{"id":234258,"date":"1954-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1954-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954"},"modified":"2016-03-17T05:49:19","modified_gmt":"2016-03-17T00:19:19","slug":"mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954","title":{"rendered":"Mineral Development Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 February, 1954"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Mineral Development Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 February, 1954<\/div>\n
Author: Ramaswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Ramaswami, Choudhary<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 Ramaswami, J.<\/p>\n
1. In this case the plaintiff is Mineral Development, Limited, which is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Calcutta. On 29-12-1947 the Raja of Ramgarh executed a registered lease in favour of the plaintiff in regard to 3026 villages comprised within the Ramgarh Estate on a Salami of Rs. 16,00,000. The term of the lease was for 999 years and there was an express provision in the lease granting power to the lessee to grant sub-leases.\n<\/p>\n
On 8-9-1948 the Dominion Legislature enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948. The Act received the Governor General’s assent on 8-9-1948 but it came into force on 25-12-1949. Rules were framed by the Central Government under Section 5 of the Act for regulating the grant of mining leases. Among other matters the rules provided for the persons by whom applications for mining leases may be made, the authority by which mining leases may be granted and the maximum and minimum area and the period for which a mining lease may be granted. There was also provision in the rules for fixing the royalties and the minimum rent payable by the lessee. One of the rules prohibited the taking of premium from the lessee in respect of the mining lease. These rules came into force in the Province of Bihar on 25-10-1949.\n<\/p>\n
By a notification under Section 92 (1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, the Act and the rules were extended to Chotanagpore by a notification dated 16-1-1950. The plaintiff company granted a sub-lease to Bhagat Singh in respect of 40 acres in Mouza Ratansota and Mouza Barharia for a period of 15 years on 1-2-1950. But the Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh challenged the legality of the sub-lease and made a criminal complaint against two of the directors of the plaintiff company under Rule 51 of the Mineral Concession Rules. Rule 51 provided that if a private person grants a mining lease in contravention of any of the provisions or accepts any premium he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000 or both.\n<\/p>\n
The plaintiff company therefore brought the present suit for a declaration (1) that the definition of the expression ‘mining’ as provided in the rules did not include the case of sub-leases, and (2) that in any event the rules were unconstitutional since the fundamental right of the plaintiff under Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution was violated, The Union of India and the State of Bihar who are impleaded as defendants have contested the suit on the ground that the rules are constitutional and valid, that the Act and the rules apply not only to leases but also to the case of sub-leases. They also said that the restrictions imposed by the rules are reasonable and in the public interest and are within the permissible limits under Article 19 (5) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
2. The two issues arising in this case are therefore (1) whether the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, apply to sub-leases? and (2) whether the Act and the rules are unconstitutional and void?\n<\/p>\n
3. Mr. P.R. Das commenced his argument by saying that the lease granted by the Raja of Ramgarh in favour of the plaintiff company was dated 29-12-1947 and the Act and the rules could not retrospectively affect the rights of the parties acquired under that lease. Counsel based his argument upon Section 4 (1) of the Act which states —\n<\/p>\n
  “No mining lease shall be granted after the commencement of this Act otherwise than in accordance with the rules made under this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
 The argument of the counsel was that the Act was not retrospective either by express enactment or by necessary implication & the rights acquired by the plaintiff under the lease granted by the Raja of Ramgarh could not be prejudicially affected. Mr. Das said that as soon as the lease was executed on 29-12-1947 the lessee company acquired a vested right to grant sub-leases to whomever the company liked without any certificate of approval from the Provincial Government and to stipulate for as much Salami and as much royalty or minimum rent as the parties could agree upon. It was contended that these vested rights acquired by the plaintiff could not be prejudicially affected by the Act & rules which were promulgated on a later date.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel relied in this connection upon the authority of the decision of the Judicial Committee in — ‘Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving’, (1905) A.C. 3(59 (A)’. The question which arose in this case was whether the Commonwealth Judiciary Act, 1803, had the effect of depriving the plaintiff of the right of appeal to the King in Council in a suit pending when the Act was passed. It was held by the Judicial Committee that the right of appeal was not a mere procedural right but was a substantive right which
