlral
,. Government. Thus, all coke oven plants which belonged to or
/

which were in the mines specified in the First Schedule stood trans-
fem~ to the Central Government along with ·tho~e mines aO:d, in
c
addition, the twelve coke oven plants specified in the Second
_ Schedule which did not belong to the mines but which were near
about coking coal mines also stood transferred to the Central
Government.
'i D
I In order that the ground may straight away be cleared, we
j
must mention here that in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd; v. P.K. Agarwala
and Anr.(1) Krishna Iyer and A.P. Sen, JJ. considered the definitions
of "Mine" and "coke oven pl.ant" in the Coking Coal Mines
(Nationalisation) Act, 1972 and expressed the view, wrongly in our
opinion, that 'Coking Coal Mine' did not include a 'coke oven E
plant'. The learned judges appear to have •thought that there was
a dichotomy between the word 'mirie' on the one hand and the
words 'ooke oven plant' on the ·other and that was why separate
provision was made in the same Act for the .nationalisation of mines
and coke oven plants. The learned Judges observed :
F
"It must be said in fairness to counsel that there was
some bafllement when confronted by these prov1s1ons
although on a broader consideration, we are clear in our mind
that a dichotomy was made by the statute between mines on
the one hand as defined in Section 3U) and coke oven plants
as defined in s. 3(b) on the other. To give meaning to this G
dichotomy one has to read coke oven plants as clearly out
from the mines, which in turn means that mere equipment
where washing of coal or manufacture of coal is done as a
simple subsidiary or an equipment or machinery which is
a small part of a mine cannot be exalted to the position of H
. (I) [1979] 3 SCR 609.
1010 StiPRilMb c6URT RBPOitTS

A a coke oven' plant which, as Section 3(b) bears out, is an
important but separate equipment · with which the manu-
facture ofhard coke is carried on. This is a processing of
considerable significance, for coal that is extracted from a
colliery has an independent existence. It cannot be confused
with a minor item such as is covered by s. 3(j)(xi) or (x) of
the Act. It is easy to .find industrial similarity when we
are referring to oil mines. It. is one thing to take over oil
fields and minor machinery or equipment that· may be
attached thereto necessary for the very mining operation,
but by no stretch of imagination can it be said that
nationalisation of oil fields or mines also covers oil
c refineries. In this view, we think that there is no substance
in the submission on behalf of the appellant (Union of
india) that mine by definition includes coke oven"
I
We are afraid, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by
Krishna Iyer and A.P. Sen, JJ. that 'coal mine' as defined in s. 3(j)
0" particularly els. (vi) and (x) does not include 'coke oven plant'. As
already mentioned by us, there were in existence 'coke oven plants'
in or about coking coal mines, some of which belonged to the
owners of the mines and· some to persons other than the owners of
the min-es. The object of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation)·
Act was to nationalise all coking coal mines anci coke oven plants
situated in or ahout the mines whether or not they belonged to the
owners of the mines. Those which belonged to the owners of the
mines went with the mines but those which did not belong to the
owners of the mines, obviously, did not so go with the mines and
separate provision had to be made for thier nationalisation, and
payment of comp-ensation etc.. That was .the reason for the separate
definition ·of 'coke oven plant' and the seperate provision for the
nationalisation of certain coke oven plants. The reason was not
any dichotomy between the word 'mine' on the one hand and the
words 'coke oven plant' on the other as was supposed in Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd, v. P.E. Agarwala. As was said, the separate
definition of coke oven plant and the separate provision for the
G
nationalisation of coke oven plants was necessary to cover those
coke oven plants which were sit,uated in or about the nationalised
mines but which did not belong to the owners of those mines. It
is important to note that all coke oven plants were not nationalised;
H only those which were situated in or about the nationalised coking
coal mines were nationalised. There was no separate legislation
providing for the take-over of all coke oven' plants but as a
SANllii!V COKE v. llHARAt C<>KING (Chinnappa fl.eddy, J.) 1011

part of the legislation to take over coking coal mines, such A
coke oven plants as were in or about the mines were also n.atio:
nalised. Quite obviously coke ·oven plants situated in '.or about
coking coal mines had to be nationalised along with the mines in
the interests of convenience and efficiency of the coal industry ~nd
to minimise the opportunities for clandestine operations for which
the coal industry bas become notorious. Coke . oven plants away B
from the mines were not touched . either by the Coking' Coal
(Emergency Provisions Act) or the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisa-
tion) Act.
/
/
The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 was follow-
ed soon thereafter by the Coal M.ines (Taking Over of Management) c
Act, 1973. Coal _Mine is defined by sec. 2(b) of the Act to meali"
a mine in which there exists one or more seams of coal. It is seen
that the definition of coal mines takes in coking coal mines also.
Mine is defined by Section 2(g) in practically the same terms as in
Section 3(j) of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act with
r some differences which are not material for the purposes of this case.·
Sec. 3(1) provides that on and· from the appointed day, the
D
i managements of all coal mines shall vest 'in the Central Government.
The provision is peremptory; all coal mines whether they are coking
coal mines or non-coking coal mines are included; none is excluded.
Sec. 3(2) further provides that the coal mines specified in the
schedule to the Act' shall be deemed to be the coal mines the E
management of which shall vest in the Ce11tral Government under
sub-sec. (I) and further that . if the existence of any coal mine
comes to the knowledge of the Ceutral Government, the Central
Government shall make a declaration about the exist~~c~ of such
m_ine and the management of such coal mine shall thereupon be
deemed· to ·vest in· the Central Government and the coal mine F
deemed to be included in the schedule. After the Coai Mines
(Taking over of management) Aci' 1972, came the Coal Mines
. (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 which ·was enacted "to provide for the
acquisition and transfer of the right, title and interest of the owners
in respect of the coal miries specified in the schedule with a view·. to
re-organising and re·constrllcting such. coal mines so as' to ensure G
the rational, coordinated and scientific development a~d utilisation
of coal resources consistent with the . growing requirements of. the
country 'in order that· the ownership and control of such resources
rt
are vested in the State and thereby sq distributed as best to
subserve the common good and for matters conneeted therewith. or'
H
incideritartheretd"'. The expreisions' 'coal mine' and ;mine' are
1012 SUPREME COUllT RBPOlts (198~] I s.C.R.

