Coal India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Tata Tea Ltd. & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3121 of 1991
With
(C.A. No. 4421 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7279/1994)
With
(C.A. No. 4421 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7279/1994)
Petitioner: Coal India Ltd. & Ors.
Respondent: Tata Tea Ltd. & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3121 of 1991
With
(C.A. No. 4421 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7279/1994)
With
(C.A. No. 4421 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7279/1994)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 17, 2001
Head Note:
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES
Colliery Control Order, 1945
Clauses 3, 4 – Notification dated 14.11.83, issued by manager – Price of coal charged more than what is prescribed by government vide notification dated 26.5.82 – Validity – No indication in impugned notification about special sizing or benefaction. Held that quashing of notification by High Court is justified as the authority had no jurisdiction to charge extra price for want of special sizing or benefaction. Appeal dismissed. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted in the S.L.P.
2. These two appeals by the Coal India Ltd. raise the sole question as to whether the High Court was justified in quashing the notice dated 14th November, 1983 issued by the manager of the Coal India Ltd. charging a price for coal, more than what was prescribed by notification of the government dated 26th of May 1982 in pursuance of clauses 3 and 4 of the Colliery Control Order 1945 read with section 16 of the Essential Commodities Act. The respondents assailed the legality of the aforesaid notification as well as the legality of the notification dated 9.1.1984 on the ground that the authority of the Coal India has no jurisdiction to charge more than what is prescribed under the notification issued under the Colliery Control Order. The High Court by the impugned judgment, examined the legality of the aforesaid two notifications and upholds the validity of the notification dated 9.1.1984 on the conclusion that the higher price fixed thereunder has been charged in accordance with clause 14 of the very notification issued under the Colliery Control Order, which authorises an extra price to be charged after a negotiation when special sizing or benefaction of the coal is made. But, so far as the notification dated 14th November, 1983 is concerned, the High Court has recorded its conclusion that since the notice does not indicate that there has been any special sizing or benefaction: on the other hand, it indicates that it has been worked out on the basis of the ash contents, it has been held that the same is beyond the jurisdiction of the concerned undertaking in absence of any special sizing or benefaction. Therefore, the said notification dated 14th November, 1983 having been set aside, the Coal India is in appeal.
3. At the outset, it must be stated that the aforesaid notification of 14th November, 1983 remained valid only till the subsequent notification dated 7th January, 1984 was issued which was clarified by the notification dated 19th of September, 1984. That apart, on a plain reading of the aforesaid notification, it is difficult for us to hold that the extra charges other than the charges indicated under the notification issued under Colliery Control Order was, on account of any special sizing or benefaction which alone could have conferred jurisdiction on the authority to have any additional charge after negotiation with the purchaser. This being the position, the conclusion of the High Court under the impugned judgment in relation to the notification dated 14th November, 1983 remains unassailable. We, therefore, do not find any merits in these appeals and the same are dismissed accordingly.
1. Leave granted in the S.L.P.
2. These two appeals by the Coal India Ltd. raise the sole question as to whether the High Court was justified in quashing the notice dated 14th November, 1983 issued by the manager of the Coal India Ltd. charging a price for coal, more than what was prescribed by notification of the government dated 26th of May 1982 in pursuance of clauses 3 and 4 of the Colliery Control Order 1945 read with section 16 of the Essential Commodities Act. The respondents assailed the legality of the aforesaid notification as well as the legality of the notification dated 9.1.1984 on the ground that the authority of the Coal India has no jurisdiction to charge more than what is prescribed under the notification issued under the Colliery Control Order. The High Court by the impugned judgment, examined the legality of the aforesaid two notifications and upholds the validity of the notification dated 9.1.1984 on the conclusion that the higher price fixed thereunder has been charged in accordance with clause 14 of the very notification issued under the Colliery Control Order, which authorises an extra price to be charged after a negotiation when special sizing or benefaction of the coal is made. But, so far as the notification dated 14th November, 1983 is concerned, the High Court has recorded its conclusion that since the notice does not indicate that there has been any special sizing or benefaction: on the other hand, it indicates that it has been worked out on the basis of the ash contents, it has been held that the same is beyond the jurisdiction of the concerned undertaking in absence of any special sizing or benefaction. Therefore, the said notification dated 14th November, 1983 having been set aside, the Coal India is in appeal.
3. At the outset, it must be stated that the aforesaid notification of 14th November, 1983 remained valid only till the subsequent notification dated 7th January, 1984 was issued which was clarified by the notification dated 19th of September, 1984. That apart, on a plain reading of the aforesaid notification, it is difficult for us to hold that the extra charges other than the charges indicated under the notification issued under Colliery Control Order was, on account of any special sizing or benefaction which alone could have conferred jurisdiction on the authority to have any additional charge after negotiation with the purchaser. This being the position, the conclusion of the High Court under the impugned judgment in relation to the notification dated 14th November, 1983 remains unassailable. We, therefore, do not find any merits in these appeals and the same are dismissed accordingly.