\nhad vested in the plaintiff at the time the suit was instituted. It was further held by the Judicial Committee that the Commonwealth Judiciary Act was not retrospective in operation and the right of the plaintiff to appeal to the King in Council was not taken away. Counsel also relied upon a recent decision of a Bench of this Court in — ‘Narayan Prasad Raj Kishore, AIR 1953 Pat 275 (B)’, which lays down the principle in similar terms.\n<\/p>\n
4. In my opinion the argument of Mr. P.R. Das proceeds upon a misconception. The question at issue in the present case is not whether Act No. 53 of 1948 and the rules made under that Act retrospectively affect the lease granted to the plaintiff company on 29-12-1947. The real question presented lor determination in this case is whether the Act and the rules prospectively affect the sub-lease granted by the company to Bhagat Singh on 1-2-1950; in other words, the question is whether the expression ‘mining lease’ occurring in the Act and the rules should be properly construed so as to cover the case of a sub-lease granted after the Act and the rules have come into force.\n<\/p>\n
5. Section 3 (d) of the Act defines ‘mining lease’ to mean a lease granted ‘for the purpose of searching for, winning, working, getting, making merchantable, carrying away or disposing of minerals or for purposes connected therewith, and includes an exploring or a prospecting licence’. The expression is also defined in Rule 3 (ii) of the Mineral Concession Rules. Rule 3 (ii) defines ‘mining lease’ to mean a lease to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away any mineral specified therein. The argument on behalf of the plaintiff is that the case of a sub-lease does not fall within the definition in Rule 3(ii) of the Rules or within Section 3(d) of the Act. In my opinion this argument is not correct. There is no difference in legal character between a lease and a sub-lease. It is true that in the case of a lease, the proprietor is the transferor and in the case of a sub-lease the lessee is the transferor. But this docs not affect the legal character of the transaction. A lease is the transfer of a right to enjoy immovable property made for a certain time and where the agreement (whether it is called a lease or a sub-lease) vests in the grantee a right of possession for a certain time, it operates as a conveyance and is a lease in the eye of law. In the present case Bhagat Singh has acquired under the sub-lease the right of possession of the mining properties from the plaintiff for a certain time and the transaction must be held to be a lease within the meaning of Rule 3(ii) of the Rules and Section 3(d) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
It should be noticed in this connection that the Transfer of Property Act does not separately refer to a sub-lease; on the contrary the provisions of Chapter 5 apply to the case of a sub-lease. Chapter 5 is entitled as “Leases of Immoveable Property”, Section 107 enacts how a lease is to be made. It cannot be doubted that this provision applies to sub-leases. Similarly Section 108 which regulates rights and liabilities of the lessor and lessee, and Section 111 which refers to determination of a lease, also apply to the case of sub-leases. In my opinion the case of a sub-lease of mining rights falls within the definition of ‘mining lease’ under Section 3 (ii) of the Mineral Concession Rules and Section 3(d) of the Act. This view is supported by a consideration of the scope and purpose of the legislation. The principle is that if two alternative constructions of a statute are possible, that construction must be adopted which would promote the object intended by the framers of the Act and the alternative construction must be rejected which would frustrate the object. That is the canon of interpretation laid down in classical terms in — ‘Heydone’s case (1584) 3 Co. Rep. 8 (C)’.\n<\/p>\n
Let us therefore examine the matter from this aspect. Act 53 of 1948 was promulgated by the Dominion Parliament in exercise of the legislative authority conferred by item 36 of the Union List which states — “Regulation of Mines for mineral development declared by the Government to be expedient in the public interest”. Section 2 of the Act also contains a declaration as to expediency of control by Central Government. Section 2 states —\n<\/p>\n
  “It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public  interest  that   the   Central   Government should take under its control the regulation of mines and oilfields and the development of minerals to the extent hereinafter provided”.\n<\/p>\n
 Section 5 makes provision  that the Central Government   may,   by   notification    in    the    official Gazette,   make  rules  for   regulating   the   grant   of mining leases or for prohibiting the grant of such leases in respect of any minerals or in any area.\n<\/p>\n
Turning to the rules, it is apparent that Chapter 4 imposes a number of restrictions with respect to grant of mining lease in respect of minerals which belong to Government. Chapter 5 imposes similar restrictions regarding grant of mineral concessions by private persons. Rule 41 imposes restrictions of important character. Rule 41 states that in every mining lease the royalty shall be fixed according to the rates specified in the first schedule. The rule also provides that the minimum rent in the contract shall be within the limits specified in the third schedule. The rule further provides that the lessee shall keep correct accounts showing the quantity and other particulars of all minerals obtained and despatched from the mine, the number of persons employed therein. Rule 41 (v) states that the lessee shall commence operations within one year from the date of execution of the lease and shall thereafter carry them on in a proper, skilful and workmanlike manner. Rules 41 (vii) and 41 (x) impose restrictions upon the lessee for insuring safety of a railway, reservoir or other public work.