{"id":64571,"date":"1959-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1959-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959"},"modified":"2018-08-07T21:34:35","modified_gmt":"2018-08-07T16:04:35","slug":"mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959","title":{"rendered":"Mineral Development Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And Another on 15 December, 1959"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mineral Development Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And Another on 15 December, 1959<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 468, \t\t 1960 SCR (2) 909<\/div>\n
Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Gupta, K.C. Das, Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMINERAL DEVELOPMENT LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/12\/1959\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1960 AIR  468\t\t  1960 SCR  (2) 909\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1961 SC 705\t (19)\n RF\t    1967 SC 829\t (6)\n F\t    1981 SC 873\t (24)\n RF\t    1988 SC1099\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\nFundamental  Rights-Restriction\t by  State imposed  by\tlaw-\nReasonableness-Objective  test-Duty of\tCourt-Constitutional\nvalidity-Bihar Mica Act, 1947, s. 2.5(1)(C)-Constitution  of\nIndia, Arts. 19(1)(f), (g) and 19(5) & (6).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  Secretary\tof the Government of Bihar  in\tthe  Revenue\nDepartment  issued  a notice to the petitioner\tcompany\t who\nwere the lessees of mining lease, charging it with violation\nof  ss.\t 10,  12 and 14 Of the Bihar  Mica  Act,  1947,\t and\ncalling upon it to show cause why action should not be taken\nto  cancel its licence which was being issued from  year  to\nyear for mining Mica.  The company asked for particulars  of\nthe alleged violation of the provisions of the Act from\t the\nGovernment which was furnished.\t The company sent a  written\nrepresentation\tto the Government denying  the\tallegations.\nAfter  two years of the said representation, the  Government\nissued a notification cancelling the\n78\n610\npetitioner  company's  licence under the  provisions  of  S.\n25(1)(c) Of the Act.\nThe  company  moved  the  Supreme Court\t under\tArt.  32  Of\nthe  Constitution for the issue of a writ of  certiorari  to\nquash the      said   order  of\t the  Government  of   Bihar\ncancelling the licence and for the issue of writ of mandamus\ndirecting them to forbear     from giving effect to the said\norder  of  cancellation,  on  ground  inter  alia  that\t the\nGovernment acted illegally and with mala fides and infringed\nthe  fundamental rights of the petitioner under Art.  19(1),\nsub-cls.  (f)  and  (g) of the\tConstitution  and  that\t the\nprovision  of  S.  25(1)(c) of the  Bihar  Mica\t Act,  1947,\noperate\t as an unreasonable restriction on the\tsaid  right,\nand   even  if\tthe  said  section  did\t not  infringe\t its\nfundamental   rights,  the  order  of  the   Government\t  in\ncancelling  the\t lease\twithout affording  it  a  reasonable\nopportunity  to show cause within the meaning of the  second\nproviso to that section, infringed its fundamental rights.\nHeld,  that the provisions of S. 25(1)(c) of the Bihar\tMica\nAct,  does  not impose an unreasonable\trestriction  on\t the\nfundamental  rights  under  Art.  19(1)(f)  &  (g)  of\t the\nConstitution.\nThe restrictions which a State is authorised to impose under\ncls.  (5)  &  (6) of Art. 19 of\t the  Constitution,  in\t the\ninterest  of the general public over the fundamental  rights\nof a citizen under sub-cls. (f) & (g) of clause (1) of\tArt.\n19  must  be reasonable and must not depend  upon  the\tmere\nuncontrolled discretion of the executive.\nIt is the duty of this Court to decide having regard to\t the\nconcept\t and principle of reasonableness which is  correctly\nlaid  down  in The State of Madras v. V. G. Row,<\/a>  whether  a\nparticular  Statute  satisfied\tthe  objective\ttest  of   \"\nreasonableness.\t \"\nThe  statutory conditions of the Bihar Mica Act, subject  to\nwhich  the licence is given are, obviously,  reasonable\t and\nnecessary  for regulating the mining industry- The power  to\ncancel\tthe  licence which is conferred\t on  the  Government\nunder S. 25 Of the said Act is only to achieve the object of\nthe Act, i.e., to enforce provisions which have been enacted\nin the interest of the public, and that power is exercisable\non  the basis of objective tests and in accordance with\t the\nprinciples of natural justice.\nThe general proposition that whenever discretionary power is\nconferred  on a State Government or the Union Government  by\nlaw, the said law must- necessarily operate as a  reasonable\nrestriction on a fundamental right, negatives the concept of\nfundamental  rights for the simple reason  that\t fundamental\nrights are guaranteed against State action.  Therefore,\t the\nconferment  of such a power on the State Government and\t not\nupon a subordinate officer is only one of the considerations\nthat  may enter into the judicial verdict on  reasonableness\nof a particular law and the reasonableness of that law falls\nto  be\tdecided\t only  on  the\tcumulative  effect  of\t the\ncircumstances under which such power is conferred.\n\t\t     611\nThe concept of \" reasonable opportunity \" is an elastic\t one\nand is not susceptible of easy and precise definition.\tWhat\nis  reasonable\topportunity under one set  of  circumstances\nneed not be reasonable under different circumstances.  It is\nthe  duty  of the Court to ascertain in\t each  case,  having\nregard\tto  the\t overall picture before it,  to\t come  to  a\nconclusion  whether  reasonable opportunity is\tgiven  to  a\nperson to \" show cause.\t \"\nTribunals  or  authorities  who are  entrusted\twith  quasi-\njudicial  functions  are  as  much  bound  by  the  relevant\nprinciples  governing the \" doctrine of bias \" as any  other\njudicial tribunal.\nIn  the instant case the Revenue Minister had personal\tbias\nwithin\tthe meaning of the decisions and he should not\thave\ntaken part in either initiating the enquiry or in cancelling\nthe licence.  Neither the necessary conditions to enable the\nGovernment  to take action under S. 25(1)(c) Of the Act\t has\nbeen  established  nor\tthe State  Government  has  afforded\nreasonable opportunity to the petitioner within the  meaning\nof the second proviso to S. 25(1) Of the Act.\nState of Madras v. V. G. Row,<\/a> [1952] S.C.R. 597, followed.\nThakur\tRaghubir  Singh\t v. Court of  Wards,  Ajmer,<\/a>  [1953]\nS.C.R. 1049, held inapplicable.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION:\t Petition No. 159  of  1956.
\nPetition   under  Art. 32 of the Constitution of  India\t for
\nenforcement of Fundamental Rights.\n<\/p>\n
N.   C. Chatterjee and D. N. Mukherjee, for the petitioners.
\nMahabir\t Prasad,  Advocate-General for the State  of  Bihar,
\nBajrang Sahai and R. C. Prasad, for the respondents.
