Judgment The State of Bihar (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') has made this application for an order, Inter alia, that the receiver appointed in the above Special Suit be directed not to work the coal mines named 'Khas Rudi Badam Colliery' situated in district of Hazaribag. There are other prayers in the said application which are set out hereinafter. The facts leading to the making of this application may briefly be stated. Jugal Kishore Jaiswil (who is hereinafter referred to as 'Jaiswal') the respondent in this application as plaintiff filed the above Special Suit No. 59 of 1978 against the other respondent Pradip Gupta for filing of the arbitration agreement contained in the Deed of Partnership dated June 25, 1977, entered into between Jaiswal and Gupta to carryon partnership business under the name and style of 'Khal Rudi Badam Colliery', which according to Jaiswal was dissolved by him by a notice in writing. In the said suit on the application of Jaiswal made under sec. 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by an order made by the consent of the parties to the said proceeding Jaiswal was appointed as the Receiver over and in respect of all businesses carried an under the said partnership deed and he was directed as Receiver to take possession of Rudi Badam Colliery (hereinafter referred to as "the said Colliery") situate at village Rudi, Badam, Condalpara, Rautpara, Kutulua, Iske, Lakura, Chandaul and Pundaul, P.S. Barkagaon in the district of Hazaribag, Bihar. Thereafter on August 7, 1978 an order was passed directing the Receiver to file necessary returns and applications to the various Authorities as mentioned in the said order and that the said authority would be entitled to give all assistance and protection to the Receiver in the matter of getting requisite explosives, sales-tax permit for transport of coal and in working of the Colliery and to raise, dispatch and sell coal. By another order made by consent of the parties to the said suit (i.e. Jaiswal and Gupta) on August 8, 1978 liberty was given to the Receiver to carryon the business of the said Colliery and various authorities as mentioned in the said order were directed to give assistance and protection to the Receiver for the purpose of carrying on the said business and the working of the said Colliery. It appears that pursuant to the above orders trio Receiver took steps for the working of the Colliery and for that matter obtained necessary certificates and/or permissions from different Authorities under the State of Bihar. Thereafter, upon mentioning of the matter on behalf of the State of Bihar an order was passed by Sabyasachi Mukherji, J. on November, 17, 1978 to the effect that apart from the appointment or the Receiver the rest of orders previously passed directing the Receiver to carryon mining operation as also to seek and obtain assistance of the appropriate Government officials for that purpose would be stayed for a period of fortnight from that date and the State of Bihar was given liberty to make an appropriate application upon notice to all parties within the said period. Thereafter, on an application of the State of Bihar an order was made by Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. on February 26, 1979 whereby the orders dated 4th, 7th and 9th August 1978 were recalled and the Receiver was discharged subject to filing of accounts. Against the said order dated 26th February 1979 Jaiswal made an application for special leave to appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The said application was contested by the State of Bihar. The Supreme Court by its order dated August 13, 1979 recalled the said order dated February 26, 1979 and gave various directions as will appear from the order. The relevant portion of the Supreme Court's order is set out hereunder : "The order paned by High Court on 26th February 1979 recalling the earlier orders dated 4th, 7th and 8th August, 1978 and discharging the appellant as receiver cannot be sustained. We do not see how an order appointing receiver in a suit between the two parties can be vacated at the instance of third party. If the State of Bihar has any rights in respect of the Colliery in question, it is always open to the State of Bihar to enforce such rights against the receiver after obtaining leave of the High Court which appointed the receiver. But the receiver certainly could not be discharged at the instance of the State of Bihar. If the State of Bihar has any rights in respect of the Colliery in question, it is always open to the State of Bihar to enforce such rights against the receiver after obtaining leave of the High Court which appointed the receiver. But the receiver certainly could not be discharged at the instance of the State of Bihar. We, therefore set aside the order discharging the appellant as receiver but we make it clear that it will be open to the State of Bihar to adopt whatever proceedings are available to it for the purpose of enforcing its right, if any, in respect of the Colliery in question against the receiver after obtaining leave of the High Court. The appellant as receiver, will not work the colliery for a period of two weeks from to day but it will be open to the appellant to remove the coal at the pit head and sell the same after it is inventoried in the presence of an Officer of the State of Bihar. The State of Bihar will depute an Office for this purpose within four days from today. If the State of Bihar does not depute an Officer within the aforesaid period of four days, the appellant will be at liberty to remove and sell the coal at the pit head for the purpose of making payment to the workers. The appellant will keep and maintain proper accounts which will be open for inspection by an authorised officer of the Government or Bihar." 3. The appellant will keep and maintain proper accounts which will be open for inspection by an authorised officer of the Government or Bihar." 