Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.) The petitioner company claimed that it was a lesee of Madhabpur Colliery situated at Kajoragram, P.S. Andal, district, Burdwan. In this Rule it has prayed for declaration that the West Bengal Estates Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Act 22 of 1964) is illegal and ultra vires the Constitution of India. It has also prayed that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be commanded to cancel and to forbear from enforcing the provision of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1964 against the petitioner and the respondent No. 4. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be commended to forbear form realising any royalty form the respondent No, 4 in respect of Madhabpur Colliery.
(2.) Mr. Tapas Chandra Ray, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that in view of enactment of Article 228A of the Constitution by the Constitution (Fortysecond Amendment) Act, 1976 this case may be referred to the learned Chief Justice for constitution of a Bench consisting of five or more judges for determining the question as to the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition (Amendment) Act, (West Bengal Act 22 of 1964).
(3.) Having given my anxious consideration to the aforesaid point raised on behalf of the petitioner, I find no substance in the same. The petitioner in its writ petition has not raised any question of constitutional validity of a central law. Therefore, Article 228A (1) admittedly is not applicable. Clauses (3) and (4) of Articles 228A would be attracted in case of determination of questions relating to the constitutional validity of any state law. I am not prepared to accept the submission of the learned advocated for the petitioner that whenever a writ petition contains an avertment that a particular state law is constitutionally invalid, the judge or judges hearing the petition would be bound to make a reference to five or more judges. The use of the expression "determine" in Clauses (2) and (3) is significant. In the present context the said expression means a judicial decision for ending or settling a controversy about the constitutional validity of any state law. In other words. it means resolving such a question or issue by reasoning. Therefore Article 228A(2) presupposes existence of a controversy or dispute relating to constitutional validity of any state law. Further, when questions relating to constitutional validity of any state law is raised in a case, the judge or judges hearing the same are bound to consider whether a determination of the said questions is involved in the case. In other words, the judge or judges have to apply their minds to the question whether determination of the constitutional validity of any state law would be necessary or required for disposal of the case. Where such questions of constitutional validity would not be necessary for deciding the case, the judge or judges cannot make a reference under Article 228A to five or more judges merely for delivering a mere obiter dicta relating to a state law. Therefore, a determination of constitutional validity under Article 228A would be made when the same is called for in deciding a particular case.;