\n1959.  December 15.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nSUBBA RAO J.-This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution
\nis  filed  by the Mineral Development  Limited\tagainst\t the
\nState  of  Bihar  and another for the issue  of\t a  writ  of
\ncertiorari  to\tquash the order of the Government  of  Bihar
\ndated September 7, 1955, cancelling the petitioner’s licence
\nand  for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing  them  to
\nforbear\t  from\t giving\t effect\t to  the   said\t  order\t  of
\ncancellation.\n<\/p>\n
One Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh (hereinafter  called
\nthe  proprietor) was the proprietor of Ramgarh and  Serampur
\nestates in the district of
\n612<\/span>
\nHazaribagh in the State of Bihar.  On December 29,1947,\t the
\nsaid\tproprietor    executed\t  a    mining\t lease\t  in
\nfavour of the Mineral Development Limited (herein-     after
\ncalled the Company) for all minerals in respect\t  of   3,026
\nvillages for a period of 999 years.  On or about January  3,
\n1951,  the  Deputy  Commissioner,  Hazaribagh,\tgranted\t the
\nCompany a licence bearing No. H.L.\t261-H  in form ‘  B’
\nunder  s. 6 of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947 (hereinafter  called
\nthe Act) for mining mica.  The licence was renewed from year
\nto  year  by  the relevant authority and  the  last  of\t the
\nrenewals expired on December 31, 1954.\tThe Secretary to the
\nGovernment  of\tBihar  in the Revenue  Department  issued  a
\nnotice dated March 7, 1953, to the Company charging it\twith
\nviolations of ss. 10, 12 and 14 of the Act and calling\tupon
\nit  to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of the\tsaid
\nnotice why action should not be taken to cancel the  licence
\nissued in favour of the Company.  By letter dated March\t 20,
\n1953, the Company requested the Secretary to the Government,
\nRevenue\t Department,  Bihar,  to furnish  the  Company\twith
\nparticulars  of the alleged violations of the provisions  of
\nthe  Act.   After  a  reminder was  sent,  the\tCompany\t was
\nfurnished  by  the Government with the\tparticulars  by\t its
\nletter\tdated  May 1, 1953.  On or about May 17,  1953,\t the
\nCompany\t sent  a written representation\t to  the  Government
\ndenying\t the allegations made against it and explaining\t how
\nthe Company complied with the provisions of the Act.   After
\nthis  letter, no further correspondence passed\tbetween\t the
\nGovernment and the Company.  But on September 7, 1955, i.e.,
\ntwo  years  after the said  representation,  the  Government
\nissued\ta notification cancelling the Company’s licence\t No.
\n261-H of 1951.\tThe result of this notification was that the
\nCompany was prevented from carrying on the mining operations
\nin large tracts of land it had taken on lease from the\tsaid
\nproprietor.’
\nThe Company in its petition has stated that it had  invested
\na large sum of about Rs. 16 lakhs to obtain the mining lease
\nand  spent a considerable sum in prospecting and  developing
\nthe  mines, that by the arbitrary act of the  Government  it
\ncould not work the
\n\t\t\t    613<\/span>
\nmines, that a large number of labourers had been thrown\t out
\nof  employment\tand that in the result it was being  put  to
\nheavy  loss.   It  has filed the present  petition  for\t the
\nreliefs\t mentioned  already for the reasons,  among  others,
\nthat the Government acted illegally and with mala fldes\t and
\ninfringed  the\tfundamental rights of the  petitioner  under
\nArt.  19(1), sub cls. (f) and (g) of the Constitution.\t The
\nfirst  respondent to the petition is the State of Bihar\t and
\nthe  second  respondent is the Additional Secretary  to\t the
\nGovernment of Bihar in the Revenue Department.\tThey filed a
\ncounter denying the allegations made against the  Government
\nand  particularly  stated that they had acted  within  their
\nrights\tand cancelled the licence in strict compliance\twith
\nthe provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The  arguments\tof Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel  for\t the
\npetitioner,  may be broadly formulated under  the  following
\nfour heads: (i) The Bihar Mica Act, 1947, as amended by\t the
\nBihar Mica (Amendment) Act, 1949, is ultra vires for want of
\nconstitutional\tcompetence; (ii) the provisions of -the\t Act
\nare  repugnant\tto the provisions of the Central Act  53  of
\n1948,  and, therefore, to the extent of such repugnancy\t the
\nformer\tAct should yield to the latter Act, with the  result
\nthat  the licensing provisions under the Act ceased to\thave
\nany  legal effect; (iii) the petitioner has the\t fundamental
\nrights\tunder Art. 19(1)(f) and (g) of the  Constitution  to
\nacquire,  hold and dispose of his property and to  carry  on
\nany  occupation, trade or business in respect  thereof,\t and
\nthat the provisions of s. 25(1)(c) of the Act operate as  an
\nunreasonable  restriction  on  the  said  rights,  and\t are
\ntherefore  void; and (iv) even if the said section  did\t not
\ninfringe his fundamental rights, the order of the Government
\nin  cancelling\tthe lease without affording  him  reasonable
\nopportunity  to show cause within the meaning of the  second
\nproviso to that section infringed his fundamental right.