3. Thereafter, the State of Bihar has made the instant application praying that:- "(a) The Receiver appointed herein be directed not to work the mines mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof; (b) Ad-interim order in terms of prayer (a) above; (c) Alternatively, the Receiver appointed herein be directed to work the mines in accordance with the law; (d) Leave be given to your petitioner, the State of Bihar to intervene in Special Suit No. 59 of 1978 (Jugal Kishore Jaiswal v. Pradip Gupta) and in the said application under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and if necessary be added as a party defendant thereto; (e) If necessary, leave be given to your petitioner, the State of Bihar to come in and be examined at prointerse sue; (f) Leave be given to your petitioner and/or its agents or authorised officers to institute appropriate proceeding and/or to take appropriate actions against the Receiver under the provisions or Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1973 as amended upto 1976, the colliery Control Order 1945, the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951 and other statutory enactments which are applicable relating to the mines and/or operation thereof; (g) Leave be given to your petitioner or its agents or authorised officers to take possession of the mines in question under and in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act 1957 as amended upto 1972 from the hands of the parties or from the receiver as the case may be and to institute proceedings and/or to take actions against the Receiver for damages already suffered or likely to be suffered by your petitioner in future; (h) Costs of and incidental to this application be paid by the petitioner. (i) Such further or other order or orders be made and/or direction or directions be given as will afford complete relief to your petitioner." 4. On 24th August, 1979 an interim order was passed by Sabyasachi Mukherji, J. in this application. (i) Such further or other order or orders be made and/or direction or directions be given as will afford complete relief to your petitioner." 4. On 24th August, 1979 an interim order was passed by Sabyasachi Mukherji, J. in this application. The relevant portion of the said order is set out hereunder: "Reading the order of the Supreme Court, it appears to me that the Supreme Court has rightly observed that the State of Bihar has now made an application. Prima facie on behalf or the State of Bihar, it is contended that in view of definition of 'Mine' under section 2(h) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, read with sections 3 and 4 of the Act, the State of Bihar has interest in respect of this mine. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the respective mine was not the coal mine but it was a coking coal mine, and as such, the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 does not apply. The amplitude of the definition, in my opinion, seems to indicate that prima facie it is an arguable point. Therefore, for the time being, it would not be proper, in my opinion, when the application has been made to allow the Receiver to carryon the mining operation and therefore I am making an interim order in terms of prayer. (a) One of the parties had been served. I make the application returnable on Tuesday next, 28th August, 1979. This Order, however, will not prevent the Receiver from selling the coal at the pit-head' pursuant to the order made by the Supreme Court, as indicated in the order." 5. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for special leave to appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India challenging the said order dated 24th August 1979 but the case was dismissed. 6. According to the petitioner the State of Bihar none of the parties to the said Special Suit is entitled to nor should the Receiver be allowed to carryon any coal minig operation in any form and to allow them to do so would amount to serious contravention of law. Further, under various statutes dealing with nationalisation of coal mines the ownership of the said colliery has vested in the State of Bihar because lease if any, in favour of Jaiswal stood terminated. 7. Only Jaiswal is contesting this application. Further, under various statutes dealing with nationalisation of coal mines the ownership of the said colliery has vested in the State of Bihar because lease if any, in favour of Jaiswal stood terminated. 7. Only Jaiswal is contesting this application. The case made in his affidavit- in-opposition is as follows. That said Colliery is situate in the remote jungle areas in the district of Hazaribag and by and under regular Deed of Hukumnama dated February 7, 1936 granted by the Manager of the Courts of wards of Ramgarh Raj Estate during the minority of the Raja of Ramgarh it came into possession of Jaiswal Subsequently, the Raja of Ramgarh upon attaining majority by his letter dated April 7, 1940 confirmed the working of the said Colliery to 'Jaiswal',. According to Jaiswal he was in the working possession in the said Colliery between 1936 and 1950 when he became a deemed lessee under the state of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act by virtue of the lease granted to him by the ex-Raja of Ramgarh. It is also stated by Jaiswal that after vesting he continued to work the mines to the knowledge of the Mining officials of the District of Hazaribag and had been raising and dispatching coal according to the available demand and marketing viability. By a Deed of Partnership dated June 25, 1977 entered into by and between them Jaiswal and Gupta agreed to carryon partnership business under the name and style of “Khas Rudi Badam Colliery" with effect from June 1, 1977 on the terms and conditions contained in the said Deed. Thereafter, as disputes and differences arose between the partners Jaiswal gave a notice in writing to Gupta of his intention to dissolve the said partnership and thereafter Jaiswal filed the above Special Suit against Gupta for filing of the arbitration agreement. 8. It is further stated that Jaiswal in effect become custodian of the coking coal mine in question under the Central Government and the Government of Bihar could have no concern with the working of the collieries in the beds of which there are seems of coking coal. 8. It is further stated that Jaiswal in effect become custodian of the coking coal mine in question under the Central Government and the Government of Bihar could have no concern with the working of the collieries in the beds of which there are seems of coking coal. It is also stated that said colliery being a 'coking coal mine' the instant case is covered by and be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 and the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 and would not come within the purview of the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973 and/or the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 and/or Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976 by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, it cannot be said that Jaiswal was working the said colliery in violation of any statute or law. But he was working the Colliery as a Custodian for and on behalf of the Central Government according to the said 1971 and 1972 Acts. Therefore, the State of Bihar had no right either to intervene in the said suit the subject matter of which is the management of a 'coking coal mine' or to create any obstruction in the working of