Case: Baijnath Kedia Vs. State Of Bihar &amp; Ors

and not vice versa. Therefore, this amendment was subject to the overriding power to Parliament as declared in Act 67 of 1957 in S. 15. Entry 18 of the State list, therefore, is of no help.24. Mr. Lal Narain Sinha next contended that the provisions of Sections 4-14 do not envisage control of the Union which is a condition precedent to the ousting of the jurisdiction under entry 23. Obviously Mr. Lal Narain Sinha reads Union as equivalent to Union Government. This is erroneous. Union consists of its three limbs, namely, Parliament, Union Government and the Union Judiciary. Here the control is being exercised by Parliament, the legislative organ of the Union and that is also controlled by the Union. By giving the power to the State Government to make rules, the control of Union is not negatived. In fact, it establishes that the Union is exercising the control.In view of the two rulings of this Court referred to earlier we must hold that by enacting S. 15 of Act 67 of 1957 the Union has taken all the power to itself and authorised the State Government to make rules for the regulation of leases. By the declaration and the enactment of S. 15 the whole of the field relating to minor minerals came within the jurisdiction of Parliament and no scope was left for the enactment of the second proviso to S. 10 in the Land Reforms Act. The enactment of the Proviso was, therefore, without jurisdiction.25. This leaves for consideration the second sub-rule added to Rule 20 in December, 1964 by the State Government.It will be noticed that the rule as it stood previously applied prospectively to all leases which came to be executed after the promulgation of the rules. The second sub-rule made applicable those provisions to all leases subsisting on the date of the promulgation of the rules.The short question is whether the rules could operate on leases in existence prior to their enactment without the authority of a competent legislature. Vested rights cannot be taken away except under authority of law and mere rule-making power without the support of a legislative enactment is not capable of achieving such an end. There being two legislatures to consider, namely, Parliament and the State Legislature we have first to decide which legislature would be competent to grant such power.26. We have already held that the whole of the legislative field was covered by the Parliamentary declaration read with the provisions of Act 67 of 1957, particularly S. 15. We have also held that entry 23 of List II was to that extent cut down by entry 54 of List I. The whole of the topic of minor minerals became a Union subject. The Union Parliament allowed rules to be made but that did not recreate a scope for legislation at the State level. Therefore, if the old leases were to be modified a legislative enactment by Parliament on the lines of S. 16 of Act 67 of 1957 was necessary. The place of such a law could not be taken by legislation by the State Legislature as it purported to do by enacting the second Proviso to S. 10 of the Land Reforms Act. It will further be seen that Parliament in S. 4 of Act 67 of 1957 created an express bar although S. 4 was not applicable to minor minerals. Whether S. 4 was intended to apply to minor minerals as well or any part of it applies to minor minerals are questions we cannot consider in view of the clear declaration in Section 14 of Act 67 of 1957 that the provisions of Ss. 4-13 (inclusive) do not apply. Therefore, there does not exist any prohibition such as is to be found in Sec. 4 (1), Proviso in respect of minor minerals. Although Section 16 applies to minor minerals it only permits modification of mining leases granted before October 25, 1949. In regard to leases of minor minerals executed between this date and December 1964 when R. 20 (1) was enacted, there is no provision of law which enables the terms of existing leases to be altered. A mere rule is not sufficient.27. Faced with this difficulty Mr. Lal Narain Sinha attempted to claim power for the second Proviso to S. 10 of the Land Reforms Act from entry 18 of List II, a contention we have rejected. He also attempted to find a field for enactment by the State Legislature for the said proviso. This argument was extremely ingenious and needs separate notice.28. The contention was that modification of existing leases was a separate topic altogether and was not covered by S. 15 of Act 67 of 1957. Therefore if Parliament had not said anything on the subject the field was open to the State Legislature. The other side pointed to the words and for purposes connected therewith in S. 15 and contended that those words were sufficiently wide to take in modification of leases.Mr. Lal Narain Sinhas argument is unfortunately not tenable in view of the two rulings of this Court. On the basis of those rulings we have held that the entire legislative field in relation to minor minerals had been withdrawn from the State Legislature. We have also held that vested rights could only be taken away by law made by a competent legislature. Mere rule-making power of the State Government was not able to reach them. The authority to do so must, therefore, have emanated for Parliament. The existing provision related to regulation of leases and matters connected therewith to be granted in future and not for alteration of the terms of leases which were in existence before Act 67 of 1957. For that special legislative provision was necessary. As no such parliamentary law had been passed the second sub-rule to R. 20 was ineffective. It could not derive sustenance from the second Proviso to S. 10 (2) of the Land Reforms Act since that proviso was not validity enacted.29.