- (1.) Both these appeals are by special leave. The Civil is directed against the judgment of a bench of the High court of Patna, Ranchi bench rejecting a writ petition of the appellants. The criminal appeal is directed against the order of the High court refusing to quash the criminal proceeding on the ground that it was premature.
(2.) It is not in dispute that "coal" is a subject covered under List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution. The Colliery Control Order of 1945 made prior to the Constitution is operating as existing law and is in force. The Bihar Coal Control Order, 1956, defined 'coal to be "coal received in the State of Bihar other than the central quota". The definition of coal in the central Order is found in clause (2 (a). Appellants who are manufacturers of steel had pleaded that about 85 per cent of their coal requirement for the manufacturing process is received from captive collieries and the remaining 15 per cent is received indigenously or by import. It is also asserted that for the purpose of steel manufacturing metallurgical coke is necessary and according to them all coke whether it is within the category of 85 per cent or 15 per cent is subjected first to conversion into metallurgical coke and then utilised in the steel manufacturing process.
(3.) No difficulty was faced by the appellants notwithstanding the enforcement of the Bihar Coal Control Order of 1956 as in regard totheir coal, State government was not causing any interference; but when the Bihar Trade Article (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 by way of replacement of the 1956 Order came, the authorities of the State Government required the appellants to take out licence as dealer under the 1984 Order and to comply with its other requirements. The State authorities were of the view that the field covered by the Bihar Order of 1984 was different from what was covered by the central Order of 1945 and the State of Bihar was entitled under the scheme of the Constitution to control the activities which 1984 Order sought to cover. There is no dispute that the 1984 Order defines "coal", "dealer" and "trade article", and has a schedule where coal is entered as an item to which the Order applies. There is hardly scope to doubt, that for matters covered by the central Order, the State has no power to prescribe differently. In view of the wide definition of 'coal in the central Order it has to be found whether what is left after coke is consumed is still not 'coal as defined.;