\nThe  first  two\t contentions need not detain  us;  for,\t the
\npetition  may  be disposed of on the basis of the  last\t two
\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n
614<\/span><\/p>\n
The first question, therefore, is whether the provisions  of
\ns.  25 of the Act infringe the fundamental rights\t  of
\nthe  petitioner under sub-cls. (f) and (g) of Art. 19(1)  of
\nthe  Constitution.  The said provisions of the\tConstitution
\nread:\n<\/p>\n
Article 19: (1) All citizens shall have the right-\n<\/p>\n
(f)  to acquire, hold and dispose of property; and\n<\/p>\n
(g)  to\t practise  any\tprofession,  or\t to  carry  on\t any
\noccupation, trade or business.”\n<\/p>\n
Under sub-cls. (f) and (g) of Art. 19(1), every citizen\t has
\nthe  right to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and  to
\npractise  any  profession, or to carry\ton  any\t occupation,
\ntrade  or  business.   But  cls. (5)  and  (6)\tof  Art.  19
\nauthorize  the State to make a law imposing restrictions  in
\nthe interest of the general public, but the restrictions  so
\nimposed\t must be reasonable.  The concept of  reasonableness
\nhas  been  clearly explained by Patanjali Sastri,  C.J.,  in
\nState of Madras v. V. G. Row<\/a>(1) as under:.\n<\/p>\n
”  It is important in this context to bear in mind that\t the
\ntest  of  reasonableness,  wherever  prescribed,  should  be
\napplied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract
\nstandard,  or general pattern of reasonableness can be\tlaid
\ndown  as applicable to all cases.  The nature of  the  right
\nalleged\t to have been infringed, the underlying\t purpose  of
\nthe restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil
\nsought\tto  be remedied thereby, the  disproportion  of\t the
\nimposition,  the prevailing conditions at the  time,  should
\nall enter into the judicial verdict.”\n<\/p>\n
These  observations, if we may say so with  great  ‘respect,
\nlay  down the correct principle.  It follows that it is\t the
\nduty of this Court to decide, having regard to the aforesaid
\nconsiderations and such others, whether a particular statute
\nsatisfies  the objective test of ” reasonableness  “.  While
\nnot disputing the general principle, the learned Counsel for
\nthe  petitioner\t strongly relied upon the decision  of\tthis
\nCourt in Thakur Raghubir Singh v. Court of Wards, Ajmer<\/a>\t (2)
\nin support of his contentions.\tThe facts in that case
\n(1) [1952] S.C.R. 597. 607.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1953] S.C.R. 1049, 1055.\n<\/p>\n
615<\/span><\/p>\n
were:s. 112 of the Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act  (XLII
\nof 1950) provided that ” if a landlord habitually  infringes
\nthe   rights  of  a  tenant  under  this  Act,\t he   shall,
\nnotwithstanding\t  anything  in\tsection\t 7  of\t the   Ajmer
\nGovernment  Wards Regulation, 1888 (1 of 1888) be deemed  to
\nbe  a  ‘landlord  who  is disqualified\tto  manage  his\t own
\nproperty’  within  the\tmeaning of section  6  of  the\tsaid
\nRegulation  and\t his property shall be liable  to  be  taken
\nunder  the  superintendence  of the  Court  of\tWards.”\t The
\ndetermination of the question whether a landlord bad  habit-
\nually  infringed the rights of his tenants was left  to\t the
\nCourt of Wards.\t The petitioner whose estate was taken\tover
\nby  the Court of Wards questioned the validity of the  power
\nconferred  on the Court of Wards.  This Court held that\t the
\nsaid  section was void as being an unreasonable\t restriction
\non  the\t rights\t in property as\t the  restriction  made\t the
\nenjoyment  of that right depend upon the mere discretion  of
\nthe executive.\tMahajan, J., as he then was, observed :
\n” When a law deprives a person of possession of his property
\nfor  an indefinite period of time merely on  the  subjective
\ndetermination of an executive officer, such a law can, on no
\nconstruction of the word “reasonable” be described as coming
\nwithin that expression, because it completely negatives\t the
\nfundamental right by making its enjoyment depend on the mere
\npleasure  and  discretion  of  the  executive,\tthe  citizen
\naffected  having no right to have recourse for\testablishing
\nthe contrary in a civil court.”\n<\/p>\n
In that case the combined operation of s. 112 of Act XLII of
\n1950 and the provision’s of Regulation 1of 1888 was that the
\nCourt  of Wards could in its own discretion and on  its\t own
\nsubjective  determination  assume  superintendence  of\t the
\nproperty  of a landlord who habitually infringed the  rights
\nof his tenants.\t The Act also did not provide any  machinery
\nfor determining the question whether a certain landlord\t was
\na person who habitually infringed the rights of his tenants.