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Although these supplementary arguments were raised it is obvious that they can arise according as the two main arguments are allowed or disallowed. Therefore it is necessary to address ourselves to the first argument that the legislative competence to enact the amendment to S. 10 of the Reforms Acts was wanting. As the amendment was made after Act 67 of 1957 we have to consider the position in relation to it. Entry 54 of the Union List speaks both of Regulation of mines and minerals Development and entry 23 is subject to entry 54.It is open to Parliament to declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the control should rest in Central Government. To what extent such a declaration can go is for Parliament to determine and this must be commensurate with public interest. Once this declaration is made and the extent laid down ,the subject of legislation to the extent laid down becomes an exclusive subject for legislation by Parliament. Any legislation by the State after such declaration and trenching upon the field disclosed in the declaration must necessarily be unconstitutional because that field is abstracted from the legislative competence of the State Legislature.This proposition is also self-evident that no attempt was rightly made to contradict it. There are also two decisions of this Court reported in the Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1961-2 SCR 537   = (AIR 1961 SCR 459) and State of Orissa v. M. A. Tulloch and Co. 1964-4 SCR 461   = (AIR 1964 SC 1284  ) in which the matter is discussed. The only dispute, therefore, can be to what extent the declaration by Parliament leaves any scope for legislation by the State Legislature. If the impugned legislation falls within the ambit of such scope it will be valid; if outside it, then it must be declaredabolition of the rights of intermediaries in the mines and vesting these rights as lessors in the State Government was a topic connected with land and land tenures. But after the mining leases stood between the State Government and the lessees, any attempt to regulate those mining leases will fall not in entry 18 but in entry 23 even though the regulation incidentally touches land.The pith and substance of the amendment to S. 10 of the Reforms Act falls within entry 23 although it incidentally touches land and not vice versa. Therefore, this amendment was subject to the overriding power to Parliament as declared in Act 67 of 1957 in S. 15. Entry 18 of the State list, therefore, is of noMr. Lal Narain Sinha reads Union as equivalent to Union Government. This is erroneous. Union consists of its three limbs, namely, Parliament, Union Government and the Union Judiciary. Here the control is being exercised by Parliament, the legislative organ of the Union and that is also controlled by the Union. By giving the power to the State Government to make rules, the control of Union is not negatived. In fact, it establishes that the Union is exercising the control.In view of the two rulings of this Court referred to earlier we must hold that by enacting S. 15 of Act 67 of 1957 the Union has taken all the power to itself and authorised the State Government to make rules for the regulation of leases. By the declaration and the enactment of S. 15 the whole of the field relating to minor minerals came within the jurisdiction of Parliament and no scope was left for the enactment of the second proviso to S. 10 in the Land Reforms Act. The enactment of the Proviso was, therefore, without jurisdiction.We have already held that the whole of the legislative field was covered by the Parliamentary declaration read with the provisions of Act 67 of 1957, particularly S. 15. We have also held that entry 23 of List II was to that extent cut down by entry 54 of List I. The whole of the topic of minor minerals became a Union subject. The Union Parliament allowed rules to be made but that did not recreate a scope for legislation at the State level. Therefore, if the old leases were to be modified a legislative enactment by Parliament on the lines of S. 16 of Act 67 of 1957 was necessary. The place of such a law could not be taken by legislation by the State Legislature as it purported to do by enacting the second Proviso to S. 10 of the Land Reforms Act. It will further be seen that Parliament in S. 4 of Act 67 of 1957 created an express bar although S. 4 was not applicable to minor minerals. Whether S. 4 was intended to apply to minor minerals as well or any part of it applies to minor minerals are questions we cannot consider in view of the clear declaration in Section 14 of Act 67 of 1957 that the provisions of Ss. 4-13 (inclusive) do not apply. Therefore, there does not exist any prohibition such as is to be found in Sec. 4 (1), Proviso in respect of minor minerals. Although Section 16 applies to minor minerals it only permits modification of mining leases granted before October 25, 1949. In regard to leases of minor minerals executed between this date and December 1964 when R. 20 (1) was enacted, there is no provision of law which enables the terms of existing leases to be altered. A mere rule is not sufficient.Lal Narain Sinhas argument is unfortunately not tenable in view of the two rulings of this Court. On the basis of those rulings we have held that the entire legislative field in relation to minor minerals had been withdrawn from the State Legislature. We have also held that vested rights could only be taken away by law made by a competent legislature. Mere rule-making power of the State Government was not able to reach them. The authority to do so must, therefore, have emanated for Parliament. The existing provision related to regulation of leases and matters connected therewith to be granted in future and not for alteration of the terms of leases which were in existence before Act 67 of 1957. For that special legislative provision was necessary. As no such parliamentary law had been passed the second sub-rule to R. 20 was ineffective. It could not derive sustenance from the second Proviso to S. 10 (2) of the Land Reforms Act since that proviso was not validity enacted.