Case: Hindustan Copper Ltd Vs. State of M.P. &amp; Others

1. These appeals are directed against the order datedpassed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appellant filed writ petitions praying therein that S.3 and the Table Part B Item 4 and Explanation (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty (Amendment) Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") may be struck down. The appellant is a government company, wholly controlled by the Union of India. The Malajkhand Copper Project in Madhya Pradesh is engaged in extraction of copper ores from the captive mines of Madhya Pradesh. The mining process and other processes involve blasting of mines and then big pieces of copper ore are carried into dumpers to a unit called "primary crusher". The primary crusher is not located in the captive mines but is located at a distance of 2.53 kilometres away from the mines. It may not be necessary for us to narrate the facts in detail in the view we propose to take. The main controversy that was required to be examined by the High Court was as to how the word "mines" is to be understood for the purpose of the Act as contained in clause (b) of the Explanation under Item 4 of the table contained in S.3 of the Act. The appellant, principally, contended that the activities carried on by it do not fall within the meaning of the "adjacent" area. It also pleaded that the approach of the respondents has been selective and discriminatory. The High Court, as it appears from the impugned judgment, did not focus its attention appropriately in regard to the interpretation of the word "adjacent" occurring in clause (b) of the Explanation but proceeded on the basis of the connectivity of the process with the extraction of minerals. In doing so, it also relied upon the judgment of this Court in State of M. P. v. Birla Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1995 (4) SCC 603 ] As to the second ground that there has been discrimination, the High Court took the view that sufficient particulars and details were not placed by the appellant in order to examine the question of discrimination. In this view of the matter, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions while expressing that there is no need to examine the validity of the provisions of the Act.

Reasoning:
4. Under the circumstances, we consider it just and appropriate that the High Court should examine afresh the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, having due regard to the materials placed on record and in the context of the provisions of the Act touching the controversy. Since we are taking a view to remit the case to the High Court, we do not wish to express one way or the other on the merits of the respective contentions urged by the parties. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment, remit the writ petitions to the High Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law and on merits dealing with the contentions raised by either side. Having regard to the controversy involved and that the matters are pending for quite some time, we request the High Court to dispose of the writ petitions within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.