A defined on practically the same lines as in the Coal Mines (Taking
Over of Management) Act. Sec. 3(1) declares that· on the appoint-
ed day, the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to the
coal mines specified in the schedule shall stand transferred to and·
shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all
encumbrances. Sec. 3(2) provides that if the existence of any other
B coal mine comes to the knowledge of the Central Government, after
the appointed· day, the provisions of the Coal Mines (Taking over
of Management) Act shall apply to such mine until that mine is
nationalised by an appropriate legislation. We have already
mentioned that the expression 'mine' is defined in the Coal Mines
c (Taking over of Management) Act and the Coal Mines (Nationalisa-
tion) Act in practically the same terms as in the Coking Coal Mines
(Emergency Provisions) Act and the Coking Coal Mines (Nationali-
sation) Act. The definition is so wide, as to take in coke oven
plants belonging to or in the mine. So, all coke oven plants belong-
D ing to or in a coal mine are nationalised along with the mine, But,
there are no provisions in the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act
1973 corresponding to Section 5 of and the Second Schedule to the
Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation Act 1972 to cover coke oven
plants which are situated near the coal mines but which do not
belong to the owners of the mines. Therefore, coke oven plants
not belonging to or in coal mines (not already nationalised under
B the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act are left out of the
Coal Mines (Taking over of Management) Act and the Coal Mines ,..
(Nationalisation) Act, 1973. Of course, coke oven _plants situated
away from the mines are not touched by either the Coal Mines
(Nationalisation) Act, 1973 or the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisa-
tion) Act, 1972.
F The final result of these statutes is that all coal mines known
to exist in the country are nationalised, .whether they are coking
coal mines or npn-coking coal mines. Along with them coke oven
plants in or belonging to the mines also stand nationalised. In
addition twelve specified coke oven plants not belonging to the
G owners of the mines but known to exist near about the mines are
also nationalised. All other coke oven . plants are left out of the
scheme of nationalisation. The design revealed by the Acts is that
mining of coal is r~served entirely for the public sector, and so, all
existing coal mines, whether coking coal or ·non-coking coal, are
H nationalised and the management of mines which may be discovered
in the future is automatically taken over by the Central Govern-
ment until nationalisation by appropriate legislation; and, the
SAN!EEV COKE v. BHARAT COKING_ (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 1013

manufacture of bard coke from coal is reserved for the joint sector A
and so all coke oven plants belonging to or in coal mines and twelve
specified coke oven plants are nationalised while all other coke oven
plants are left for private exploitation ; there is no ban against any _
new cqke oven plants being set up.

Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company, who were the owners B
of the coke oven plant described in Item 9 of the Second Schedul_e
and Bhowra Coke Company, who were the owners of the Coke oven
"plant described in Item 2 of ~he Second Schedule filed writ; petitions
/ in the Calcutta-High Court challenging the inclusion of these coke
oven plants in the Second Schedule. The writ petitions have been
withdrawn to this Court for disposal. The_ principal ground of c
challenge was that other coke oven plants standing in exactly the
same position as the coke oven plants of the petitioners were left
out and had not been nationalised; there was, therefore, rank dis· .
crimination. It was said that as many as eighty seven new coke
oven plants were allowed to come into existence subsequent to
the Nationalisation Act and so the nationalisation of twelve of the D
existing coke 'oven plants was ex-facie arbitrary and discriminatory.
There were other grounds, branches and shades of challenge to
which we shall refer later in the course of the judgment. The straight
answer of the Central Government was that the provisions of the
Ac_t were immune from the challe~ge based on the ground of dis-
crimination because of the protection afforded by Art. 31C of the
Constitution. The Central Government also _defended the inclusion
of the coke oven plants of the petitioners in Second Schedule on
merits and explained how it came about that certain coke oven
plants were excluded.
F
The principal question for consideration, therefore, is whether
the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 is entitled to the
0

protec tion of Art 31C of the Constitution Art. 31C of the Consti-
tution, which was introduced by the Twenty-fifth Amendment Act,
1971, as it stood before the Forty-second Amendment, provided,
"Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law giving
G
' effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles speci-
fied in cl (b) or cl.(c) of Art. 39 _shall be deemed to be void on the
· ground that it was inconsistant -with, or takes away or abridges any
of the rights ' conferred by Art. 14, Art. 19 or Art. 31 ". By the
Constitution Forty-second Amendment Act, the protection of Art. H
31 C was extended not merely to laws giving effect to the policy
of the State towards securing the principles specified in cl.(b) or (c)
1014 S.UPRBMB COURT REPORTS i 1983) I s.c.a.
A of Art.39 but to laws givi~g effect to the policy of the State towards
securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part JV of the
Constitution. The constitutionality of the original Art. 3JC as
introduced by the Constitution Twenty·fifth Amendment Act, was
upheld by .the Court in Keshvananda Bharati v. The State of Kera/a(')
Section 4 of the Constitution Forty· second Amendment Act of 1976
8 which substituted the words "all or any of the principles laid down
in Part IV;' for the words "the principles specified in Cl.(b) or (c) of
Art. 39''was struck down by this Court in Minerva Mills' s case(') on
the ground that the nature and quality of the amendment was such
that it virtually tore away the heart of basic fundamental freedoms \

by totally withdrawing the protection of Articles 14 and 19 io respecf
c of a large category of Jaws; the amendment destroyed the balance
between Part III and Part IV of the Constitution and thereby ipso
facto destroyed the basic structure of the Constitution. The decision
of the Court in Minerva Mills' was strongly relied upon by
Shri A.K. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners to support his
submissions regarding what he claimed was the true content and
D
interpretation of Art. 31 C.

We have some misgivings about the Minerva Mills' decision
despite its rare beauty and persuasive rhetoric.

We confess the case has left us perplexed. In the first place,
E no question regarding the constitutional validity of s.4 of the Consti·
tution Forty.second Amendment Act, 1976 appears to have arisen · r

for consideration in that case. The question was about the nationali-
sation and takeover by the Central Government of a certain textile
mill under the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationali·
sation) Act, 1974. The. validity of some of the provisions of that
F Act was impugned. The Act had been included in the Ninth '·-r_I
Schedule to the Constitution by the Constitution Thirty·ninth
Amendment Act, 1975. The validity of Art. 3IB which provides im·
munity to the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule
from attack based on inconsistency with the Fundamental Rights
was challenged and that question, therefore, directly arose for consi-
G deration. The question was, however, not decided in the Minerva
Mills case. Section 39 of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationali-
sation) Act, 1974, had also declared that the Act was enacted for
giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles
specified in cl.(b) of Art.39 of the C9nstitutio11. Article 3\C of the
H
(I) (1973] Supp. s.C.R. I.
(2) [1981] I S,C,R.1206,
SANIBEV COKE V, BHARAT COKING (Chinnappa Reddy. J.) !OJS·

Constitution which had been introduced into the Constitutio·n by the
Constitution Twenty"fifth Amendment Act 1971 expressly provided
that "Notwithst.anding anything contained in article 13, no law
giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles
specified in cl.(b) or cl.(c) of Art. 39 shall be deemed to be void on
the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any
of the rights conferred by article• 14, article 19 or article 31". The
B
• Sick Textiles (Undertakings) Nationalisation Act 1974 was passed,
we may mention here, before the Constitution Forty Second Amend-
ment Act came into force. In order, . therefore, to challenge the
provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act,
1974 on the,groµnd of inconsistency or abridgement or taking away
of the Fundamental Rights conferred· by Art. 14 or Art. !9, it was
c
·necessary for the petitioners to challenge the Constitutional validity
of the Constitution Twenty-fifth Amendment Act, 197.1 by which
Art. 31C was first introduced into.the Constitution. That, however,
.was not open to the petitioners because of the decision of this Court
in Keshavananda Bharati's case. It was so conceded too by the D
. Learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner in the Minerva Mills
case. The counsel who appeared, however, chose to question the
0