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 47 imposes further conditions in the case of a mining lease granted by private persons. The rule states that the area of the lease shall not exceed 4 sq. miles and that the length of the area leased shall not exceed four times its breadth. Rule 49 further prohibits the grantor of a mining lease from charging any premium in addition to the royalty and the dead rent specified in the lease. Upon an examination of these provisions, it is manifest that the object of the legislation is to control the activities of the persons who are actually working the mines of winning the minerals whether he is a lessee, assignee or a sublessee, so that there may be proper conservation and development of the mines and minerals in the national interest. The interpretation for which the plaintiff contends is against the whole scheme and purpose of the Act. If the expression ‘mining lease’ is not construed so as to include sub-leases, the provisions of the Act and the Rules would become nugatory. It would be open to a lessee to grant a sub-lease of the mineral rights without any regard to the controlling provisions as regards size of the mine, royalty, dead rent and Salami, and the policy of the Act would be wholly frustrated. It cannot therefore be supposed that the Legislature contemplated that the sub-leases should be exempted from the operation of the Act or the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
It is a sound rule of interpretation that a statute should be so construed as to prevent the mischief and to advance the remedy according to the true intent of the makers of the statute. The principle was, for example, applied by Lord Halsbury in — Eastman Photographic Co. v. Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks’, (1898) AC 571 (D), where the question was whether the word ‘Solio’ used as a trade mark, was an invented or a descriptive word. In examining this question Lord Halsbury said.\n<\/p>\n
  “Among   the things which have passed into canons of construction recorded in ‘Heydon’s case (C)’, we are to see what was the law before the Act was passed, and what was the mischief or defect for which the law had not provided, what remedy Parliament appointed and the reason or the remedy.”\n<\/p>\n
At page 575 Lord Halsbury proceeded to state-\n<\/p>\n
  “Turner L.J. in ‘Hawkins v. Cathercole’, (1855) 6 De G M & G 1 (E), and adding his own high authority to that of the Judges in — ‘Stradling v. Morgan’, (1584) 1 Plowd 199 (P), after enforcing the proposition that the intention of the Legislature must be regarded, quotes at length the judgment in that case: that the judges have collected the intention ‘sometimes by considering the cause and necessity of making the Act …. sometimes by foreign circumstances’ (thereby meaning extraneous circumstances), ‘so that they have ever been guided by the intent of the Legislature, which they have always taken according to the necessity of the matter, and according to that which is consonant to reason and good discretion.’ And he adds: We have therefore to consider not merely the words of this Act of Parliament but the intent of the Legislature, to be collected from the cause and necessity of the Act being made from a comparison of its several parts, and from foreign (meaning extraneous) circumstances so far as they can justly be considered to throw light upon the subject’.”\n<\/p>\n
6. Upon the first issue therefore I hold that the Act and the Rules apply to the case of subleases created after the Act and the Rules had come into force.\n<\/p>\n
7. The next point to be determined is whether the Act and the Rules are constitutional and valid. Mr. P.R. Das did not contest the validity of the Act but concentrated his argument upon the legality of certain provisions contained in the Mineral Concession Rules. Counsel referred in the first place to Rule 5 of Chapter 2 which states that a certificate of approval shall be granted only by a Provincial Government. Counsel also referred to Rule 45 which states that no mining lease shall be granted except to a person holding a certificate of approval from the Provincial Government. The argument on behalf of the plaintiff is that it was prevented from granting a sub-lease of mineral rights to any person of its choice and the restriction imposed by Rule 45 was unreasonable in nature. Mr. P.R. Das conceded that under Article 19(5) of the Constitution the State is authorised to enact any law imposing reasonable restriction on the exercise of fundamental right, but the argument of the counsel is that the restriction imposed under Rule 45 is unreasonable.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel referred in this connection to Rule 6 which, states–\n<\/p>\n
  “A  certificate of approval may be granted to any person who, in the opinion of the Provincial Government, is in a position to employ an efficient prospecting agency, or possesses
\nspecial knowledge of geology or mining; Provided that, if such person is a Company or firm, it shall be registered or incorporated in India.”\n<\/p>\n
The argument is that Rule 6 grants an uncontrolled power to the State Government in the matter of the grant of a certificate of approval and that no machinery has been provided for determining the question whether a certain person should be granted certificate or not.\n<\/p>\n
It was contended by Mr. P.R. Das that the subjective determination cf the State Government has been made final under the rule and the restriction imposed is not reasonable from the procedural stand point. The argument of the plaintiff was that unless the rule provided that the decision of the Government should be ultimately tested in a civil court, the restriction imposed cannot be held to be reasonable within the meaning of Article 19(5) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