\nEven   the  condition  precedent  for  the   assumption\t  of
\nsuperintendence by the Court
\n616<\/span>
\nof   Wards,  viz.,  the\t previous  sanction  of\t the   Chief
\nCommissioner,\twas  also  a  matter  entirely\tresting\t  on
\nhis  discretion.   It will be seen that under that  Act\t the
\nentire question was left to the unbridled discretion of\t the
\nexecutive  without providing for any machinery to  ascertain
\nthe  grounds for its action.  That decision cannot apply  to
\nthe facts of the present case as they\tdiffer\tin  material
\nrespects  from\tthose  considered  by  this  court  in\tthat
\ndecision.\n<\/p>\n
 The short question, therefore, is whether s. 25 of the\t Act
\nplaces\t unreasonable\trestrictions   on   the\t  petioner’s
\nfundamental  rights  under  Art. 19(1)(f)  and\t(g)  of\t the
\nConstitution.  It is conceded that the State can make a\t law
\nimposing  restrictions,\t in the interest of the\t public,  on
\ncitizens  in respect of their enjoyment of  mineral  rights;
\nbut the complaint is that the law which enables the State in
\nits  uncontrolled  discretion to prevent the  owner  or\t the
\nlessee\tof such a field from enjoying his land or  leasehold
\ninterest or to carry on his mining operations permanently or
\nfor  an indefinite period is unreasonable.  So stated  there
\nis plausibility in the argument.  But let us look at the law
\nmore  closely  to ascertain whether it suffers from  such  a
\nvice.\n<\/p>\n
The  Act  was passed in the year 1947 and was  amended\tfrom
\ntime  to  time.\t  The declared object of the  Act  is  ”  to
\nregulate  the possession and transport of, and\ttrading\t in,
\nmica  in  the  Province of Bihar  “.  It  was  necessitated,
\npresumably,  because  of  the  scarcity\t of  mica  and\t its
\nimportance in the industrial field, and for that reason\t for
\nregulating home consumption and foreign export.\t The learned
\nCounsel for the petitioner did not controvert the  position,
\nand   indeed  conceded\tthat  reasonable  restrictions\t can
\nlegitimately  be  imposed on the mining\t operations  of\t the
\npetitioner.   Section 4 of the Act imposes a prohibition  on
\nthe  possession\t of, and trading in, mica  without  licence,
\nproprietor’s  certificate, or digger’s permit.\t Sections  5
\nand  6\tprescribe  a  machinery\t for  granting\tproprietor’s
\ncertificate, miner’s or dealer’s licence.  Sections 10 to 12
\ndefine the duties of licensees and registered proprietors in
\nthe  matter  of\t keeping accounts  and\tproducing  them\t for
\ninspection.  Section 14 prohibits
\n\t\t\t    617<\/span>
\nthe  removal  of mica from one place to\t another  without  a
\npass.\tSections  17, 19 and 21A impose\t penalties  for\t the
\ninfringement of the provisions of the Act an the rules\tmade
\nthereunder.   Section  22  to  24  deal\t with  miscellaneous
\nmatters,  such\tas the power Of a police officer  to  arrest
\nwithout warrant persons guilty of an offence under this Act,
\nto search, seize and detain mica removed without a pass etc.