constitutionai validity of Section 4 of· the Constitutio n Forty.second
Amendment Act, 1976 by which the immunity afforded by Art. 3JC
was extended by replacing the words "the principles specified in
cl. (b) or cl. (c) of Art. 39" by the words "all or any of the principles E
laid down in Part IV". No question regarding the constitutionar
validity of s. 4 of the Constitutional Forty-second Amendment Act,
1976 arose for consideration in the case, firstly, because the immu-
nity from attack given to a law giving effect to the policy of the
State towards securing the prin°ciples specified in cl. (b) or cl. (cl of
Art. 39, was given by the Constitution Twenty-fifth Amendment Act F
1971 itself and secondly because the Sick Textile Undertakings
'
"''· ' ' (Nationalisation) 'Aci had been enacted before the Constitution
.Forty-second Am·endment Act, 1976. Yet, counsel successfully
persuaded the Court to go iotQ the question of the validity of s. 4 of
the Constitution Forty·secood' Amendment Act. An objection was
G
raised .before the Court by the learned Attorney General. that the
Court should not concern itself with .hypothetical or academic
que~tions. The objection was overruled on the ground t.hat the
Forty·second Amendment was there for anyone to see and that the
question raised was an important one dealing with, not an ordinary H
law, but, a constitutional amendment which had been brought into
Iol 6 SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS [ 1983] I s.c.a.

A operation and which of its own force permitted the violations of
certain freedoms through laws passed for certain purposes. We have
serious reservations OD the question whether it is open to a Court to
answef academic or hypothetical questions on such considerations,
particularly so when serious constitutional issues are involved. We
(judges) are not authorised to make disembodied pronouncements
B on serious and cloudy issues of constitutional policy without battle
•
lines being properly drawn. Judicial pronouncements cannot be
immaculate legal conceptions. It is but right that no important
point of law should be decided without a proper lis between· parties
properly ranged on either side and a crossing of the swords. We
think it .is inexpedient for the Supreme Court to delve into problems
0 which do not arise and express opinion thereon.

In the second place, the question of the constitutional validity
of Art. 31C appears to us to be concluded by the decision of the
Court in Keshavananda Bharati' s case.
D
In Keshavananda Bharati's case, the Court expressly ruled that
Art. 31C as it stood at that time was constitutionally valid. No doubt,
the protection of Art. 31 C was at that time confined to laws
giving effect to the policy of the els. (b) and (c) of Art. 39. By the
Constitution Forty-second amendment Act, the protection was
E extended to all laws giving effect to all or any of the principles
laid down in Part IV. The dialectics, the logic and the rationale r
involved in upholding the validity of Art. 31C when it confined its
protection to laws enacted to further Art. 39(b) or Art.39(c) should,
uncompromisingly lead to the same resolute conclusion that Art. 31 C
with its extended protection is also constitutionally valid. No one
F suggests that the nature of the Directive Principles enunciated in .
the other Articles of Part IV of the Constitution. is so drastic or
different from the Directiv• Principles in els (b) and (c), of Art. 39,
that the extension of constitutional immunity to laws made to further
those principles would offend the basic structure of the Constitution.
Io fact, no such argument appears to have been advanced in the
G Minerva Mills case and we find no discussion and no ·reference
whatsoever, separately to any of the distinct principles enunciated in
the individual Articles of Part IV of the Constitution decision in
Minerva Mills. The argument advanced and the conclusion arrived
at both appear to be general, applicable to every clause of Art. 39,
H
and every Article of Part IV of the Constitution, no less to clauses
(b) and (c) than to the other clauses. We wish to say no more about
•

SANJEBV COKE v. BllARAT COKING (Chi~nappa Reddy, J.) 1017

the 'Minerva Mills case as we are fold that there is pending a petition A
to rev.iew the judgment.

Thirdly, notwithstanding the strong .reliance placed upon
Minerva Miils by the learned counsel for the petitioners,. we are not
really concerned with the decision in that case since that is .. noi the
point at issue before us. What the Court held there was thaf s. 4 of
B
the Constitution Forty-second Amendment Act was invalid.· But we
are not faced with that question here. We are concerned with the
validity of the Constitution Twenty-fifth Amendment Act, 1971 and
. it was conceded before us, as it was conceded before the Bench in
the Minerva Mills case that the Constitution Twenty·fifth Amend·
ment Act is constitutionally valid. ·
c
.;

The main submission· of Shri AK Sen, learned counsel for ·
the petitioner in one of the cases was based on the assumption that
Art. 31 C as it stood before the Constitution Forty-second Amend-
ment was constitutionally valid. Even so, according to Shri Sen, D
the protection of Art. 31.C would not be available to a legislation
·Which was not shown. to have any real and substantial nexus to
the Directive Principles enunciated in cl. (b) or cl. (c) of Art. 39.;
A law founded on arbitrariness and discrimination. he said co.uld
never be said to be a law to further the dir.ecdve principles in.
clauses (b) and (c) of Ar.t. 39.. Shri Sen would say that Art. 39(b) E
itself contemplated a broader egalitarian principle than that
embodied in Art. 14 and, therefore, it was impossible to conceive
of a law offending the egalitarian principle as furthering the
directive principle voiced in Art. 39(b). On these· questions, it was
-- submitted, there was no difference between the views. of the majority
of the Judges who decided· Minerva Mills and the dissenting Judge. F
He particularly invited our attention to the following observations
of Bhagwati; J. at pp. 329-330 : "It will, therefore,· be seen that if
a law is enacted for .the purpose of giving effect to a Directive
Principle and it imposes a restriction o.n a Fundamental Right, it
would be difficult to condemn ·such restriciion as unreasonable or
G
not in public interest. So also where a law is enacted for giving
effect to a Directive Principle in furtherance of the constitutional.
goal of social and economic justice it may conflict with a rormalistic
and doctrinaire view of equality before the law, but it would almost.
always conform to. the principle of equality before the law in its H
total magnitude and dimension, because the equality clause in the
Constitution does not speak of more formal equality before the
J018 SUPRl!MB COUllT Rl!POB.TS {1983) l s.c.a.

A law but embodies the concept of real and substantive equality which
. strikes at inequalities arising on account of vast social and
economic differentials and is consequently an essential ingredient of
social and economic justice. The dynamic principle of egalitarianis_m
fertilises the concept of social and economic justice ; it is one of .
its essential elements and there can be no real social and economiC'
8 justice where there is a breach of the elgalitarian principle. If,
therefore, there is a law enacted by the legislature which is really
and genuinely for giving effect to a Directive Principle with a view
to promoting social and economic justice, it would be difficult to
say that such law-violates the principle of egalitarianism and is not

c in accord with the principle of equality before the law as understood
not in its strict and formalistic sense, but in its dynamic and activist
.-
magnitude. In the circumstances, the Court ;would not be unjustified
in making the presumption that a law enacted really and genuinely
for giving effect to a Directive Principle in furth"erance of the cause
of social and economic justice, would not infringe any Fundamental
Right under Article 14 or 19".
D
. If this be the correct interpretation of the constitutional
provisions, as I think it is, the amended Article 31 C does no more
than codify the existing position under the constitutional scheme by
providing immunity to a law enacted really ann genuinely for giving
effect to a Directive Principle, so that needlessly futile and time-
E
consuming controversy whether such law contravenes Article 14 or
19 is eliminated."