In support of this proposition, counsel relied upon certain passages of the Supreme Court judgment in — ‘Raghubir Singh v. Court of Wards’, AIR<\/a> 1353 SC 373 (G). It was argued in that case that the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act read ‘ with the Ajmer Government Wards Regulation, 1888 (1 of 1888) enabled the Court of Wards in its own discretion and on its subjective determination to assume the superintendence of the property of a landlord who habitually infringed the rights of his tenants and the exercise of the discretion of the Court of Wards could not be questioned in a civil Court. It was further argued that the law enacted in Section 112 was not a reasonable restriction inasmuch as it completely negatived the right by making its enjoyment depend on the mere discretion of the executive. The argument succeeded in the Supreme Court and it was held that Section 112 was invalid and was not saved by Clause 5 of Article 19. But the ratio of that case has no application to the present case. The basis of the Supreme Court decision is that the provisions of Section 112 were penal in character and that legislation which prescribes a penalty for misconduct of a landlord could not by any stretch of reasoning be regard-ed as a restriction on a fundamental right. It was further held that Section 112 was an ingenious device to punish landlords who habitually infringed the rights of the tenant; that the section authorised the use for an ulterior and punitive purpose of the machinery of Regulation 1 of 1888 which was really enacted to make better provision for the superintendence of Government Wards in Ajmer Merwara. That is the true principle on which the Supreme Court decision is based. At page 375 Mahajan J. (as he then was) observes–\n<\/p>\n
  “It was argued that the provisions of Section 112 amount to reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution on a citizen, and these restrictions are in the interests of the general public. In our judgment, this argument also is not sound. As indicated above, the provisions of a Section 112 of Act 42 of 1950 are penal in nature and are intended by way of punishment of a landlord who habitually infringes the rights of his tenants. He is punished by being placed at the mercy of the Court of Wards and by being made subject to the stringent provisions of Regulation 1 of 1888. An enactment which prescribes a punishment or penalty for bad behaviour or for misconduct of a landlord cannot possibly be regarded as restriction on a fundamental right. Indeed, a punishment is not a restriction.”\n<\/p>\n
It should  be noticed  that the Ajmer  Tenancy end Lands Records Act prescribed no machinery for the  determination of  the question whether a landlord  is   guilty  of   habitually   infringing   the rights of his tenants, because Section  112  of the Act was   merely   of   a  declaratory  character   and   declared such a landlord as being under a disability and suffering from an infirmity. This declaration became   operative   and   effective   when   the  Court of    Wards   in    its    discretion    decides   to    assume superintendence   of   the   property    of   such   a  proprietor.    Upon   these   facts  it   was held  by   the Supreme    Court    that    the    statutory     provisions violated the   guarantee   under Article    19(1)   (f)    of the Constitution and were  not within  the  limits of reasonableness  permitted under  Article  19(5). In the present case the material provisions are different.   Rule  6   provides   that  a certificate   of   approval may be granted to any person who, in the opinion   of   the   Provincial  Government,   is   in  a position     to    employ    an    efficient    prospecting agency, or possesses special knowledge of geology or mining.    There  is  a proviso to  Rule  6 which states  that  it  the   applicant  is  an   incorporated company or a firm  it  shall   be registered or incorporated in India. Rule 7 states-\n<\/p>\n
 \"An  application  for the  grant or  removal of  a certificate   of    approval   shall   be    submitted    to the    Provincial    Government,    and   the    former shall contain the following particulars: \"\n   \n\n (a)   (i)   if  the  applicant   is   an   individual,   his name, nationality profession and residence,  and (ii)  if the applicant is a company, syndicate partnership   or   private   firm,   its   name,    nature and place of  business, place of registration  or incorporation and\n \n\n(b) A statement showing the technical qualifications and mining experience of the applicant, and his Manager, if any, and such other particulars as may be necessary to satisfy the Provincial Government of the competence of the applicant to hold the certificate.\"  \n \n\nRule 7 therefore prescribes  that   the  applicant must   furnish    sufficient   information    about   his technical   qualification   and   mining   experience   so as   to   satisfy   the   Provincial   Government   of   his competence.     Rule   52    is   also  important  in    this connection.      Rule   52    provides   that    any   person aggrieved   by   an   order   of   a   Provincial    Government   may,   within    two   months    of   the    date   of such order, apply to the  Central Government for reviewing  the same. Rule  54 states-  \n  \"Upon  receipt  of such  application,   the  Central Government   may,  if it  thinks fit,   call for the relevant   records    and  other    information    from the  Provincial  Government,  and  after considering any   explanation that   may be   offered   by the Provincial Government, cancel the order of the Provincial  Government or revise it in such manner  as the Central Government may deem just and proper.\" \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