the said mine on the purported exercise of power under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 or the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 as also Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976, or the Mineral Concession Rules, 1950. Further, in support of his case that the said colliery contains seems of 'coking coal' and therefore it is a 'coking coal mine' as defined in sub-clause (c) of Section 3 of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (Central) Act 36 of 1972) read with sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act. Jaiswal has placed reliance on the relevant materials published in the journal of the Geological Survey of India in Indian Minerals (July; September, 1967) in Vol. 21, No. 3 at pages 188 to 195 and the official Topographical sheets, i.e., Geological Map of Karanpura Coal Field printed and published by the Geological Survey of India Indicating the coal bearing areas in relation to coking coal field referred to in the said India Minerals Journal. 21, No. 3 at pages 188 to 195 and the official Topographical sheets, i.e., Geological Map of Karanpura Coal Field printed and published by the Geological Survey of India Indicating the coal bearing areas in relation to coking coal field referred to in the said India Minerals Journal. He has also relied on the test report of the coal extracted from the said colliery from M/s. Meta Coke Private Ltd. at Ramgarh which carries on and operates hard coke plant, to the effect that the extracted coal on being tested proved to be coking coal. It is stated that hard coke is manufactured after furnishing and/or treating coking coal only. It is also the case of Jaiswal that there are highly graded coking coal seams in The Central Coal Field Ltd., S. Kedla and Tapin Collieries, situated in the same coal belt as that of Khas Rudi Badam Colliery. It is further stated that after coming into force of the said 1976 Act all the purported and/or presumed right of the State of Bihar ceased to have any effect and as a consequence of the said Act all or any of its so called rights have vested in the Central Government. Therefore, the State of Bihar could not in any way have any authority under the law to exercise its power against Jaiswal or interfere with the working of the Receiver appointed by a competent Court. 9. Jaiswal has also stated that the State of Bihar instead of acting according to the order and/or observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, has again filed this application before the Hon'ble Court which is identical and/or substantially similar to the application which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by its judgment and order dated August 13, 1979. 10. In as much as arguments were advanced on the basis of the provisions of various Acts passed from time to time dealing with the nationalization of the coal mines provisions thereof as are relevant for the purpose of this case may be set out. 11. On December 23, 1971 The Coking Coal Mines (Emergency provisions) Act 1971 (No. 64 of 1971) came into force. The said Act (Which is hereinafter referred to as 'the Emergency Act of 1971') was deemed to have come into force on October 10, 1971. 11. On December 23, 1971 The Coking Coal Mines (Emergency provisions) Act 1971 (No. 64 of 1971) came into force. The said Act (Which is hereinafter referred to as 'the Emergency Act of 1971') was deemed to have come into force on October 10, 1971. Under clause (c) of section 2 of the Emergency Act of 1971 coking coal mine’ means a coal mine in which there exists one or more seems of coking coal, whether exclusively or in addition to any seem of other coal. Clause (k) provides that ‘,Words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Coal Mines (Conservation, Safety and Development) Act, 1952, have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Act." Clause (1) provides that-"Words and expressions used herein and not defined in the Act or in the Coal Mines (Conservation, Safety and Development) Act, 1952, but defined in the Mines Act, 1952, have the meaning respectively assigned to them in the Mines Act, 1952." Section 3 provides as follows: (1) On and from the appointed day, the management of all coking coal mines shall vest in the Central Government. (2) The coking coal mines specified in the First Schedule shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be the cooking coal mines the management of which shall vest, under sub-section (1), in the Central Government: Provided that if after the appointed day, any other coal mine is found, after an investigation made by the Coal Board to contain coking coal, that Board shall make a declaration to that effect and on and from the date of such declaration, such mine shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act,- (i) to vest in the Central Government ; and (ii) to be included in the First Schedule, and thereupon the provisions of this Act shall become applicable thereto subject to the modification that for the words 'appointed day', wherever they occur, the words the date of the declaration made by the Coal Board under sub-section (2) of section (3) shall be substituted." Section 4(1) and (2) provide that: "(1) Pending the appointment of a Custodian under section 5 for any coking coal mine, the person in charge of the management of such mine immediately before the appointed day shall, on and from the appointed day, be in charge of the management of such mine for and on behalf of the Central Government; and the management of such mine shall be carried on by such person subject to the provisions contained in sub-sections (3) and (5) and such directions, if any as the Central Government may give to him and no other person including the owner, shall, so long as such management continues, exercise any powers of management in relation to the coking coal mine. (2) Any contract, whether express or implied, providing for the management of any coking coal mine, made before the appointed day between the owner of such mine and any person in charge of the management of such mine immediately before the appointed day, shall be deemed to have terminated on the appointed day." Section 5 so far as relevant to this case as follows : "The Central Government may, as soon as it is convenient administratively so to do, appoint any person as Custodian for the purpose of taking over the management of the coking coal mine and the person so appointed shall carryon the management of such mine for and on behalf of the Central Government. On the appointment of a Custodian under subsection (1), the charge of management of the coking coal mine shall vest in him and all persons in charge of the management of such mine immediately before such appointment shall cease to be in charge of such management and shall be bound to deliver to the Custodian all assets, books of account, registers or other documents in their custody relating to the coking coal mille and any contract, whether express or implied, providing for the management of any coking coal mine, made before the appointed day between the owner of such mine and such persons, shall be deemed to have terminated on the date on which the Custodian is appointed. Nothing contained in section 4 shall apply to any coking coal mine the management of which has been taken over by the Custodian, but the Central Government may issue such directions to the Custodian as to his powers and duties at it deems desirable in the circumstance of the case, and the Custodian may appeal to the Central Government at any time for instructions as to the manner in which he shall conduct the management of the coking coal main or in relation to any matter arising in the course of such management." 