Case: Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Another

has first 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 not situated in or about coal mines though they are in the coal field area, as indeed they are bound to be.29. Shri Ashok Sen drew pointed attention to the earlier affidavit 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 concern ourselves with the hollowness or the self-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 statement. They do not speak for the Parliament. No one may speak for the Parliament and Parliament is never before the Court. After Parliament has said what it intends to say, only the Court may say what the Parliament meant to say. None else. Once a statute leaves Parliament House, the Courts is the only authentic voice which may echo (interpret) the Parliament. This the court will do with reference to the language of the statute and other permissible aids. The executive Government may place before the court their understanding of what Parliament has said or intended to say or what they think was Parliaments object and all the facts and circumstances which in their view led to the legislation. When they do so, they do not speak for Parliament. No Act of Parliament may be struck down because of the understanding or misunderstanding of Parliamentary intention by the executive government or because their (the Governments) spokesmen do not bring out relevant circumstances but indulge in empty and self-defeating affidavits. They do not and they cannot bind Parliament. Validity of legislation is not to be judged merely by affidavits filed on behalf of the State, but by all the relevant circumstances which the court may ultimately find and more especially by what may be gathered from what the legislature has itself said. We have mentioned the facts as found by us and we do not think that there has been any infringement of the right guaranteed by Art. 14.In the Writ Petition filed by Sanjeev Coking Coal Company, a question has been raised about the identity of the coke oven plant, sought to be taken over. Item 9 of the Second Schedule to the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act is as follows:-Sl. Name of t he coke Location of the Name &addressNo. oven plant coke oven plant of the owners ofthe coke ovenplantx xx xxx xxx9. New Sudamdih New Sudamdih Col- Sanjeev Coke Manu-liery, Post office facturing Company,Patherdih, Distt. Care of H. D.Dhanbad. Adjmera, PostOffice PatherdihDistrict Dhanbad.x xx xxx xxx30. 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 description of the owner, the Central Government had take n over the coke oven plant belonging to them, though it was not the New Sudamdih coke oven plant at all. The submission of the petitioners would suggest that there were two coke oven plants-one belonging to the New Sudamdih mine and the other belonging 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 has been taken over. The respondents have denied that 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 to the owners of the mine, there was no need to include it separately in the Second Schedule. 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 statements in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners. In paragraph 19 of the petition, it is stated:"Your petitioners coke oven plant is included in the Second Schedule in Item No. 9 thereof."In paragraph 23, it is stated:"Your petitioner states that your petitioner has 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 Companys coke oven plant. Although the said coke oven plant is 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 petitioners coke oven plant has 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 to the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act. It is the coke oven plant belonging to the Sanjeev Coking Coal Company.31. One point which was touched by Shri A. K. Sen, the learned counsel for Sunil Kumar Ray, was that in any event the coaltar plant of the petitioners did not vest in the Government, as a result of the Nationalisation Act. Shri Sen, however, conceded that the definition of coke oven plant was wide enough to include the coaltar plant. Therefore, he did not press the point.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]If this be the correct interpretation of the constitutional provision s, 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 consuming controversy whether such law contravenes Article 14 or 19 isow 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 a real 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 that the dominant object of 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 to a Directive Principle, is, in pith and substance. One for accomplishing an unauthorised purpose-unauthorised in the sense of not being covered by any Directive Principle, such law would not have the protection of the amended Art. 31C.he point I wish to emphasize is that the amended Article 31C does not give protection to a law which has merely some remote or tenuous connection with a Directive Principle. What is necessary is that there must be a real 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.at pp.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 such Directive Principle and if the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the court would then have to consider which are the provisions of the law basically and essentially necessary for giving effect to the Directive Principle and give protection of 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 Directive Principle, would depend, to a large extent, on how closely and integrally such provision is connected with the implementation of the Directive Principle. If the court finds that a particular provision is subsidiary or incidental or not essentially and integrally connected with the implementation o f the Directive Principle or is of such a nature that, though seemingly a part of 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 14 or 19.While we broadly agree with much that has been said by Bhagwati J. in the extracts above quoted, we do not think that those observations really advance Mr. Sens contention. To accept the submission of Shri Sen that a law founded on discrimination is not entitled to the protection of Art. 31C, as such a law can never be said to be to further the Directive Principle affirmed in Art. 39(b), would indeed be, to use a hackneyed phrase, to put the cart before the horse. If the law made to further the Directive Principle is necessarily non-discriminatory or is based on a reasonable classification, then such law does not need any protection such as that afforded by Art. 31C. 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. 