In my opinion, these rules provide a reasonable machinery for dealing with applications for certificate or approval and for granting such certificates. It is true that Rule 6 has conferred a highly discretionary power on the Provincial Government in granting the certificate but that discretion is not an uncontrolled or untramelled discretion. If Rule 6 is read in the context of Rule 7, it is clear that before the grant of a certificate of approval the Provincial Government must apply its mind and satisfy itself that the applicant or his manager has sufficient technical qualifications and mining experience or whether the applicant is competent to employ an efficient prospecting agency. That is a condition limiting the exercise
\nof the discretionary power on the part of the Provincial Government. In my opinion the language of Rule 6 cannot therefore be interpreted in a wholly subjective sense and the power granted under Rule 6 is not an arbitrary power but a power which is subject to a condition which is capable of an objective test (see the reasoning of Lord Radcliffe on a similar question in — ‘Nakhuda Ali v. Jayratne’, 1951 AC 66 at p. 76 (H). Further, Rule 52 grants a right of appeal if an applicant is dissatisfied with the order of the Provincial Government. The appeal lies to Central Government from the order of the Provincial Government and Rule 54 prescribes what is the procedure to be adopted by the Central Government in hearing such an appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. P.R. Das referred to Rule 55 which makes the  order   of   the   Central   Government   under   Rule 54 final.   The contention of the counsel is that the  restrictions  imposed  by   the   rules   should   be held to be unreasonable since there is no provision   for   ultimate  decision of  the  matter  by  a civil court. I am unable to accept this argument. A  decisive  answer  to the  argument  is  the  decision of the Supreme Court in — ‘Dr. N. B. Khare v. State of Delhi’, AIR<\/a> 1950 SC 211  (I)  in which the  scope  of  the  guarantee  under  Article   19(1)(d) end 19(5)  was fully considered. In that case, the subjective   satisfaction   of   the   State   Government regarding the necessity for externment of a person,   coupled    with   a   reference    of   the   matter to    the    Advisory    Board,    whose    opinion    had, however,    no    binding     force,    was     considered by  the Supreme  Court to be  a ‘reasonable’   procedure  for  restricting  the  right  conferred  under Article   19(1)(d).    The  truth   of   the  matter   is  that there is no uniform standard, no uniform pattern of reasonableness which can be laid down in the abstract.     The   test   of   reasonableness   prescribed under Article   19(5)   must depend   upon   the  scope, the subject-matter  and the  context of each individual statute  which  is  impugned.    That  is  the principle      enunciated     by     the     learned     Chief Justice of India in — ‘State of Madras v. V. G. Row’, AIR<\/a> 1952   SC  196 at p. 200   (J);\n<\/p>\n
  “It is important in this context to bear in mind that  the  test  of   reasonableness,  wherever  prescribed,  should   be  applied   to  each   individual statute   impugned,   and    no   abstract  standard, or   general    pattern   of    reasonableness   can    be laid   down   as   applicable   to   all   cases.    The nature of   the right   alleged to  have   been infringed,  the  underlying  purpose  of  the  restrictions imposed,   the extent   and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions   at    the   time,   should    all   enter   into    the judicial   verdict.     In   evaluating   such   elusive factors   and forming   their own   conception   of what  is reasonable,  in all the circumstances  of a given   case,  it   is inevitable   that the   social philosophy   and   the   scale   of   values   of   the judges participating in the decision should play an important part, and the limit to their interference    with    legislative    judgment     in    such cases can only be dictated by their sense of responsibility  and  self-restraint   and  the  sobering reflection   that  the  Constitution   is  meant  not only  for  people  of  their  way  of  thinking  but for all,   and that   the majority   of the   elected representatives   of  the  people   have,   in  authorising the imposition of the restrictions,  considered them to be reasonable.”\n<\/p>\n
8. Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff also referred to Rule 47 (i), Rule 49 and Rule 41 read with Rule 47 and put forward the argument that these provisions unreasonably place restriction on fundamental right. Rule 47(i) states that the period of the mining lease granted by a private person shall not exceed 20 years. Rule 47(ii) states that the area shall not exceed 4 sq. miles. Rule 47 (iv) states that the length of the leased area shall not exceed four times its breadth. Rule 49 prohibits the grantor of a mining lease from charging any premium in addition to the surface rent, dead rent or royalty specified in the lease. Rule 47(v) read with Rule 41 imposes a limit on the royalty and the minimum rent which may be fixed between the parties in a mining lease. Rule 41(1)(i) states that the lessee shall pay royalty on minerals at the rates specified in the first schedule and Rule 41 (in) provides that the lessee shall pay yearly dead rent within the limit specified in the third schedule to the rules.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff did not put forward  any argument that  the  restrictions  imposed  by   these  rules   are   unreasonable   from   the quantitative point of view. No material has been adduced on behalf   of the plaintiff   to show that the  quantum   of the restriction   is  unreasonable-Counsel for the plaintiff attacked the validity of these rules  only  from  the  qualitative  standpoint. But I   cannot  accept   this   argument  as   correct. The object of the Act and the Rules is the conservation of   important   minerals   and  the   efficient and economic working of mines in the national interest.   The restrictions are   imposed for   controlling ; the price of basic minerals needed for industrial development.     In   this   connection   reference   may be made   to a  passage at  page 383 of the   First Five  Year  Plan–\n<\/p>\n