12. Thereafter, on August 8, 1972 the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (Act No. 36 of 1972) was passed. Clauses (c), (k), (r) and (s) of Section 3 of this Act are identical as Clause (c), (k) and (l) of the Emergency Provisions Act of 1971. Section 4(1) and (2) of 1972 Act provide as follows:- “On the appointed day, the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to the coking coal mine specified in the First Schedule shall stand transferred to, and shall vest absolutely in the Central Government, free from all incumbrances. Section 4(1) and (2) of 1972 Act provide as follows:- “On the appointed day, the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to the coking coal mine specified in the First Schedule shall stand transferred to, and shall vest absolutely in the Central Government, free from all incumbrances. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that if, after the appointed day, any other coal mine is found, after an investigation made by the Coal board, to contain coal, the provisions of the Coking Coal Mine, (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971, shall until that mine is nationalized by an appropriate legislation, apply to such mine." Section 6(1) provides that "Where the rights of an owner under any mining lease granted, or deemed to have been granted, in relation to a coking coal mine" by a State Government or any other person, vest in the Central Government under Section 4, the Central Government shall, on and from the date of such vetting, be deemed to have become the lessee of the State Government or such other person, as the case may be, in relation to such coking coal mine as is if a mining lease in relation to such coking coal mine had been granted to the Central Government under the Mineral Concession Rules, the period of such leases being the entire period for which such lease could have been granted by the State Government or such other person under these Rules and thereupon, all the rights under such mining lease, including surface, underground and other rights granted to the lessee shall be deemed to have been transferred to, and vested in, the Central Government". 13. On March 31, 1973 The Coal Mines (Taking over of Management) Act, 1973 (Act No. 15 of 1973) was passed. Excepting sub-section (2) of section 8 which came into force at once this Act (which is hereinafter referred to as 'Coal Mines Management Act') was deemed to have come into force on January 30, 1973. 13. On March 31, 1973 The Coal Mines (Taking over of Management) Act, 1973 (Act No. 15 of 1973) was passed. Excepting sub-section (2) of section 8 which came into force at once this Act (which is hereinafter referred to as 'Coal Mines Management Act') was deemed to have come into force on January 30, 1973. Under Section 2(b) “'coal mine' means a mine in which there exists one or more seems of coal.” Section 2(j) and (k) provide as follows: "Words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Coal Mines (Conservation, Safety and Development) Act, 1952, have the meanings respectively, assigned to them in that Act; Words and expressions used herein and not defined in this Act or in the Coal Mines (Conservation, Safety and Development) Act, 1942, have the meanings, respectively, assigned to them in the Mines Act, 1952." Section 3(1) and (2) Provide that: "On and from the appointed day, the management of all coal mines shall vest in the Central Government. Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (1), the coal mines specified in the Schedule shall be deemed, for the purpose of this Act, to be the coal mines the management of which shall vest under subsection (1), in the Central Government; Provided that if, after the appointed day, the existence of any other coal mines comes to the knowledge of the Central Government whether after an investigation or in pursuance of an intimation given to it under sub-section (5), or otherwise, the Central Government shall, by a notified order, make a declaration about the existence or such mine, and on and from the date of such declaration – (i) the management of such coal mine shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to vest in the Central Government; and (ii) such coal mine shall be deemed to be included in the Schedule, and thereupon the provisions of this Act shall become applicable thereto subject to the modification that for the words 'appointed day', wherever they occur, the words, brackets and figures 'date of the declaration made by the Central Government under sub-section (2) of section 3' shall be substituted." 14. On May 30, 1973 The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 (Act No. 26 of 1973) was passed. On May 30, 1973 The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 (Act No. 26 of 1973) was passed. Clauses (b), (n) and (o) of Section 2 of this Act are identical as clauses (b), (j) and (k) of Section 2 of the Coal Mines (Taking over of Management) Act, 1973. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 are as follows:- "On the appointed day, the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to the coal mine specified in the Schedule shall stand transferred to, and shall vest absolutely in, the Central Government free from all incumbrances. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 are as follows:- "On the appointed day, the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to the coal mine specified in the Schedule shall stand transferred to, and shall vest absolutely in, the Central Government free from all incumbrances. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that if, after the appointed day, the existence of any other coal mine comes to the knowledge of the Central Government the provisions of the Coal Mines (Taking over of Management) Act, 1973 shall, until that mine is nationalised by an appropriate legislation, apply to such mine." Sub-section (3) which has been inserted by section 3 Coal Mines Nationalisation (Amendment) Act, 1976 with affect from 29.4.76 is as follows:- "On and from the commencement of section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976,- (a) no person, other than – (i) the Central Government or a Government Company or a corporation owned, managed or controlled by the Central Government, or (ii) a person to whom a sub-lease, referred to in the proviso to clause (c), has been granted by any such Government, company or corporation, or (iii) a company engaged in the production of iron and steel, shall carryon coal mining operation, in India, in any form; (b) excepting the mining leases granted before such commencement in favour of the Government company or corporation, referred to in clause (a), and any sub-lease granted by any such Government company or corporation, all other mining leases and sub-leases in force immediately before such commencement, shall, in so far as they relate to the winning or mining of coal, stand terminated; (c) as lease for winning or mining coal shall be granted in favour of any person other than the Government, company or corporation, referred to in clause (a): Provided that the Government, company or corporation to whom lease for winning or mining coal has been granted may grant a sublease to any person in any area on such terms and conditions as may be specified in the Instrument granting the sub-lease, if the Government, company or corporation is satisfied that:- (i) the reserves of coal in the area in isolated small pockets or are not sufficient for scientific and economical development in a co-ordinated and integrated manner, and (ii) the coal produced by the sub-lessee will not be required to be transferred by rail. Section 3(c) and (d) of the Coal Mines (Conservation & Safety) Act, 1952 is as follows:- "3. (c) 'Coal' includes coke in all its forms; (d) 'Coking coal' meant such type of coal from which on carbonisation coke suitable, in the opinion of the Board, for being used in metallurgical industries, particularly in iron and steel industries, can be prepared;" 13. Mr. D.P. Gupta learned counsel for the State of Bihar has submitted as follows:- 1. After the palling of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 mineral resources lying within the State have vests in the State of Bihar and the State is the owner of the same. Operation of a coal mine is regulated by various legislations both Central find State. Therefore, the State is interested to see that compliance of these laws, rules and regulations are made in the matter of operation of the coal mines. 2. None of the parties to the Special Suit originally had any right to carryon mining operation. In any event the partnership which is alleged to have come into existence in 1977 had no right to carryon the mining operation. Further, after the 1976 amendment of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 such right, even if it existed, came to the end. 3. 'Coking Coal' has not been defined in The Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 and The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. Under the provisions of the said Acts (S.2(k) of 1971 Act and S. 2(j) of 1972 Act) definition of the words and expression in the Coal Mines (Conservation, Safety and Development) Act, 1952 would apply to the words and expression used but not defined in the said Acts. In the instant case there is no opinion of the Coal Board as stated in S. 3(d) of the 1952 Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that coal mine in the instant case is a coking coal mine. 4. The petitioner in this application the State of Bihar seeks to make this application as pro interesse suo. Alternatively, certain facts are brought to the Court's notice by the State of Bihar so that the Court may pass appropriate order. 5. There will be no mining right unless there is a lease. 4. The petitioner in this application the State of Bihar seeks to make this application as pro interesse suo. Alternatively, certain facts are brought to the Court's notice by the State of Bihar so that the Court may pass appropriate order. 5. There will be no mining right unless there is a lease. Jugal Krishore Jaiswal, the respondent in this application has not produced any registered document showing that he had a lease under the Raja of Ramgarh and after the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 he became a lessee under the State of Bihar. Even if there was any mining lease in favour of Jaiswal the same was transferred in favour of the partnership and that amounted to violation of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1950. 6. Respondent Jaiswal had no requisite permission to run the mine before several orders were obtained from this Court in the above suit. Only with the Court's assistance (by various orders) he obtained necessary permission to run the mine. There is no proof if the respondent was carrying on coal mining business. 7. Section 2 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1973 includes both 'coking' and 'non-coking' coal mines under section 3 of the 1973 Act there is an absolute bar for concerns other than the authority or concern mentioned in that section to carryon coal mining business. Further, section 3(3)(b) provides for termination of the mining leases except leases and sub-leases in favour of Government Company or a Corporation owned, managed or controlled by the Central Government. 8. If S.3(3) of the Coal Mines (nationalisation) Act 1973 applies to all coal i.e. coking and non-coking coal then there it no disputed question of fact. If both coking and non-coking coals are affected then lease stood terminated and the partnership has no right to operate the mine. In this case by consent of the parties to the special suit various interim orders were obtained for the purpose of avoiding the application of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. 16. Mr. A.K. Sen learned counsel appearing for the respondent Jugal Kishore Jaiswal has submitted as follows:- 1. In this case by consent of the parties to the special suit various interim orders were obtained for the purpose of avoiding the application of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. 