Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 832 (JHR)

D. L. F. POWER LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA

2002-08-06

M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
Judgment : M. Y. EQBAL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order as contained in letter dated 13-7-99 issued under the signature of respondent No. 2, Director General of Mines Safety, Dhanbad whereby the petitioner has been intimated that the power plant installed by it for the supply of electricity to the mines of Central Coalfield Limited and Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short CCL and BCCL), does not come under the definition of mine and further for a declaration that the power plant installed by the petitioner for supply of electricity exclusively to the mines belonging to the Govt. companies comes within the definition of the term name. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, M/s. DLF power Ltd. entered into an agreement with Coal India Limited for installation of a power plant on the land leased to them by M/s. CCL and BCCL being the subsidiaries of C. I. L. Pursuant to that agreement the petitioner constructed a power plant (safety power station) for supplying electrical power exclusively to the mines of CCL and BCCL. The petitioner, thereafter, sent a letter dated 4-1-99 to the Chief Labour Commissioner, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India intimating him that his power station will come within the definition of mine. On receipt of the aforesaid letter the Regional Labour Commissioner sought clarification from the Director General of Mines Safety (in short DGMS) vide letter dated 11-5-98 as to whether the power plant established in the mining area of M/s. BCCL and CCL are covered under the Mines Act, 1952. In reply to that letter the DGMS vide his letter dated 13-7-99 informed the Regional Labour Commissioner that the power station established by the petitioner cannot be considered as mine as they are not covered under the Mines Act, 1952. ( 3 ) MR. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and contrary to the definition of mineas defined in Section 2 (j) of the Mines Act, 1952. According to the learned counsel admittedly the power station was established within the mining area belonging to CCL and BCCL and, therefore, according to the definition of mine the said power station shall also be included within the definition of mine. ( 4 ) MR. According to the learned counsel admittedly the power station was established within the mining area belonging to CCL and BCCL and, therefore, according to the definition of mine the said power station shall also be included within the definition of mine. ( 4 ) MR. M. M. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Government, on the other hand, submitted that the question whether the power station established by the petitioner comes within the definition of minesis to be decided only by the Central Govt. in terms of the provisions of Section 82 of the said Act. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that this Court cannot declare that the said power station is a mine. ( 5 ) SECTION 2 (j) of the Mines Act, 1952 defines the term minewhich reads as under :" minemeans any excavation where any operation for the purposes of searching for or obtaining minerals has been or is being carried on and includes:- xx xx xx xx xx (viii) all workshops and stores situated within the precincts of a mine and under the same management and used primarily for the purpose connected with that mine or a number of mines under the same management. (ix) all power stations, transformers sub-stations, convertor stations, rectifier stations and accumulator, storage stations for supplying electricity solely or mainly for the purpose of working the mine or a number of mines under the same management. (x) any premises for the time being used for depositing sand or other material for use in a mine or for depositing refuse from a 0 mine or in which any operations in connection with such sand, refuse or other material is being carried on, being premises exclusively occupied by the power of the mine. (xi) any premises in or adjacent to and belonging to a mine on which any process ancillary to the getting dressing or preparation for sale of minerals or of coke is being carried on. " ( 6 ) FROM perusal of the aforesaid provisions it appears that the expanded definition of the term mineincludes all power stations, transformers, sub-stations, convertor stations, rectifier stations and accumulator etc. solely and mainly for supplying electricity for the purposes of working the mine or a number of mines under the same management. ( 7 ) THE impugned letter dated 13-7-99 issued by the DGMS is worth to be reproduced hereinbelow:"bharat Sarkar/govt. solely and mainly for supplying electricity for the purposes of working the mine or a number of mines under the same management. ( 7 ) THE impugned letter dated 13-7-99 issued by the DGMS is worth to be reproduced hereinbelow:"bharat Sarkar/govt. of India shram Mantralaya/ministry of Labour khan Suraksha Mahanideshaya directorate-General of Mines Safety no. 17 (42) 99-Civil/3660 dhanbad, dated the 13/07/1999 from the Director-General of Mines Safety dhanbad. To: the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) dhanbad *dr. R. S. Tiwari by name. Sub: Clarification regarding establishment of D. L. F. Industries Ltd. working at Rajrappa Project and Giddi Washery of M/s. C. C. L. and Madhuband Washery of M/s. B. C. C. L. Sir, please refer to your letter No. RLC-PA/98 dated 5/ 10/05/1998 on the subject. The matter has been considered carefully in this Directorate. The provisions of Section 2 (j) (IX) of the Mines Act, 1952 regarding Power Station cannot be considered in isolation. It has to be considered along with the definition of minein Section 2 (j) of Mines Act, 1952 which is as follows:- "mines means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining mineral has been or is being carried on. "thus exclusively power stations can be considered as part of the Mines and not the mineby itself. In view of the above establishment of D. L. F. Industries Ltd. REFERRED TO in your letter cannot be considered as mineand are not covered under the Mines Act, 1952. ( 8 ) FROM reading of the aforesaid letter it appears that DGMS has accepted that the power station of the petitioner can be considered as part of mine and not mine. The word part of minehas not been defined anywhere in the Mines Act, 1952. In the definition of the term mine it has been clearly mentioned that all power stations establishedin the precincts of the mine, is a mine. It is not the case of the respondents that by virtue of agreement the CIL has leased out the land beyond the mining area for the purpose of establishment of power station. It has been categorically stated in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ application that the power station is situated within the premises of the mines of the collieries. This factual aspect has not been disputed by the respondent. It has been categorically stated in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ application that the power station is situated within the premises of the mines of the collieries. This factual aspect has not been disputed by the respondent. Prima facie therefore it appears that the DGMS is not correct in law in holding in its clarification letter that the power station of the petitioner cannot be a mine rather it may be considered as a part of mine. In my opinion, therefore, the clarification given by the DGMS in the impugned letter is against the definition of the term mine as contained in Section 2 (j) of the said Act and it is also not in the teeth of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1997 (1) SCC 177 . The impugned letter of clarification therefore cannot be sustained in law. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, if the respondents dispute the installation or construction of the power station beyond the precincts of mine then liberty is given to the respondents to get the matter decided by the Central Government in terms of Section 82 of the said Act. ( 10 ) HAVING regard to the facts of the case and the law discussed hereinabove, this writ application is allowed and the impugned letter of clarification dated 13-7-1999 as contained in Annexure 5 is quashed. Application allowed. --- *** --- .