at pp. 337-338 : "Now the question is what should be the test
for determining whether a law is enacted for giving effect to a
Directive Principle. One thing is clear that a claim to that effect ..
put forward by ·the State would have no. meaning or value ; it is the
court which would have to determine the question. Again it is
not enough that there may be some connection between a provision
of the law and a Directive Principle. The connection has to be
between the law and the Directive Principle and it must be ~ real
G and substantial connection. To determine whether a law satisfies
this test, the court would have to examine the pith and substance,
the true nature and character of the law as also its design and the
subject matter dealt with by it together with its object and scope.
\~
If on such examination, the court finds thlit the dominant object of
H the law .is to give effect to' the Directive 'Principle, it would accord
protection to the law under the amended Article 31C. But if the
court finds ·that the law though passed seemingly for' giving effect
SANJBBV COKB v. llBAllAT COKING (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 10i9
_/ to a Directive Principle, Is, in pith and substance. One for A
accomplishing an unauthorised purpose-'unaUthorised in the sense
of not being covered by any Directive Principle, such law would not
have the protection or the amended Art. 31 C."
. . / ..
.The point I wish to erilphasi~ is that the amended
Article 31 C does not give protection to a law which has merely B
some remote or tenuous connection with a Oirective Principle" What
' is necessoty Is that there must be 1a re11l and substantial -connection
and the dominant object of the law must be to give effect to the
Directive Principle, and that Is a matter which the court would have
to decide before any claim for protection under the :amended Article
31C can be allowed. c
, I
at pp. 339-340 : "Where, therefore, protection is claimed in respect
·of a statute under the amended Article 31C, the court would have
first to determine whether· there. is real ·and substantial connection ·
between the 'law and -a Directive :Principle 'and the predominant
object of the law is to give effect to s'ach Directive Principle and if D
the answer to this question is fo thll affirmative, the court would
then have to consider which are .the provisions or the.law basically
and essentially necessary for giving effect to the Directive Principle
and give ·protection or the amended Article . 31 C only to those
provisions. The question ·whether. any particular provision of the .
law is basically ·and essentially ;necessary for giving effect to the
E
Directive Principle, would depend, to a large extent, on how closely
and integrally such provision 'is connected with the implementation
a
of the Directive Principle. If ·the court finds that .particular pro-
vision is subsidiary or incidental or not essentially and integrally
cbnnected .with the implementation 6f the Directive Principle or is F
ohuch ·a nature that, ·though seemingly a part or the general design
of the main provisions of the statute, its dominant object is to
achieve an unauthorised :purpose, it would not .enjoy the protection of
the amended Article ·31(C} and would be liable to be struck down as
invalid if it violates Article 14or 19."

While we broad.ly agree Wiih ·much that has been wd by
Bhagwiiti J. in·the e~tracts above quoted, we do not 'think that those
observations reaily advancie Mr. Sen's contention. To accept the
submission of Shd Sen that a law rounded on discrimination is not
entitled to the protection of Art. 31 C, as such a- law can never be H
said to be to further the Directive Prmciple al!irined in Art. 39{b),
would indeed be, to use a hackneyed , phrase, to put the cart before
1020 , .. .SUPllBME COUllT llBPOP.ts . tl983) l,s.c.l!. .
A the horse. If the law made to further the Directive Principle is
necessa_rily non-discriminatory or is based on a reaso11able classifica· ·
tion, then such law does not need' any protection such as that
afforded by Art. 31 C. Such law would be valid on its own .strength,
with no aid from Art. 31C. To make it a condition precedent that
a law seeking the haven of Art. JIC must be non-discriminatory or
B based on reasonable classification is to make Art. 31 C meaningless.
If Art. 14 is not offended, no one need give any immunity from an
attack based on Art. 14. Bhagwati J. did not say anything to the con-
_,.·"__ _
-
trary. On the order band, it appears to us. be was at great pains to
point out that the broad egalitarian principle of social and economic . .
justice for all was implicit in every Directive Principle and, therefore,
c a law designed to promote a Directive Principles, even if it came into
conflict with the formalistic and doctrinaire view of equality before
the law, would most. certainly advance . the broader egalitarian
principle and the desirable constitutional goal of social and economic
justice for all. If the law was aimed at the broader egalitarianism of
the Directive Principles, Art,· 31C protected the law from needless,
D unending and rancorous debate on the question whether the law
contravened Art. 14's concept of equality before the law. That is
. how we understand Bhagwati J's observations. Never for a moment
·did Bhagwati J. let in by another door the very controver· / which
was shut out by Art. 31C.; Of course, the law seeking the immimity
E afforded by Art. 31 C must be a law directing the policy of the State
towards securing a Directi11e Principle. Here, we are content to use
the very words of Art. 3JC, While we agree with Bhagwati, J. that
the object of the law must be to give effect to the Directive Principle
and that the connection with the Directive Principle must not be
'some remote or tenuous connection', we deliberately refrain from
..
F the use of the words 'real and substantial', 'dominant', 'basically
and essentially necessary' and 'closely and integrally connected' lest
anyone chase after the meaning or these expressions, forgetting for
the moment the words of tbe statute, as happened once when the
words 'substantial and compelling re~sons' were used in connection
with appeals against orders of acquittal and a whole body of litera·
G ture grew up on what were 'substantial and compelling reasons'. As ,
we have already said, we agree ·with much that h.as been said by
Bhagwati J. and what we have now •aid about the qualifying words
is only to caution ourselves against adjectives getting the· better of /.
the noun. Adjectives are attractive forensic aids but in matt~rs of in·
H terpretation they are diverting intruders. These observations have the
full concurrence of Bhagwati J. ' · •
•

SANJEBV COKE: v. BHARAT COKING (Chinnappa Reddy, J) 1021

/ We are firmly of the opinion that where Art. 31 C comes in .A
Art. 14. goes out. There is no scope for bringing in Art. 14 by a
side wind as it were, that is, by equating the rule of equality before
the law of Art. 14 with the broad egalitarianism of Art. 39(b) or by
treating the principle of Art. 14 as included in the principle of Art.
39(b). To insist on nexus between the law for which protection is
claimed and the principle of Art. 39{b) is not to insist on fulfilment B
of the requirement of Art; 14. They are different concepts and in
certain circumstances, may even run counter to each other. That
is why the need for the immunity afforded by Art. 31 C. Indeed .
/.
there are bound to be innumerable cases where the narrower concept
~ of equality before the law may frustrate the broader egalitarinism
..

contemplated . by Art. 39(b). To illustrate, a law which pres- c
cribes that every landholder must surrender twenty percent of his
holding as well as a law which prescribes that no one shall hold
land in excess of 20 acres, may 'both satisfy the ritual requirements
of Art. 14. ·But clearly, the first would frustrate and the second
would advance the broader egalitarian principle. We are, therefore, D
not prepared to accepi the submission of Shri Sen, that any law
seeking the protection of Art. 31C must not be a law founded on.
discrimination.