16. Mr. A.K. Sen learned counsel appearing for the respondent Jugal Kishore Jaiswal has submitted as follows:- 1. There are two sets of Acts viz., (a) The Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 and The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 and (b) The Coal Mines (Transfer of Management) Act, 1973 and The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. From the two sets of Acts it would appear that the two subject matters, namely, 'coking coal' and 'non-coking coal' have been kept separate. Each set deals with different subject matter. One set deals with 'coking coal' and the other with 'non-coking coal.' Coal Mines Nationalisation (Amendment) Act, 1976 by inserting sub-section 3 in Section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 only amends the said Act which relates to non-coking coal. The object stated in the amending Act clearly shows that it amends only Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 and not the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. The mine in the instant case is a coking coal mine for reasons stated in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the affidavit-in-opposition, and, therefore, is not affected by the said sub-section. 2. The expression 'owner' has been defined in S.2(b) of the Mines Act 1952 and according to that definition the State Government is not the owner of the coal mine in question. Further, the State of Bihar has no right regarding coking coal and non-coking coal mines. 3. If there are mines which are operated by the lessee under the lease and these mines are mentioned in the schedule to the Nationalisation Acts then the interest of the lessee will vest in the Central Government will become the statutory lessee. Further, the State of Bihar has no right regarding coking coal and non-coking coal mines. 3. If there are mines which are operated by the lessee under the lease and these mines are mentioned in the schedule to the Nationalisation Acts then the interest of the lessee will vest in the Central Government will become the statutory lessee. If a coking coal mine is not mentioned in the schedule of the Emergency Act of 1971 or the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 or no subsequent declaration is made in respect thereof or a custodian is not appointed in respect thereof under Section 5 of the Emergency Act of 1971 then in such a case in view of Section 4 of the 1971 Act the person who was running the mine would continue to run as a custodian under the Central Government. Whether there is any lease or not, the persons in possession of the coking coal mine would become the custodian and would be answerable to the Central Government. State Government will only be entitled to royalty and nothing else. 4. Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 deals with only non-coking coal and the Amendment Act of 1976 apply only to 'non-coking coal' as dealt with under the said 1973 Act. The Amending Act does net amend or affect the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. Even if 1976 Act amends 1972 Act still the respondent Jaiswal is operating the mine in question as the custodian of the Central Government. 5. State of Bihar is vested with the lessor's right and is entitled to receive royalty. Hukumnama is a valid document and in any event it can be used as a defence under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. If however the lease is Invalid then 'Jaiswal' gets rayalty interest under section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 by payment and acceptance of rent. 6. There is no transfer of interest by Jaiswal in favour of the partnership. Transfer to partnership is not a transfer or assignment of lease and, therefore, Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules is not applicable. 7. The instant application involves disputed question of title which the Court should not decide in a summary manner in this application. 8. Interim Order granted in this application is in conflict of the Supreme Court's order dated August 13, 1979. 7. The instant application involves disputed question of title which the Court should not decide in a summary manner in this application. 8. Interim Order granted in this application is in conflict of the Supreme Court's order dated August 13, 1979. By the said order liberty is given to the State of Bihar to file a suit for enforcing its right, if any, after obtaining leave of the High Court. Therefore, in view of the said order the State of Bihar is not entitled to make this application. 17. In support of the above submissions Mr. Sen has placed reliance on the cases of (1) The Bihar Mines Ltd. v. The Union of India A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 887; (2) Mt. Ugni & Others v. Chowa Mahato & Others, A.I.R. 1968 Patna 302; (3) Raja Anand Brahma Shah v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 1967 (1) S.C.R. 374; (4) Commr. of Income-Tax Patna v. K.C.S. Reddy 38 I.T.R. 560; (5) Prabhat Mills Stores Co. Ltd. v. Cammr. of Income-Tax, Calcutta 59 I.T.R. 197 and (6) Bajranglal Khemka v. Sm. Shiela Devi, 74 C.W.N. 444. 18. The main question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the said Colliery is affected by sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. 19. There is no definition of 'coal' and 'coking coal' in the Emergency Act of 1971 and The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. But under the provisions of the said Acts, which I have mentioned earlier, expressions 'coal' and 'coking coal' will have the same meaning as these contained in the Coal Mine. (Conservation, Safety and Development) Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 1952 Act'). According to Section 3(c) of the 1952 Act 'coal' includes 'coke in all its forms' and 'coking coal' means 'such type of coal from which on carbonisation coke suitable, in the opinion of the Coal Board, for being used in metallurgical industries, particularly in iron and lied industries, can be prepared'. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. A.K. Sen that the definition of 'coal' and 'coking coal' in 1952 Act is for the purpose of that Act only. Therefore, it appears that coal includes coke and further coal again may be coking coal or non-coking coal as the case may be, Coal is the genus of which coking coal is a specie. A.K. Sen that the definition of 'coal' and 'coking coal' in 1952 Act is for the purpose of that Act only. Therefore, it appears that coal includes coke and further coal again may be coking coal or non-coking coal as the case may be, Coal is the genus of which coking coal is a specie. Only a particular type of coal which according to the opinion of the Coal Board is suitable for being used for a particular purpose as mentioned in section 3(d) of 1952 Act is coking coal. Therefore, is order to ascertain whether a particular mine is a coking coal mine or non-coking coal mine it will have to be seen whether it contains atleast one seam of coking coal as defined in Section 3(d) of 1952 Act. In the instant