1983 (1) TMI 281 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the criminal case against the petitioners.
2. Right of the petitioners to collect sludge or slurry from the coal washeries.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition.
4. Validity of the lease granted by the State of Bihar to the petitioners.
5. Alleged abandonment of sludge or slurry by the respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Criminal Case Against the Petitioners:
The petitioners challenged the institution of the criminal case (Petarbar P.S. Case No. 2 dated 4th April 1982) under Section 379 of the IPC for theft of sludge or slurry. They argued that the criminal proceedings were wrongly initiated and sought a mandate to restrain the respondents from interfering with their rights under the lease.

2. Right of the Petitioners to Collect Sludge or Slurry:
The petitioners claimed that they had been granted the right to remove sludge or slurry from the river bed and agricultural fields under an Indenture dated 9th April 1975. They argued that the sludge or slurry, once ejected from the washeries and deposited on the river bed or fields, became part of the land and thus belonged to the State of Bihar. They further contended that the respondent No. 3 (Central Coalfields Ltd.) had no right to interfere with their collection activities.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The respondents contended that the High Court of Calcutta lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as the cause of action arose outside its territorial jurisdiction. They argued that the lease was executed and registered in Bihar, and the alleged interference occurred in Bihar. The court, however, held that the writ petition was maintainable as the respondent No. 3 had administrative offices within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.

4. Validity of the Lease Granted by the State of Bihar:
The respondents argued that the lease was invalid as it was granted without the previous approval of the Central Government, as required under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. They also contended that the lease was void ab initio and stood terminated under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, as amended in 1976. The court held that the lease was indeed a mining lease and was invalid without the necessary approval from the Central Government.

5. Alleged Abandonment of Sludge or Slurry by the Respondent:
The petitioners argued that the respondent No. 3 had abandoned the sludge or slurry, and thus, they had acquired ownership by possession. The court rejected this argument, stating that the respondent No. 3 had been actively selling the sludge or slurry to steel plants and power houses, and there was no abandonment of property. The court cited legal principles from Salmond on Jurisprudence and relevant case law to support its conclusion.

Conclusion:
The court discharged the Rule and vacated all interim orders, holding that the petitioners had no right to collect the sludge or slurry based on the invalid lease. The money or bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners was to be utilized towards the price of the slurry removed and sold. The prayer for stay was rejected.