The next question for consideration is whether the Coking
Coal Nationalisation Act is a law directing the policy of the State E
tov.ards securing 'that the ownership and control of the material
resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the
common good'. Coal is, of course, one of the most important known
sources of energy, and, therefore, a vital national resource. While
coal is necessary as a source of energy for very many industries,
coking coal is indispensable for the country's crucial iron and steel
industry. So, Parliament gave the first priority to coking coal. First
there was legislation in regard to the coking coal mines and then
there was legislation in regard to all coal mines, coking as well as
non-coking. By the Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation Act all
· coking coal. mines known to exist in the country were nationalised. G
Coke oven plants which were part of the coking coal mines so
nationalised being in or belonging to the owners of ihe mines also
stood automatically nationalised. Other coke oven plants which did
I

"· not belong to the owners' of the mines but which were located near
about the nationalised coking coal mines were also identified and H
nationalised by express provision to that effect. At that stage of the
rationalisation and P11tion111i8!ltion of the coal mining inc;l\!stry, it
•

1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983] I S.C.R.

A was apparently thought necessary and sufficient,to .nationalise such .
coke oven plants as were .in or belonged to the nationalised .coking
coal mines or as were identified as located near the nationalised
coking·coal mines, leaving out all oiher coke oven plants.

The nationalisation of the coking coal mines and the coke oven
B plants was 'with a view to reorganising and reconstructing such mines
and plants for the purpose of protecting, conserving and promoting
scientific development of the resources of coking.coal needed to meet
the growing requirements of the iron and steel industry and for
mat\ers connected therewith or incidental thereto'. We do not
entertain the slightest doubt that the nationalisati"n of the coking
c coal mines and the specified coke oven plants for the above purpose
was towards securing that 'the ownership and control of the material
resource of the community are so distributed as best to .subserve the
common good'. The submission Qf Shri A.K. Sen was that neither a
coal mine nor a coke oven plant owned by private parties was a
'material resource of the community'. According to the learned
.D coun·sel they would become material resources of the community only
after they were acquired by the State and not until then. In order to
qualify as material resources .of the community the ownership of the
resources must vest in the community i.e., the State. A legislation
such as the Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation .Act may be a legis-
lation for the acquisition by. the State of Coking Coal Mines and
E coke oven plants belonging to private parties but it is not a legis-
lation towards securing that the ownership and control of the •
mate~ial resources are so distributed as best to subserve the common.
good. Shri Sen invited our attention to the emphasis which Krishna
Iyer, J, laid on the word "distribute'.' occurring in Art. 39(b) of the
Constitution in State oF Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy(') and
F Krishna Iyer, J's description of it as 'the key word' and the disser-
tation on 'the genius of the Article'. Shri Sen urged that if the word
"Distribute" was given ·its proper emphasis, it would inevitably
follow that material resources must belong to the community as a
whole, that is to say, to the State or the public, before they could
be distributed as best to subserve the common: good. Since those
G material resources which belonged to the State.only could be distri-
buted· by the State, Shri Sen argued that material resources had first
to be acquired by the State before they could be distributed. A law

H
providing for acquisition was not a Jaw for distribution. We are
unable to appreciate the s11~m1jssio!l of Shri Sen. The expressio!l .'--
I

\I) [1978] I S.C.R. 641 at 689.
. SANJBBV COKE v. BHARAT COKING (Chinnappa Reddy, I.) 1023

'material resources of the community' means all things which are A
/ capable of producing wealth (or the community. There is no warrant
for interpreting the expression in so narrow a fashion as suggeste_d
by Shri Sen and confine it to public-owned material resources, a_nd
exclude private-owned material resources. The expression involves
no dichotomy.. The words must be understood in the context of the
Constitutional goal of establishing a sovereign, socialist, secular,
democratic republic. Though the word 'socialist' was introduced
into the Preamble by a· late amendment of the Constitution, that
sociaHsm has always been the· goal is evident from the Directive
/ Principles of State P.olicy. The amendment was only to.emphasise
the urgency. Ownership, control and distribution of national produc-
tive wealth for the benefit and use of the community and the
rejection·of a system of misnse of its resources for ·selfish ends is
what socialism is about and the words and thought of Art. 39 (b)
.• but echo the familiar language and philosophy of socialism as
expounded generally' by -all socialist writers. To quote a recent
. writer, "Socialism is, first of all, a protest against the material D
and cultural poverty . inflicted by capitalism· on the mass of the
people. It · expresses a concern for .the social welfare of the
oppressed, the unfortunate and the disadvantaged. It affirms the
values of equality, . a classless society, freedom and democracy.
It rejects the capitalist system and ·its competitive ethos as being
inefficient in its ·USE OF RESOURCES·- - ~ - -. They E
(Socialists) want a new system, whether by reform or revolution, in
which productive wealth is OWNED .and CONTROLLED by the
· community and USED FOR COMMUNAL ENDS".
We may also look at it this way. When we say that the State
"\,; . of Himachal Pradesh possesses immense forest wealth or that the. F
~ State of Bihar possesses immense mineral wealth, we do not mean .
that the Governments of-the States of Himachal Pradesh and Bihar
·own the forest and mineral wealth; what we ·mean is that there is
immense forest and mineral wealth in the territories of the. two
States, whether such wealth is owned by the people as a whole or by
individuals.. Again, when we talk of, say, a. certain area in Delhi G
being a Bengali, Punjabi or South Indian area, we do not mean that
the. area is owned by Bengalis, Pilojabis or South Indians but only
that large numbers ofBeng~lis, Punjabis or Southlndians live in
that area. When Art. 39· (b) refers to material resources of the com-
munity it does not refer only to resources owned by the· community H
as a whole but it refers also to resources owned by individual mem-
bers of the community. Resources of the Qommunity do not mea11
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983] 1 S.C.R.

A public resources only but include private resources as well. Nor do \_.
we understand the word "distribute" to be used in Art. 39 (b) in the
limited sense in which Shri Sen wants us to say it is used, that is, in
the sense only of retail distribution to .individuals. It is used in a
wider sense so as to take in all manner and method of distribution
such as distribution between regions, .distribution between industries,
B .distribution between classes and distribution between public, private
and joint sectors. The distribution envisaged by Art. 39(b) necessarily
takes within its stride the transformation of wealth from private· ·
ownership into public ownership and is not confined to that which
is already public-owned. The submissions of Sbri Sen are well·
answered by the observations of Krishna Iyer, J. in State of Karnataka
c v. Ranganatha Reddy whjch we quote below:

"The key wprd is distributed and the genius of the
article, if we may say so, cannot but be given fully play
as it fulfils the ·basic purpose of re-structuring the economic
D order. Each word in the article bas a strategic role and
the whole article is a social mission. It embraces the entire
· material resources of . the community. Its task is to dis-
tribute such resources. Its goal is so to undertake distribu·
tion as besi to subserve the common good. It re-organizes
by such distribution the ownership and control.
E
'Resources' is a sweeping expression and covers tiot
only cash resources but even ability to borrow .(credit
reso\Jrces). Its !)leaning given in Black's Legal Dictionary
is :

