1963 (8) TMI 42 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the extent of control and regulation provided by the Central Act takes within its fold the area or the subject covered by the Orissa Act? Held that - Where an intention to effect a repeal is attributed to a legislature then the same would in our opinion, attract the incident of the saving found in s. 6 for the rules of construction embodied in the General Clauses Act are, so to speak, the basic assumptions on which statutes are drafted. If this were the true position about the effect of the Central Act 67 of 1957 as the liability to pay the fee which was the subject of the notices of the demand had accrued prior to June 1, 1958 it would follow that these notices were valid and the amounts due thereunder could be recovered notwithstanding the disappearance of the Orissa Act by virtue of the superior legislation by the Union Parliament. The appeals would, therefore, be allowed and the Writ Petitions would stand dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Continued operation of the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952.
2. Legality of the fees levied under the Orissa Act post the enactment of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.
3. Legislative competence of the State of Orissa versus the Central Government.
4. Retrospective effect of the Central Act on fees accrued prior to its enactment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Continued operation of the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952:
The primary issue was whether the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 (Orissa Act) remained effective after the enactment of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act). The High Court of Orissa had ruled that the Orissa Act was rendered ineffective by the Central Act, which was enacted under Entry 54 of the Union List, declaring the regulation and development of mines to be under the control of the Union. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the declaration by Parliament under Entry 54 effectively withdrew the legislative competence of the State under Entry 23 of the State List to the extent of the Union's control.

2. Legality of the fees levied under the Orissa Act post the enactment of the Central Act:
The Orissa Act empowered the State Government to levy fees on mined minerals for the development of mining areas. The Central Act, however, covered the entire field of mineral regulation and development, including the imposition of fees. The Supreme Court noted that the Central Act's Section 18(1) imposed a duty on the Central Government to take steps for mineral conservation and development, thereby covering the same field as the Orissa Act. Consequently, the State's power to levy fees under the Orissa Act was superseded by the Central Act.

3. Legislative competence of the State of Orissa versus the Central Government:
The Supreme Court examined the legislative entries in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Entry 23 of the State List allowed the State to regulate mines and mineral development, subject to the provisions of List I (Union List). Entry 54 of the Union List empowered Parliament to regulate mines and mineral development to the extent declared expedient in the public interest. The Court concluded that the Central Act's declaration under Entry 54 effectively removed the State's legislative competence in this field, rendering the Orissa Act non-existent from June 1, 1958.

4. Retrospective effect of the Central Act on fees accrued prior to its enactment:
The Supreme Court addressed the argument that the fees accrued prior to June 1, 1958, should still be recoverable. The Court referred to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which preserves rights and liabilities accrued under a repealed enactment unless a different intention appears. The Court held that the Central Act's supersession of the Orissa Act was akin to a repeal, and thus, the accrued fees could still be recovered. The Court allowed the appeals, validating the notices of demand for fees accrued before June 1, 1958, despite the Orissa Act being rendered ineffective by the Central Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952, was rendered ineffective by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The State of Orissa's power to levy fees under the Orissa Act was superseded by the Central Act. However, fees accrued prior to June 1, 1958, could still be recovered, as the Central Act's supersession of the Orissa Act did not retrospectively invalidate accrued liabilities. The appeals were allowed, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

← Previous Next →