31C must be non-discriminatory or based on reasonable classification is to make Art. 31C 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 contrary. On the order hand, it appears to us, he 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, 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, unending and rancorous debate on the question whether the law contravened Art. 14s concept of equality before the law. That is how we understand Bhagwati Js observations. Never for a moment did Bhagwati J. let in by another door the very controversy which was shut out by Art. 31C. Of course, the law seeking the immunity afforded by Art. 31 C must be a law directing the policy of the State towards securing a Directive Principle. Here, we are content to use the very words of Art. 31C, 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 the use of the words real and substantial, dominant, basically and essentially necessary and closely and integrally connected lest anyone chase after t he meaning of these expressions, forgetting for the moment the words of the statute, as happened once when the words substantial and compelling reasons were used in connection with appeals against orders of acquittal and a whole body of literature grew up on what were substantial and compelling reasons. As we have already said, we agree with much that has been said by Bhagwati J. And what we have now said about the qualifying words is only to caution ourselves against adjectives getting the better of the noun. Adjectives are attractive forensic aids but in matters of interpretation they are diverting intruders. These observations have the full concurrence of Bhagwati J.19. We are firmly of the opinion th at where Art. 31C comes in 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 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. 31C. Indeed there are bound to be innumerable cases where the narrower concept of equality before the law may frustrate the broader egalitarianism contemplated by Art. 39(b). To illustrate, a law which prescribes 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, not prepared to accept the submission of Shri Sen, that any law seeking the protection of Art. 31C must not be a law founded on discrimination.The nationalisation of the coking coal mines and the coke oven 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 matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. We do not entertain the slightest doubt that the nationalisation 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 resource of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.We are unable to appreciate the submission of Shri Sen. The expression material resources of the community means all things which are capable of producing wealth for the community. There is no warrant for interpreting the expression in so narrow a fashion as suggested by Shri Sen and confine it to public owned material resources, and 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 socialism has always been the goal is evident from the Directive Principles of State Policy. The amendment was only to emphasise the urgency. Ownership, control an d distribution of national productive wealth for the benefit and use of the community and the rejection of a system of misuse 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 socialistArt. 39 (b) refers to material resources of the community it does not refer only to resources owned by the community as a whole but it refers also to resources owned by individual members of the community. Resources of the community do not mean 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, 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.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 andare unable to see 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 inherently 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 review mustobject of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act is to reorganize and reconstruct coking coal mines and coke oven plants for the purpose of protecting, conservi ng and promoting scientific development of the resources of coking coal needed to meet the growing requirements of the Iron and Steel Industry and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The requirements of the Iron and Steel Industry are recognized as `growing requirements and it is found necessary to protect, conserve and 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, the hard coke produced by the nationalised cocking coal mines is diverted elsewhere than the Iron and Steel Industry. The requirements of the Iron any Steel Industry which are to be met by the 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 preamble, is that the increasing future demands of the iron and steel industry are to be met by the nationalised coke oven plants and demands of other industry are to be met by the non-nationalised and new coke oven plants That the iron and steel industry is not now utilising the hard coke produced by the nationalised coke oven plants is not material since the industry is expected to expand, its requirements of hard coke are expected to grow and the nationalised coke oven plant s are to be harnessed and be in readiness to meet those requirements.26. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 is a legislation 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(C), from attack on the ground that it offends the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 14.27. 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, that is, when the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act was passed, there were in existence seventy five coke oven plants. Later, that is, after the Nationalisation Acts came into force, eighty seven new coke oven plants came into existence. Now, out of the original seventy five coke oven plants, forty six were part s or units of the coking coal mines which were nationalised by the Coking Coal 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 posit ion 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 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 Government by private treaty. Out of the remaining twenty six coke oven plants, twelve were identified as situated near nationalised Coking Coal Mines and so they were expressly specified in the 1972 Nationalisation Act and nationalised.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 seven new coke oven plants were allowed to come into existence. Thus, finally, we have three pre-existing and eighty seven new coke oven plants outside the nationalisation scheme.28. From the additional affidavit filed by P.R. Desai on behalf of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, it transpires that when the Coking 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 by the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. In fact, eleven coke oven plants were so nationalised. But it 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 covered by the 1973 Nationalisation Act too. Quite obviously, legislation is now necessary to nationalise these three 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 circumstance 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 difficult for them to obtain their requirements, especially since the production of the Nationalised Coke oven plants has first 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 not situated in or about coal mines though they are in the coal field area, as indeed they are bound todo not think there is any possible doubt about the identity of the coke oven plant shown as Item No. 9 in the second schedule to the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act. It is the coke oven plant belonging to the Sanjeev Coking Coal Company.