\nThen  comes  s.\t 25. As the main  argument  of\tthe  learned
\nCounsel turns upon the provisions of s. 25, it is  necessary
\nto read the entire section, which is as follows :
\nSection\t 25.   ”  (1) The State Government  may\t cancel\t the
\nlicence\t or  proprietor’s  certificate of  any\tlicensee  or
\nregistered proprietor who-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  allows  his licence or proprietors certificate, as\t the
\ncase  may  be, to be used on behalf of any other  person  as
\nauthority  to-\tbuy or have in his possession or  sell\tmica
\nextracted from a mica mine or from a mica dump, or\n<\/p>\n
(b)  being  a  person  to whom a miner’s  licence  has\tbeen
\ngranted\t extracts mica from a mine the particulars of  which
\nare  not  endorsed  on\this licence, or\n<\/p>\n
(c) is guilty of repeated failure to comply with any of\t the
\nother provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder, or\n<\/p>\n
(d)  is\t convicted of an offence under Chapter XVII  of\t the
\nIndian Penal Code committed in respect of mica:
\nProvided that a licence or a proprietor’s certificate  shall
\nnot  be cancelled solely by reason of conviction from  which
\nthe  licensee or the registered proprietor has no  right  of
\nappeal or revision;\n<\/p>\n
Provided   further   that  a  licence  or   a\tproprietor’s
\ncertificate  shall not be cancelled unless the\tlicensee  or
\nthe proprietor has been furnished with the grounds for\tsuch
\ncancellation and has been afforded reasonable opportunity to
\nshow cause why his licence shall not be cancelled.
\n(2)  A fresh licence or proprietor’s certificate shall\tnot,
\nwithout\t the previous sanction of the State  Government,  be
\ngranted to any licensee or registered
\n79<\/span>
\n618<\/span>
\nproprietor  whose  licence or proprietor’s  certificate\t has
\nbeen cancelled under this section.”\n<\/p>\n
This  section embodies the severest punishment that  can  be
\nimposed\t under\tthe Act on a licensee or a  proprietor.\t  It
\nenables\t the  State Government to cancel the  licence.\t The
\npower  is  entrusted to the highest executive in  the  State
\nwhich ordinarily can be relied upon to discharge its  duties
\nhonestly,  impartially\tand in the interest  of\t the  public
\nwithout any extraneous considerations.\tThe section provides
\nclearly ascertainable standards for the State Government  to
\napply to the facts of each case.  Clauses (a), (b), (c)\t and\n<\/p>\n
(d)  of s. 25(1) describe with sufficient particularity\t the
\nnature of the defaults to be committed and the abuses to  be
\nguilty\tof  by the licensee in order to\t attract  the  penal
\nprovisions.  Clause (c) with which we are directly concerned
\nembodies the last step that can be resorted to by the  State
\nGovernment  to eliminate the recalcitrant operator from\t the
\nfield  of mining industry if only he is guilty\tof  repeated
\nfailures to comply with any of the provisions of the Act  or
\nthe rules made thereunder other than those mentioned in\t the
\nother  clauses of the section.\tThe discretion of the  State
\nGovernment  under  cl. (c) of s. 25(1) is hedged in  by\t two
\nimportant restrictions: viz., (i) the failure to comply with
\nthe  provisions\t of the Act or the  rules  made\t thereunder,
\nshould\tbe a repeated failure and not a mere  sporadic\tone,
\ni.e., the defaulter must be a recalcitrant one; (ii)  before
\ncancelling  the licence the State Government  should  afford
\nreasonable opportunity to the licensee to show cause why his
\nlicence\t  should   not\tbe  cancelled.\t That\tapart,\t the
\ncancellation  of the licence has not the effect\t of  barring
\nthe  licensee  or the proprietor from applying for  a  fresh
