1980 (8) TMI 197 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a raising contractor of a coal mine is an owner within the meaning of sub-s. (1) of s. 4 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972? Whether the fixed assets like machinery, plants, equipment and other properties installed or brought in by such a raising contractor vest in the Central Government? Whether subsidy receivable from the erstwhile Coal Board established under s. 4 of the Coal Mines (Conservation, Safety and Development Act, 1952) upto the specified date, from a fund known as Conservation and Safety Fund, by such raising contractor prior to the appointed day, can be realised by the Central Government by virtue of their powers under sub-s. (3) of s. 22 of the Nationalisation Act, to the exclusion of all other persons including such contractor and applied under sub-s. (4) of s. 22 towards the discharge of the liabilities of the coking coal mine, which could not be discharged by the appointed day? Held that -Partly allowing the claim of the petitioners with regard to the subsidy amount of ₹ 4.50,000 is set aside, and the writ petition is dismissed Accordingly, the appeal of the Union of India is allowed and that of the Industrial Supplies Pvt. Ltd., is dismissed with costs throughout.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a raising contractor of a coal mine is an owner within the meaning of sub-s. (1) of s. 4 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972.
2. Whether the fixed assets like machinery, plants, equipment, and other properties installed or brought in by such a raising contractor vest in the Central Government.
3. Whether the subsidy receivable from the erstwhile Coal Board by such raising contractor prior to the appointed day can be realized by the Central Government under sub-s. (3) of s. 22 of the Nationalisation Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether a raising contractor of a coal mine is an owner within the meaning of sub-s. (1) of s. 4 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972:

The judgment clarifies that the term 'owner' as defined in s. 3(n) of the Nationalisation Act includes any person who is the immediate proprietor, lessee, or occupier of the mine, and any contractor for the working of a mine or any part thereof shall be subject to the Act in like manner as if he were an owner. The petitioners, being raising contractors, had complete dominion and control over the colliery, making them occupiers within the meaning of s. 3(n). The court held that the petitioners were in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the colliery and were, therefore, occupiers thereof. The judgment states: "The petitioners being raising contractors were, under the terms of the agreement dated February 7, 1969 entitled to, and in fact in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the colliery and were, therefore, an occupier thereof."

2. Whether the fixed assets like machinery, plants, equipment, and other properties installed or brought in by such a raising contractor vest in the Central Government:

The court held that the various machinery, plants, equipment, and other fixed assets, current assets, and movables belonging to the petitioners lying in the two coal mines were included in the expression "mine" as defined in s. 3(i) of the Nationalisation Act. Therefore, the right, title, and interest of the petitioners therein stood vested in the Central Government under sub-s. (1) of s. 4 free from all encumbrances. The judgment emphasizes: "The Nationalisation Act provides by sub-s. (1) of s. 4 that the right, title, and interest of the owners in relation to the coking coal mines specified in the First Schedule, on the appointed day, i.e., on October 17, 1971, shall stand transferred to and shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all incumbrances."

3. Whether the subsidy receivable from the erstwhile Coal Board by such raising contractor prior to the appointed day can be realized by the Central Government under sub-s. (3) of s. 22 of the Nationalisation Act:

The court concluded that the amount of Rs. 4,50,000 receivable by the petitioners from the erstwhile Coal Board was not impressed with a trust and was like any other amount due to the coking coal mine prior to the appointed day. Therefore, it did not fall outside the purview of sub-s. (3) of s. 22. The payment was by way of reimbursement for the expenditure already undertaken by the petitioners. The judgment states: "The payment of Rs. 4,50,000 was, therefore, one to reimburse for the expenditure already undertaken. Indubitably, the amount in dispute was payable 'by way of reimbursement'. The petitioners were, therefore, free to utilize the money in any manner they liked."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Industrial Supplies Pvt. Ltd. and allowed the appeal of the Union of India, holding that the petitioners, being raising contractors, were considered owners under the Nationalisation Act, and their assets vested in the Central Government. Additionally, the subsidy amount of Rs. 4,50,000 was recoverable by the Central Government. The court's decision emphasizes the broad interpretation of 'owner' to include raising contractors to fulfill the legislative intent of the Nationalisation Act.