. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. vs EKATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. Supreme Court, 13-12-1994

Court:Supreme Court (India)
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
EKATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/12/1994
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (2) 11 JT 1995 (1) 561
1995 SCALE (1)13
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Amendment of the cause title is allowed. Intervention
application is dismissed.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of
the Division Bench of
562
the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated May 3, 1985 made in
Misc.Pet. No. 1260/82 The appellant challenged in the above
writ petition the directions dated 4.5.81, order dated
30.9.81 and a further order dated 9.6.82 passed by the
second respondent Chairman of Special Areas Development
Authority (for short, ’SADA’), Singrauli, in the District of
Sidhi of M.P. directing the appellant under s.26 of the M.P.
Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, (for short,
’Adhiniyam’) to pull down the constructions of the office
buildings staff-quarters etc. made by the appellant contrary
to the provisions of the Adhiniyam. In the High Court, the
controversy centered round the question as to whether the
provisions of the Adhiniyam overlaps the field occupied by
the provisions of the Coal Act, the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act and Mines and Minerals
(Regulations and Development) Act, 1957 (for short, ’the
Act’). The Division Bench held that these Acts have not
occupied the field covered by the Adhiniyam and that,
therefore, the Act is intra-vires the powers of the
legislature. Accordingly, it dismissed the writ petition.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3.It is contended by Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned Addl.
Solicitor General, that when the mining operations are to be
carried out under the aforesaid provisions, it would include
the building operations under the Mineral Concession Rules,
1960, (for short, ’the Rules’) made under the Act.
Therefore, the operation of the Adhiniyam stands excluded.
Dr.Ghatate, learned senior counsel for the second
respondent, resisted the contention contending that

To continue reading

Request your trial