case it has not been established whether in the said colliery there is atleast one learn of coal which in the opinion of the Coal Board is coking coal. Respondent Jaiswal has relied on the Journal published by Geological Survey of India in Indian Minerals, (July-September, 1967) Vol. 21, No. 3 as also the official Topographical Sheets i.e. Geological Map of Karanpur Coal Field printed and published by the Geological Survey of India indicating the coal bearing areas in relation to Coal field referred to in the Indian Minerals Journal and the testing report of M/s. Meta Coke Private Ltd. (See affidavit-in-opposition para 18) in support of his contention that the said colliery contains coking coal. But the above cannot be taken as conclusive proof of the fact that the said colliery is a coking coal mine. The above materials in the absence of any opinion of the Coal Board cannot, in my view be taken as establishing the fact that the said colliery is a coking coal mine. No prima facie proof has been adduced by the respondent Jaiswal for establishing the fact that the said colliery in question in a coking coal mine as defined in the Emergency Act of 1971 and the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. 20. I am also unable to accept the other submission of Mr. No prima facie proof has been adduced by the respondent Jaiswal for establishing the fact that the said colliery in question in a coking coal mine as defined in the Emergency Act of 1971 and the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. 20. I am also unable to accept the other submission of Mr. A.K. Sen that on and from the appointed day as mentioned in the Emergency Act of 1971 the respondent Jaiswal has become and still is continuing as a custodian of the said colliery under the Central Government and is answerable only to the Central Government. In this connection Mr. Sen has strongly relied on section 4 of the Emergency Act of 1971. Reading sections 3, 4 and 5 the scheme of the said Act appears to be this. Under section 3 the management of all coking coal mines specified in the first schedule to the Act would vest in the Central Government on and from the appointed day as defined in the said Act. If after the appointed day any other coal mine is found after an investigation by the Coal Board to contain coking coal the Board shall make a declaration to that effect and from the date of such declaration the management of such mine would be deemed to vest in the Central Government and be included in the first schedule and the provisions of the Act would apply from the date of the declaration. Therefore, the management of only these coking coal mines which are initially included in the first schedule or which subsequent to a declaration by the Coal Board would be deemed to be included in the first schedule are effected by the Emergency Act of 1971. Section 5 empowers the Central Government to appoint a person as Custodian for the purpose of taking over the management of the coking coal mines and the person so appointed shall carryon the management of such mine for and on behalf of the Central Government. The power to appoint a custodian, it appears, is only in respect of the coking coal mine the management of which in or is deemed to be vested in the Central Government under Section 3. The Custodian is to be appointed as soon as it is convenient administratively so to do. The power to appoint a custodian, it appears, is only in respect of the coking coal mine the management of which in or is deemed to be vested in the Central Government under Section 3. The Custodian is to be appointed as soon as it is convenient administratively so to do. There may be a time leg in between the date of the vesting of the management of a mine in the Central Government and the date of appointment of a Custodian. Section 4 provides as to what would happen to the management of the vested mines during this period. According to section 4 pending the appointment of a custodian under section 5 the person in charge of the management of a mine immediately before the appointed day shall on and from the appointed day be in charge of the management of the mine for and on behalf of the Central Government. Therefore, the application of section 4 is limited in two ways i.e., in respect of those coking coal mine the management of which has vested in the Central Government under section 3 and during the period between the date of vesting of the management and the date of appointment of a Custodian by the Central Government. 21. The next point, which is the main controversy in this application, is whether sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 applies to the said colliery. It appears that in the field of nationalisation of coal mines two sets of Acts have been passed. One dealing with coking coal mines and the other with non-coking coal mines. The Coking coal Mmes (Emergency Provision) Act 1971 and Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1972 deal with coking coal mines. The Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973 and the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 deal with non-coking coal mines. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 was inserted by Coal Mines Nationalisation (Amendment) Act 1976. The question is whether Sub-section (3) affects the Colliery in question. The Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973 and the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 deal with non-coking coal mines. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 was inserted by Coal Mines Nationalisation (Amendment) Act 1976. The question is whether Sub-section (3) affects the Colliery in question. The main effect of sub-section 3 (which has been extracted earlier) is that excepting Central Government or a Government Company or a Corporation owned by the Central Government or a person to whom a sub-lease has been granted by the said authority or concern person in India shall carryon coal mining operation in any form and excepting the leases granted in favour of the above authority or concern before the commencement of the Act or any sub-lease granted by the said authority or concern all other mining leases and sub-lease in force immediately before such commencement shall so far as they relate to winning or mining of coal stand terminated in the two Acts of 1973 coal mine is defined to mean a mine in which there exists one or more seams of coal. If, however, in any mine there exists at lease one learn of coking coal then it becomes a coking coal mine according to the definition of that term in 1971 and 1972 Acts. But although for the purpose of 1971 and 1972 Acts such a mine would be a coking coal mine yet it does not cease to be a