F "Money or any property that can be converted
into supplied; means of raising moMy or supplies;
capabilities of raising wealth or to supply, necessary
wants; available means . or capability of any
kind".
G
And material resources of the community in the
context of. reordering the national economy embraces all
the national wealth, not merely natural resources, all the
private and public sources of meeting material needs, not
H merely public possessions. Everything of value or use in
the material world is material resources and the individual
bein!! a mem\ler of the community his resources are l'ar\
SANil!BV COKE v. BHARAt COKING (Chinnappa Reddy, J,) 1025

_/ of those of the community. To exclude ownership of A
private resources from the coils of Article 39(b) is to ciphe-
rise its very purpose of redistribution the socialist way.
A directive to .the State with a deliberate design to dis-.
mantle feudal and capitalist .. citadels of property inust be
interpreted in that spirit and hostility to such a purpose
alone can be hospitable to the meaning which. excludes B
private means of production or goods . produced from the .
'Instruments of production. Shri A.K. Sen agrees that
private means of production are included in 'material
/ · resources of the community' but by sciine baflling logic
excludes things prod'uced. If a car factory is a material
resource, ·why not cars manufactured? 'Material' may cover
everything worldly and 'resources', according to Random
House Dict_ionary, takes in 'the collective wealth 'of a
·•. country or its mean~ of producing wealth : money or any
property that can be converted ·into money; assets'. No
further argument is deeded to conclude that Articles 39(b)
0
·is ample enough to rope in buses. The motor vehicles are
. part of the material resources of the operators.

The next question if wheiher nationalisation. can have
nexus with distribution. Should we assign a narrow or
spacio~s ie'nse to this"concept? Doubt less, the latter, for E
reasons so apparent and eloquent. To 'distribute', even in
its. sh,;ple dictionary meaning, is to 'allot, to divide into
classes or into groups' and 'distribution' embraces 'arrange-
. ''m,eiit, classifieation, placement, di~position, apportionment,
the 'way in' which items; a quantity, or the like, is divided
or _apportioned; the system of dispersing goods through out F
a commmi'ity' (see Random House Dictionary). Tq classify
and allocate certain industiies or services or utiiities or
.articles between the private and. the. public sectors of· the
national economy is io. ·distribute those resources. Socially
conscious economists will find little difficulty iii treating
nationalisation ·of transport as· a distributive process for G
the good of the community.. You cannot condemn the
concept of D~tioo~Jisatioo in our Plan OD the .score that
,Article 39(b) does not envelope it. It is a matter of public
policy left to legislat_ive wisdom whether a particular scheme
H.
of take-over should be undertaken".
1026 SUPREME COURT llEPOR'fS [1983) I s.c.o..
A We hold that the expression 'Material resources of the community'
is not confined to natural resources; it is not confined to resources
owned by the public; it means and includes all resources, natural
and man-made, public and private-owned.

The learned counsel submitted that Art. 39(b) would be attrac-
B ted if the industry as a whole was nation.alised and not if only a
part of the industry was nationalised. According to him, all the
coke oven plants wherever they existed had to be nationalised and
no privately. owned coke oven plants could be allowed to be set up
'
in the future, if Art. 39(b) was to be applied. We are unable to sec
c any force· in this submission. The distribution between public,
private and joint sectors and the extent and range of any scheme of
nationalisation are essentially matters of State policy which are
inhe1ently in appropriate subjects for judicial review. Scales of justice
are just not designed to weigh competing social and economic
factors. In such matters legislative wisdom must prevail and judicial
'O review must abstain.

Another submission of the learned counsel was that the coke
produced by tbe nationalised coke oven plants was always sold in
·the open market in the past and was never used by the steel industry
because steel plants had their own captive coke ovens to meet their
E requirements. That the coke produced by the nationalised coke
oven plants . was previously used and is even now being_ used by
consumers other than those of the steel industry is neither. here nor
there since we are really concerned with the future for which the
. Act provides. The object of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) •
Act · is · to reorganize and reconstruct coking coal mines and coke
F oven plants for the purpose of protecting, conserving and promoting
scientific development of the resources of coking coal needed to
· m.eet the growing requirements of the Iron and Steel Industry and
for mailers connected therewith and incidental thereto. The require-
ments of the Iron and Steel Industry 'are recognized as 'growing
requirements' and it is found necessary to protect, conserve and
G
promote the scientific development of resources of coking coal so
as to meet. those growing requirements. The Act is contemplating
the future; If the object of the Act is to provide for the future, we
\
do not see what difference it makes if in the past or in the present, ·-
H the hard coke produced by the nationalised cocking coal mines is
diveried elsewhere than the Iron and Steel Industry. The require-
ments of the Iron any Steel Industry which are to be met by the
SANIBEY COKE •. BHARAT COKING (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 1021

_/ nationalised coke oven 'plants are its growing requirements, that is
to say, its future requirements. The design of nationalisation as it
appears from the statute itself, including the preambJe, is that the
increasing future. demands of the iron aud steel iildustry are to be
met by the nationalised coke oven plants and ·demarids of other
industry are to be met by the non-nationalised and new· coke oven
plants That the iron and steel industry is noi now utilising the
B
hard coke produced by" the nationalised coke oven plants is not
material since the industry is expect.ed to expand, its requirements
of hard coke are expected to grow and the nationalised coke oven
/
. plants are to be harn~ssed and be in readiness to meet. those
requirements. I c
In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the Coking
Coal Mines {Nationalisation) . Act, 1972 is a legislatitln for giving
effect .to the policy of the State towards securing the principle
specified in Art. 39(b) of the Constitution and is, therefore, immune,
under Art. 31 (CJ, from attack· on ·the · ground that it offends the D
fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 14.

But we do not also see that there is any· merit in the attack
based on Art. 14.. The facts that' we are able to gather from the
several affidavits .filed in the case are like this: In the beginning, E
that is, ·when the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act was
passed, there were in existence seventy fo·e coke oven plants. Later,
that is, after the Nationalisation Acts came into force, eighty seven
new coke oven plants came into ex.istence. Now, out of the original
seventy five coke oven plants, forty six were parts or units of the
coking coal ·mine~ which were nationalised by the Coking Coal F
·c
Mines (Nationalisation) Act. Those forty six .coke oven plants
. stood nationalised as parts or units. of the Coking Coal Mines.
Another coke oven plant which was .in the same position went out
·. of. the statutory nationalisation design by reason of the judgment
'of this Court in Bharat Coking Coal Company. v. P.K. Agarwala and
another, a judgment from .which we . have now retracted. We are G
told that the coke oven ·plant which was the subject matter of
Bharat Coking Coal Company v. P.K. Agarwala has since been
acquired by the Central Govern.men! by piivate treaty. .Out of the
remaining twenty .six coke oven plants, twelve were identified as
situated near nationalised Coking Coal Mines and. so they were · H
expressly specified in the I 972 Nationalisation Act 11nd nationalised.
1028 SUPREME COURT RllPORts (1983 J I s.c.a.
A
Of the remaining fourteen, eleven were parts or units of non-coking
Coal Mines and they too. stood nationalised when non-coking coal
Mines also were nationalised by the Coal Mines Nationalisation
Act, 1973. That leaves out three pre-existing coke oven plants
unaccounted. After the passing of the Nationalisation Acts, eighty
B seven new coke oven plants were allowed to come into existence.
Thus, finally, we have three pre-existing and eighty seven new coke
. o.ven plants outside the nationalisation scheme.