  “Though  a mining industry has been in existence in this country for about half a century, only a comparatively small number of mines are being worked in an efficient manner under proper technical guidance. Many units are too small in size or too poorly financed for such working. Lack of a conservation policy is also responsible for the present condition of the industry. There is large wastage, especially in minerals of marginal grades, as these are either abandoned in the mines or thrown away on the mine dumps. Ways and means must be devised for the mining and recovery of these low grade materials. Ores which it is not possible to work economically under normal conditions should be left in the mines so that they may be extracted at a later date without serious loss. The mine dumps all over the country have to be carefully examined and sampled so that their valuable mineral content may be recovered, by methods of beneficiation now available. It should be a rule that selective mining of high grade minerals alone should not be undertaken and that all grades should be worked and, wherever possible, blended to produce marketable grades.”\n<\/p>\n
It is in the light of these facts that we must examine the scope and validity of the restrictions. So examined, it is clear that the restrictions imposed under the Rules are not unreasonable. It is an accepted doctrine of constitutional law that every presumption must be made in favour of the constitutional validity of a statute and the onus would therefore be on the plaintiff to establish facts showing that the restrictions are unreasonable. No such facts have been alleged or proved on behalf of the plaintiff in this case. On the contrary, the defendants have provided material to suggest that the restrictions are necessary for the conservation of basic minerals and the efficient working of mines in the national interest. It is manifest that the restrictions are not unreasonable even from the qualitative aspect and
\nthe argument addressed on behalf of  the plaintiff on this point must fail.\n<\/p>\n
9. For the reasons stated I think that both the issues must be decided against the plaintiff and the suit must be dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
 Choudhary, J.\n<\/p>\n
10.      I agree.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Mineral Development Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 February, 1954 Author: Ramaswami Bench: Ramaswami, Choudhary JUDGMENT Ramaswami, J. 1. In this case the plaintiff is Mineral Development, Limited, which is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Calcutta. On […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-234258","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMineral Development Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 February, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mineral Development Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 February, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1954-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-17T00:19:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mineral Development Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 February, 1954\",\"datePublished\":\"1954-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-17T00:19:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954\"},\"wordCount\":4781,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954\",\"name\":\"Mineral Development Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 February, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1954-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-17T00:19:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mineral Development Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 February, 1954\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mineral Development Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 February, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mineral Development Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 February, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1954-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-17T00:19:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mineral Development Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 February, 1954","datePublished":"1954-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-17T00:19:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954"},"wordCount":4781,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954","name":"Mineral Development Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 February, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1954-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-17T00:19:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-16-february-1954#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mineral Development Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 16 February, 1954"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234258","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=234258"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234258\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234258"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234258"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234258"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}