9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Proviso (2) to Section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1964. 2. Operation of the second sub-rule of Rule 20 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964. 3. Legislative competence of the Bihar State Legislature to amend the Bihar Land Reforms Act. 4. Constitutionality of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. 5. Impact on fundamental rights under Articles 31 and 19 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Proviso (2) to Section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1964 The Supreme Court examined the amendment to Section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, which added a proviso stipulating that terms and conditions of leases for minor minerals would be substituted by those prescribed under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964. The Court found that this amendment was beyond the legislative competence of the Bihar State Legislature. The Court held that the entire legislative field concerning minor minerals was covered by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act 67 of 1957), which declared that regulation of mines and mineral development was under the control of the Union. Thus, the proviso was invalid. 2. Operation of the Second Sub-rule of Rule 20 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 The second sub-rule of Rule 20 applied the provisions of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules retrospectively to existing leases. The Court held that vested rights could not be altered by mere rule-making power without legislative authority. Since the power to modify existing leases was not within the competence of the State Legislature, the second sub-rule was deemed ineffective. 3. Legislative Competence of the Bihar State Legislature to Amend the Bihar Land Reforms Act The Court analyzed whether the Bihar State Legislature had the authority to amend the Bihar Land Reforms Act to include the second proviso to Section 10. The Court held that the legislative competence was lacking because the subject of minor minerals was already covered by the Union legislation (Act 67 of 1957). The declaration in Section 2 of Act 67 of 1957 and the provisions of Section 15 indicated that the regulation of minor minerals was a Union subject, leaving no room for State legislation. 4. Constitutionality of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 The appellants argued that Section 15 of Act 67 of 1957, which delegated rule-making power to the State Governments, was unconstitutional due to excessive delegation. The Court did not find merit in this argument, as the delegation was within the legislative competence of Parliament and did not violate any constitutional provisions. 5. Impact on Fundamental Rights under Articles 31 and 19 of the Constitution The appellants contended that the amendment to the Bihar Land Reforms Act and the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules infringed upon their fundamental rights under Articles 31 (right to property) and 19 (freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business). The Court held that since the legislative competence to amend the Bihar Land Reforms Act was lacking, the question of infringement of fundamental rights did not arise. Conclusion The appeals were allowed, and a mandamus was issued restraining the State Government from enforcing the second proviso to Section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1964, and the second sub-rule of Rule 20 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964. The Court concluded that the legislative field concerning minor minerals was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Union, and the State Legislature had no authority to enact the disputed provisions.
|