From the additional affidavit filed by P.R. Desai on behalf of
Bharat Coking Coal Limited, it transpires that when the Coking -
c Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 was passed, fourteen coke
oven plants were. left out as they were not situated in or about
coking coal mines but they were expected to be nationalised when
the coal mines in which they were located or to which they belonged
were to be nationalised !>Y the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act,
1973. In fact, eleven coke oven plants were so nationalised. But it
D was later discovered that three coke oven plants, Nichitpur Coke
Oven Plant, Shri Gopinathpur Coke Oven Plant and Royal Tisra
Coke Oven Plant did not belong to the owners of the collieries after
which 'they were named and near which they were located. So they
were not ~overed by the 1973 Nationalisation Act too. Quite
. obviously, legislation is now necessary ·to nationalise these three
E coke oven plants also. The process of nationalisation of the coal
industry is, of course, not complete yet. Nationalisation . of any
.
industry or means of production may not be and need not be effected
all at once. It may be achieved in. stages. If in the process of
nationalisation, some units are left out in the earlier stages, either
because it is so planned or because of some mistake, we do not
think we can possibly say that there has been a violation of Art. 14.
\/
Nor can we draw· any inference of discrimination from the circum-
stance that subsequently eighty seven new coke even plants have
been allowed to come up. Obviously, there is demand for hard coke
from industries other than the iron and steel industry and, naturally,
the state does not want to.stifle
' . those industries by making it diffi-
G .
cult for them to obtain their requirements, especially since the pro-
. duction of the Nationalised Coke oven plants bas first to meet the
requirements oHbe iron and steel industry. What is important to
note is that these eighty seven new coke oven plants are not situated
H in or about coal mines though they are in the coal field area, as
indeed they are bound to be.
SANJEBV COltB v. BHARAt COKING (A.N. Sen, J.) 1029

Shri Ashok Sen drew pointed · attention · to ·the earlier alfidavit - A
filed on behalf of Bharat Coking Coal Company and commented
severally on the alleged contradictory :reasons given therein for the
exclusion of certain coke oven plants from the Coking Coal Mines
(Nationalisation) Act. But, in the ultimate analysis, we are not
really to concetn mmelves 'With the hollowness-or·lhe self-condem· · B
natory pature of the statements· made in the affidavits filed by the
respondents to justify and sustain the legislation. The deponents of
- ' \ • ~ ~·. • Jr ..., . ! "

the affidavits filed .into .Court may speak for the parties on whose
' ~ ~ I. - ~

behalf they swear to the st.atement. .'they do not speak for the
. . . •v '
Parliament. No one may speak. for ihe Parliament and Parliament
c
is never before tlie Court. After Parliament has said what it intends
to say, o~ly the Court may say what the Parliament meant to say.
·'
None else: Once a statute leaves Parliament House, the Court's
• , ... E , -

is the only authent-ic voice which may echo (interpret) the Parliament.
D
I
-'\
This the court will do with reference to the language of the statute
0

and other permissible aids. The eltei:utive Goverilmerit may place
. · ·I , .n1 . , ~

before the court their understanding of what ·Parliament has said
or intended to say or what they think,~~~ P!!rliame~·t·s object and a11
the facts and circumstances which in their view led to the legislation.
E
When they do so, they" do not speak for ·Parliament. · No Act of
Parliament may be struck .down because of the understa!'ding or
• '> ··i n; ! : •,' •

mis)lnderstanding ,of Parliamentary intention by the · exei:uth:e
goveinmeqt or beeausetheir,(t~e ,Govennnent's). spoke8men do not
bring out ~elevant circumstan~s but i~d'!l~e .i~ empty and ~elf
F.
defeating affidavits. ·They do not and they cannot bin<! Parliament.
·Validity of legislation is not to ·he judged merely by affidavits filed
on behalf of the State, but by all the relevant circumstances which
thee ourt may ultimately find and more es~ially by what may he
.gathered from what the .legislaiure bas itself said. · ·we have G
mentioned the facts as found by us and w~ do not tlllnk thatthe;e
h~s been .any infringement of the rig~t guaranteed by Art. 14.
0

_j
.,
•
In 'the Writ Petition· filed by Sanjeev Coking Coal Company,
a question has ·been raised about the identity .of the coke oven H
plant, sought to be taken over.. Item,9 of the Second. Schedule
to the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act is as follows :-
i030 SUPRBMB COUilt · uP<lil'rs l191i3J l s.c.ll.
A
'--
St Name of the coke Location of the Name & address
No. oven plant coke oven plant of the owners of
.. the coke oven
plant
B
x
t
xx ' xxx
. xxx

9. New Sudamdih New Sudamdih Col- Sanjeev Coke Mano·
•
liery, Post office ·factoring Company, '·
c Patherdih, Distt. Care of H. ·o. ~
·ohanbad. Adjmera, . p 0 st ~.

' Office Patherdih
District Dhanbad.

x xx xxx xxx

D The submission of the petitioner was that Item 9, which was
the new Sudamdih Coke Oven Plant. did not belong to the
petitioners,. but non-the-less they were wrongly shown as the
owners. . Taking advantage of the error, that is, the wrong descrip·
tion of the owner, the Centriil Government bad taken· over the
coke oven plant belonging ·to them, though it was not the New
E · Sudamdib coke oven plant at all. The submission of the petitioners ,..
would suggest that there were two coke oven plants -:one .belonging
to the New Sodamdib mine and the other bi:looging to the Sanjeev
Coking Coal Company and that as a result of the mixing up of the
names of the plant and owner, the coke oven plant belonging to the
petitioners Jias been taken over. The respondents have denied that r
.F there were two coke oven plants-one belonging to the owners
>'
of the mine and another belonging to the Sanjeev Coking Coal
Company. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents , that
there was only one coke oven plant and that as it did not belong
to the owners of the· mine, it had to· be .included separately in
. the Second Schedule. If it was part of the mine or if it belonged
G
to ihe owners of the mine, there was· no need to include it sepa-
rately in the Second Sch~dule. That there has never been any real
doubt about the identity of the coke oven plant that was meant to
be taken over and in fact· taken over is clear from the very state-
.H ments .in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners. Io
...
paragraph 19 of the petition, . it.•. is stated i "Your peti-
/
SANJllllV COKE~. BHARAT CO~ING (A.N. Sen, J.) 103 j
/
tioner's coke oven plant is included in the Seco.nd Schedule in Item A
/
No. 9 thereof." In paragraph 23, it is stated: "Your petitioner'
states that your petitioner bas never been the owner of any coke
oven plant by the name of New Sudamdih, · the name of the coke
oven plant of your petitioner is Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing
Company's coke oven plant. Although the said coke oven plant is
B
situated near New sudamdih Colliery as every coke ·oven plant has
got to be situated near·a colliery, the address of the coke oven
plant of your petitioner is not New Sudamdih Colliery. Your
. petitioner states that the name of your petitioner's coke oven plant
bas been wrongly given in the second schedule to the said Act."
We do not think there is any possible doubt about the identity of
the coke oven plant shown as Item No. 9 in the second schedule
t~ the Coking Coal .Mines (Nationalisation) .Act. It is the coke
oven plant belonging to the Sanjeev Coking Coal Company.