coal mine. Coal and coal mine are genus of which the species are coking coal and non-coking coal and coking coal mine and non-coking coal mine respectively. If a particular coal mine becomes a coking coal mine as defined in 1971 and 1972 Acts then the management and the right, title and interest of the owner in relation to such mine would vest in the Central Government under the provisions of the Emergency Act of 1971 and the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 and not under the provisions of the two Acts of 1973 dealing with non-coking coal mines. But where a coal mine contains coal but there is no opinions of the Coal Board to the effect that such coal is coking coal then such mine cannot be a 'coking coal mine' as defined in the said Acts of 1971 and 1972. But where a coal mine contains coal but there is no opinions of the Coal Board to the effect that such coal is coking coal then such mine cannot be a 'coking coal mine' as defined in the said Acts of 1971 and 1972. Such a mine however would remain to be a coal mine and would be affected by the two Acts of 1973. If however any learn of coal in a coal mine is not coking coal according to the definition of that expression in 1971 and 1972 Acts the it does not become a coking coal mine but remains to be a coal mine and the provisions of 1971 or 1972 Act cannot be applied, until it becomes a coking coal mine according to 1971 or 1972 Act. Therefore, in view of the very wide ambit of the language used in sub-section (3) of Section 3 as stated earlier all coal mining operations, in India, in any form excepting by person or concern or authority mentioned in the said sub-section are prohibited. As coal mine includes both coking coal mine and non-coking coal mine 'coal mining operation in any form' will include operation of both types of coal mines. The language used is not the operation of coal mine or coking coal mine. Reading the two sets of Acts the scheme appears to be this. All coal mines will be affected by the two Acts of 1973 if initially or subsequently they are included in the schedule. If a coal mine is a 'coking coal mine' as defined in the set of Acts dealing with coking coal mines then it can be affected only by proceeding under 1971 or 1972 Act. There may be coking coal mines and non-coking coal mines which have not been brought within the schedule of either of the two sets of Acts. To prohibit the operation of those mines by a private person or concern sub-section (3) was inserted in Section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 by section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976. To prohibit the operation of those mines by a private person or concern sub-section (3) was inserted in Section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 by section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1976. Therefore, in my view after the introduction of sub-section (3) in section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 by the amending Act of 1976 excepting the Central Government or the Company or Corporation or person all mentioned in the said sub-section no other person or concern is entitled or permitted to carryon in India coal mining operation in any form and also excepting certain excepted cases as mentioned in sub-section (3) all leases or sub-leases in force on the date of the commencement of sub-sec (3) would stated terminated. 22. Next point is whether the Hukumnama not being registered there is any valid lease of coal mining right in favour of Jaiswal. This question, in my view involves disputed question of title to property. In the Bench decision in the case of Bajranglal Khemka v. Sm. Sheila Devi, 74 C.W.N. 444 it is observed that- "It has always been and still is the settled law that disputed questions of title to property cannot be adjudicated upon in an application for examination of the petitioner pro interasse suo, particularly when evidence on affidavit and documentary evidence is not enough to enable the Court to adjudicate upon the questions raised by the parties." Respectfully following the above decision I am of the opinion that the above disputed question of title should not be decided in this application in pro interasse suo. 23. The next question is whether in view of the Supreme Court's order dated August 13, 1979 this application is maintainable. The portion of the said order relied upon on behalf of Jaiswal (which is underlined in the order set out earlier) is the observation of the Supreme Court to the effect that it would be open to State of Bihar to adopt whatever proceeding that are available to it for the purpose of protecting its right, if any, in respect of the Colliery in question against the Receiver after obtaining leave of the High Court. This does not mean that the State of Bihar is given liberty to file a suit only and is debarred from taking any other proceedings which it is entitled to take to enforce its right under the law. Further, for any suit or other proceedings the State of Bihar is directed to obtain leave of the High Court, if that is necessary. Therefore, this application in my view cannot be said to be not maintainable. 24. In the above view of the matter it is not necessary to express any view on the other points. The underground mineral deposits belong to the State of Bihar and upon termination of the mining lease the Colliery in question vest in the State but subject to the right conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 upon the Central Government or concerns mentioned therein to obtain a prospecting or mining lease in respect of the land covered by the mining lease which stands so terminated. Therefore, the State of Bihar being interested in the mine in question but subject to the obligation to grant a lease as mentioned in sub-section (4) is entitled to bring the fact to the notice of the Court that the operation of the said colliery by the Receiver in the instant case would amount to violation of the existing laws of the land. Therefore, in my view, the Receiver should not be permitted to operate or work the said Colliery. But I am not inclined to direct the discharge of the Receiver or the making over of the said Colliery to the State of Bihar in view of the above mentioned observations of the Supreme Court in its order date August 13, 1979. Moreover a disputed question of title to the property is involved in the instant application as stated hereinbefore. The interim order already granted in terms or prayer (a) of the petition is, therefore, confirmed. Leave is granted to the State of Bihar to take appropriate proceedings for the discharge of the Receiver and for recovery of the possession of the said Colliery. There will however be no order as to cost.