KIRPAL, J. - (1.) THE common question which arises for consideration in these appeals on special leave being granted, is about the validity of the Bihar Forest Restoration and Improvement of Degraded Forest Land Taxation Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). THE Patna High Court, on writ petitions having been filed by the respondents in these appeals, having upheld the challenge to the validity of the said Act, the State of Bihar has filed these appeals challenging the correctness of the High Court's decision.
(2.) THE facts which are essential for the decision of these appeals are similar and lie in a very narrow compass, therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each case. It will be sufficient to refer to the facts in the appeal pertaining to Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. THE said company, like all the respondents, had been granted by the State of Bihar leases for different areas under the provisions of Mines and Minerals Regulation Act, 1957. THEse leases pertained to various tracts of land situated in different villages but all the said leases related to lands in the forest areas. THEse leases had been granted long prior to the promulgation of the ordinance which led to the passing of the aforesaid Act. THE respondents, on the basis of the leases which had been granted to them, worked on the said lands and extracted the minerals for which the leases had been granted. As far as Steel Authority of India is concerned the State of Bihar became interested in setting up a steel plant in its State. Certain Government land including forest land was given to the Hindustan Steel Ltd. [later renamed as Steel Authority of India] and a steel plant including a township was set up at Bokaro. The land which was made available to this plant included forest land in ten villages which was transferred to the respondent company on 24/05/1962. According to the respondents, and this is not disputed, it had paid compensation for the trees which it had acquired on the transfer of forest land, the amount paid being Rs. 28.5 lacs. According to the respondents several lacs of trees in various parts of the township have been planted and this process is still continuing. On 29/02/1992 the Governor of Bihar promulgated the Bihar Forest Restoration and Improvement of Degraded Forest Land Taxation Ordinance under Article 213 of the Constitution so as to take immediate action for the purpose of providing resources and restoration of degraded land and improvement of forest area. This Ordinance was subsequently replaced by the Act. Pursuant to the promulgation of the said Ordinance, rules were notified on 5/06/1992. Consequent upon the promulgation of the ordinance and the rules thereunder several writ petitions were filed, including those by the respondents herein, before the Patna High Court challenging the ordinance and the rules, inter alia, on the ground that it was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature of Bihar. It was also contended that the said Act which replaced the Ordinance was repugnant to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the rules framed thereunder and that it was ultra vires Articles 14, 19, 240, 265 and 300A of the Constitution. With regard to the legislative competence it was contended by the respondents that in view of Entry 54 of List I providing for regulation of mines and mineral development, the State Government had no authority or jurisdiction to promulgate the Act, the field being occupied by the Parliament alone.
(3.) ON behalf of the State Government reliance was placed on the provisions of Entry 49, List II in support of its contention that the State Legislature had the legislative competence to enact this law. Shortly put the case of the appellants herein was that what was now sought to be levied by the impugned act was tax on land which was covered by Entry 49, List II and the tax was not on or in relation to any mining activity. The High Court by a common judgment allowed the writ petitions and quashed the aforesaid Act by holding that the same was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature on the ground that in pith and substance it was not a tax on the land and building within the meaning of Entry 49, List II; that in view of the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957and the rules framed thereunder it was an occupied field and, therefore, the State Legislature was denuded of all its power to enact the said Act; that in view of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 it was doubtful whether the impugned Act could impose the tax, it was also held by the High Court that the Act and the Ordinance were unconstitutional and void as they were vague and uncertain and conferred naked and arbitrary power; that no machinery was provided for the purpose of levy imposition and assessment of the tax; Section 3(4) was in any event unconstitutional and void and the Act and the Ordinance were violative of Article 301 read with Article 30(b) of the Constitution. It was further declared by the High Court that all actions taken under the said Act, ordinance and the rules framed thereunder were unconstitutional and void and writ of mandamus was issued restraining the respondents therein and its officers from giving effect to the Act or the ordinance or the rules or any order or direction or instruction or notification which may have been issued in any manner whatsoever.;