One point which . was touched by Sbri A. K. Sen, the
learned counsel for Sunil Kumar Ray, was that in. any event the D
·,
' coaltar plant of the petitioners did not ·vest in the Government,
as a result of the Nationalisation Act.' Shri Sen, however, con-
ceded that the definition of coke oven plant was wide enough to
• include' the coaltar plant., 'Therefore, he did not press the point

In the result, the Writ Petitions of Sanjeev Coking Coal E
Company and Sunil Kumar Ray are both dismissed with costs,
quantified at Rs. 10,000/- in each case.
..

AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J. I have bad the benefit of read-.
.··- . ing in advance the .judgment of my le~rned Brother Chinilappa F
Reddy, J. All the materiaHacts have ·been set out in the judgmel)t ·
of my learned brother who has also carefully considered all the
arguments which were advarlced from the Bar.. It does not,
therefore, become necessary for me to reproduce the same in. this
judginent.
G
After tracing the history of the relevant Acts and analysing
the.provisions thereof my learned brother.has held:-
_; .
"The final result ·of these statutes is that all coal mines
known to exist in the'country are nationalised, whether H
they are coking coal mines or non-coking coal ~ines.
1032 StJPll2ME COIJRt REl>ORTS (1983] l s.C.ll.
A Along with them coke oven. plants in or belonging to the
mines also stand nationalised. Io addition twelve specified
coke oven plants not belonging to the owners of the
mines but known to exist near about the mines are
also nationalised. All other coke oven plants are left
out of the scheme of nationalisation. The design revealed
B by the Acts is that mining of coal is reserved entirely
for the public sector, and as, all existing coal mines,
whether coking coal or non-coking coal, are nationalised
and the management of mines which may be discovered
in the future is automatically taken over by the Central
Government until nationalised by appropriate legislation;
c and, the manufacture of hard coke from coal is reserved
for the joint sector and so all coke oven plants belonging
to or in coal mines and twelve specified coke oven plants
are nationalised while all other coke oven plants are left \
for private exploitation; there is no ban against any new coke
D oven plants being set up."
•
I entirely agree with these observations. Io these writ peti-
tions, the validity of the inclusion of the coke oven plants belonging
.to the petitioners in the second schedule has been challenged mainly
.E on the ground that other coke oven plants standing in exactly the
same position as the coke oven plants of the petitioners were left
out and had not been nationalised. The petitioners complain that
there h~s been a clear violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The
principal answer of the Central Government to the charge of
discrimioatfon is that the provisions of the Act are immune from the
F challenge based on the ground of discrimination in view of the y
protection afforded by Art. 31 C of the Constitution. The Central
Government also contends that the inclusion of the coke oven
phmts of the petitioners in the second schedule is clearly · justified
without any infringement of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

G My learned brother on a consideration of the facts and cir-
cumstances of the case and the submissions made on behalf of the
respective parties has come to the conclusion that there is no merit
in the attack based on Art. 14. He has also held that Art. 31 C of'the
Constitution will in any event afford a clear answer to the charge
H of discrimination, if there be any; and he.has further expressed the
,
SAN!EEV COKE v. BHUAT COKING (A.N. Sen, J.) 1033

view that the declaration in the instant case that the law is for giving A
e,ffeet to the policy of the State towards securing "that the ownership
and control of the material resources of the community are so
distributed as to best snbserve the common good" as enumerated
in Art. 39 (b) of the Constitution, is clearly justi6.ed.
B
I must frankly confess that I bad doub!s in my mind as to the
legality of the nationalisation of the coke ·oven plants of the peti-
tioners in view of the discrimination alleged. But on an anxious
and very careful consideration of the matter I have come to the
conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of this case it c
cannot be said that there bas been any such discrimination· as
infringe Art. 14 of the Constitution.
l
My learned brother Chinnappa Reddy, J. in bis judgment
observed:-
D
"Coke oven plants which were part of the coking coal
mines as nationalised being in or belonging to the owners
of the mines also stood automatically nationalised. Other
coke oven plants which did not belong to the owners of
the mines but which · were located near about the E
nationalised coking coal mines were. also identified and
nationalised by express provision to that effect. At that.
stage of the rationalisation l\Dd nationalisation of the. coal
mining industry, it was apparently thought necessary and
sufficient to nationalise such coke oven plants as were in
or belonged "to the.nationalised coldng coal mines or as .F
were identified as located near the natio'nalised coking coal
mines, leaving out all other coke oven plants.

The nationalisation of the <:oking coal mines and
the coke oven plants was 'with a view to reorganising and G
reconstructing such mines and plants for· the purpose of
protecting, conserving and promoting scientific develop-
ment of the resources of coking coal needed to ineet the
growing requirements of the iron and steel industry aqd for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto'. We
\lo not enterl!lin the sli$htest doµbtthat the nationalisatioq
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983) I S.C.R.
A of the coking coal mines and the specified coke oven plants
for the above purpose was towards securing · that 'the
ownership and control of the material resources of the
community are so distributed as best to subserve the
common good.'
B
I agree with these observations. To my mind, therefore, there
was a logical basis for the ·nationalisation of the coke oven plan ts
of the petitioners, leaving out a few and I am not satisfied that there
bas been any rank or arbitrary discrimination in violation of
c Art. 14. I am further of the opinion that even if on the basis of a
doctrinaire and formalistic attitude, it could be said that Art. 14
had been infringed, Art. 31C of the Constitution and the appro-
priate declaration, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case, would provide the necessary remedy for such violation. if I
there be any. Applicability ~f Art. 31C and the validity of the
D declaration will, to my mind, depend on the pariicular facts and
circumstances of a case. In the present case as the State has
enacted the law in directing 'its policy towards securing the principles
formulated in Art. 39 (b) of the Constitution, Art. 31C is properly
attracted and the declaration is valid.

The decision of this Court in Minerva Mills case relied .on by
.Mr. Sen, is not of any great assistance and in the view that I have
taken it does not become necessary fQr me to refer to the same. It
· has been represented to us that the said decision is pending review
in this Court. I, therefore, refrain from dealing wiih the said deci-

" sion and from making any observations or comments on the
same.

I agree with my learned brother that these writ petitions must
fail a~d should be dismissed. Costs generally follow event. To my
G mind, however, when a citizen is deprived of his property by a State
action and feels aggrieved by the act of the ·State and approaches
the Court and if it cannot be said that his grievance is absolutely
frivolous, the citizen in such a case should not be saddled with the
costs simply because the Couri finds that bis. grievance has no
H valid legal basis. To my mind, it cannot. be said that the Writ
petitions filed by the petitioners were ve~ati<1\IS particularly in view
SANJBBV COKE Y. BHARAT COKING (A.N. Sen, J) 1035

of the earlier decision of this Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. A
j P.K. Agarwa/a.(') I would, therefore, dismiss these· writ petitions
without any order as to costs.

S.R. Petition dismissed.
8

I

t

• ql [197~) l S;C,R. 609,