P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN,.J. - (1.) IN this Writ Petition, filed on 30.9.1991, the constitutional validity of Section 19 of Coal Mines Nationalization Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act 57 of 1986) especially subsection (b) thereof, is challenged on the ground that the same is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Act, which came into force on 23.12.1986, amended both the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1972 and the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act. 1973. We are concerned here with the amendment to Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 which came into force on 1.5.1973. It is not necessary to go into the history of the Legislation and the arguments elaborately advanced before us on behalf of the petitioner. This is for the reason that the question had already been dealt with by the Supreme Court. Even then we may briefly indicate some of the salient aspects leading to the present challenge.
(2.) THE Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 (here -in -after referred to as the Nationalization Act) was preceded by an Ordinance taking over the management of Coal Mines. That Ordinance was promulgated on 30.1.1973. The said Ordinance was replaced by the Coal Mines (Taking Over Management) Act, 1973 (Act 15 of 1973). The right, title and interest over the coal mines continued to vest with their owners and only the management vested with the Central Government or a Central Government Company. But, with effect from 1.5.1973, the Nationalization Act itself came into force. There was the interregnum between 31.1.1973 and 1.5.1973 ending on 30.4.1973 during which period the income from the mines had been taken by the Central Government or the Government Company and expenditure had also been incurred by the Government or the Government Company. In that context, Section 19 of the Nationalization Act provided for accounting to the owners in respect of the period of management by the Central Government. It may be noted that the Nationalization Act provided for payment of a specified sum as compensation in respect of each mine described in the Schedule to the Nationalization Act. The mine of the petitioners is at SI. No. 52 of the Schedule and the compensation determined as payable was Rs. 12,28,000/ -. A controversy arose as to whether the compensation so specified, included the value of the stock of coal that had been mined and stored in the premises of the mine on the day the management was taken over by the Central Government. The question ultimately reached the Supreme Court. At this stage we may notice that the Nationalization Act itself was included in the Nineth Schedule to the Constitution as Item No. 99 and the Taking Over of the Management Act was also included as Item No. 98. The Amendment Act, 57 of 1986 had not been included in the Nineth Schedule to the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in the decision in Central Coal Fields Ltd. v. Bhubaneswar Singh, AIR 1984 SC 1733, held that the stock of coal that was available on the day the management was taken over, belonged to the owner of the mine and it had to be taken into account for balancing the amount payable as compensation to the owner of the mine. In other words, the Supreme Court held that the value of the stock of coal was not Included in the compensation indicated as payable in the Schedule to the Nationalization Act. It was in that context that Section 8 of the Nationalization Act was amended by the Amendment Act of 1986 and the following sub - section was added to Section 8 : Section 8(2) : - -For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the amount specified in the fifth column of the Schedule against any coal mine or group of coal mines specified in the second column of the said Schedule and required to be given by the Central Government to its owner under Sub -section (1) shall be deemed to include, and deemed always to have included the amount required to be paid to such owner in respect of all coal in stock or other assets referred to in Clause (h) of Section 2 on the date immediately before the appointed day and no further amount shall be payable to owner in respect of such coal or other assets." That was followed by an amendment of Section 19 of the Nationalization Act by which the accounts prepared by the Central Government and audited as provided in Section 19 of the Nationalization Act have to be accepted by the owner of the mine as part of accounting for the period of management by the Central Government. Subsection (8) was added to Section 19 giving a limited right to the owner of the mine regarding the accounts prepared and produced by the Central Government or the Central Government Company. The said provisions arrayed the statement of accounts audited in Subsection (6), shall unless a contrary is proved, be conclusive proof in respect of every matter entered therein. (Explanation is omitted as it is not relevant for our purpose). The Amending Act of 1986 also contains a validation provision as Section 19 of that Act. it is necessary to set out that section in full. "19. Validation. - -Notwithstanding any judgment, decree order or direction of any Court to the contrary - (a) every amount paid to the owner of every coking coal mine or group of coking coal mines under Section 10, or of every coke oven plant under Section 11, of the Coking Coal Act, or to the owner of every coal mine or group of coal mines under Section 3 of the Coal Mines Act (hereinafter in either case referred to as the owner), shall be deemed to include and be deemed always to have included, the amount required to be paid to the owner in respect of the coal in stock or other assets, coke in stock or other assets, referred to in Clause (j), or Clause (b) of Section 3 of the Coking Coal Act or, as the case may be, coal in stock or other assets referred to in Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Coal Mines Act on the date immediately before the appointed day as if the provisions of Section 10 or Section 11 of the Coking Coal Act or, as the case may be Section 3 of the Coking Coal Mines Act, as amended by this act had been in force at all material times, and no such payment shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that it had not included the value of such coal or coke or other assets; (b) every statement of accounts or supplementary statement of accounts prepared by the Central Government or the Government Company under Section 22 of the Coking Coal Act or under Section 19 of the Coal Mines Act, shall be deemed to have been validly prepared as if the provisions of Section 22 of the Coking Coal Act or, as the case may be, Section 19 of the Coal Mines Act, as amended by this Act, had been in force at all material times, and no such statement of accounts or supplementary statement of accounts shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that it had not been prepared in accordance with the normal commercial practice or that any item has or has not been included in such statement, and accordingly, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintained or continued in any Court - (i) for the recovery of any sum on the ground that the amount paid to the owner under Section 10 or Section 11 of the Coking Coal Act, or under Section 8 of the Coal Mines Act, does not include the amounts required to be paid in respect of all coal or coke in stock or. other assets referred to in Clause (a); or (ii) for the recovery of any sum as being the excess of receipts over payments on the ground that the statement of accounts or supplementary statement of accounts required to be prepared under Section 22 of the Coking Coal Act or, as the case may be, Section 19 of the Coal Mines Act, had not been prepared in accordance with the normal commercial practice or that any item has or has not been included in such statement." Thus, Section 19(2) of the Amending Act practically took away with the left hand what had been given by Section 19(8) introduced by the very Amendment Act. It is in that context that Section 19(b) of the Amending Act of 1986 is challenged by the petitioner. We may notice in this context that the petitioner had filed a suit questioning the accounts of the Government Company which had taken over the management of the Coal Mine of the petitioner and that suit was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable in view of Section 19 of the Coal Mines Nationalization Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act 57 of 1986). An appeal has, been filed against the said decree by the petitioner and the same was also heard alongwith this writ petition though a separate judgment is being rendered therein.
(3.) AS we noticed, it is necessary to further consider the various aspects since we find that the contentions urged before us are covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court. In Tara Prasad Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1682, the constitutional validity of Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 (Act 26 of 1973) was challenged. The said challenge was repelled by the Supreme Court which found that the Nationalization Act had the protection of Article 31A(1)(e) of the Constitution. In a later decision, in Dejapada Das v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2031, the Supreme Court, applying the decision above referred to held that the act was valid and could not be challenged successfully by the workmen employed by the private owner of the mine. The very Amendment Act of 1986 with reference to its retrospective effect and the validity of the Section 19 quoted above, fell for consideration in the decision in Bhubaneswar Singh v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 77. Therein, the Supreme Court upheld Section 19 of the Coal Mines Nationalization Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986. Thus, we find that the constitutional challenge to Section 19 of the Amending Act (Act 57 of 1986) stands concluded against the petitioner by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court subsequent to the filing of this writ petition.;