\nlicence.  The only condition imposed is that a fresh licence
\nshall not be granted to him without the previous sanction of
\nthe  State Government.\tIn the foregoing circumstances,\t can
\nit  be\tsaid  that  the\t section  imposes  an\tunreasonable
\nrestriction  on\t the petitioner’s fundamental rights  ?\t The
\nstatutory  conditions subject to which the licence is  given
\nare, obviously, reasonable
\n\t\t\t    619<\/span>
\nand  necessary\tfor  regulating the  mining  industry.\t The
\nprovisions of the Act, as we have already pointed out,\twere
\nonly designed to compel a licensee to keep accounts, produce
\nthem  before the authorities when required, to\tprevent\t him
\nfrom  removing mica from the  fields without  passes  and to
\nimpose penalties for contravening the rules.  The only\tvice
\nis said to lie in the power to cancel a licence conferred on
\nthe  State  Government under s. 25 of the  Act.\t  The  power
\ngiven to the State Government is only to achieve the  object
\nof the Act i.e., to enforce the said provisions, which\thave
\nbeen enacted in the interest of the public; and that  power,
\nas  we\thave  indicated,  is exercisable  on  the  basis  of
\nobjective  tests  and in accordance with the  principles  of
\nnatural\t justice.   We,\t cannot,  therefore,  hold  that  s.
\n25(1)(c)  of the Act imposes an unreasonable restriction  on
\nthe petitioner’s fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(f)\t and\n<\/p>\n
(g) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
Before leaving this part of the case, we must make it  clear
\nthat  we  do not intend to lay down as\ta  proposition\tthat
\nwhenever  discretionary\t power\tis  conferred  on  a   State
\nGovernment or the Union Government by law, the said law must
\nnecessarily  operate  as  a  reasonable\t restriction  on   a
\nfundamental right.  Such a general proposition negatives the
\nconcept\t of  fundamental rights for the simple\treason\tthat
\nfundamental  rights,  are guaranteed against  State  action.
\nTherefore,  the\t conferment  of such a power  on  the  State
\nGovernment and not upon a subordinate officer is only one of
\nthe considerations that may enter into the judicial  verdict
\non   the  reasonableness  of  a\t particular  law   and\t the
\nreasonableness\tof that law falls to be decided only on\t the
\ncumulative  effect  of the circumstances  under\t which\tsuch
\npower is conferred.\n<\/p>\n
The  next question is, did the State Government comply\twith
\nthe  provision of s. 25(1)(c), read with the second  proviso
\nthereto,  of  the  Act ? Under the said\t proviso  the  State
\nGovernment  can cancel a licence after affording  reasonable
\nopportunity  to the licensee to show cause why\this  licence
\nshould\tnot  be cancelled.  This proviso  confers  a  quasi-
\njudicial power on the
\n620<\/span>
\nState Government.  The concept of ” reasonable opportunity ”
\nis an elastic one and is not susceptible     of\t  easy\t and
\nprecise definition.  The decisions on cases  under Art.\t 311
\nof the Constitution afford illustrations of the applications
\nof the said doctrine to varying\t   situations.\t  What\t  is
\nreasonable  opportunity under one set of circumstances\tneed
\nnot be reasonable under different circumstances.  It is\t the
\nduty  of the Court to ascertain in each case, having  regard
\nto  the overall picture before it, to come to  a  conclusion
\nwhether\t reasonable  opportunity is given to a person  ”  to
\nshow  cause” within the meaning of the second proviso to  s.
\n25(1)  of  the\tAct.   Tribunals  or  authorities  who\t are
\nentrusted with quasi-judicial functions are as much bound by
\nthe  relevant principles governing the ” doctrine of bias  ”
\nas  any\t other judicial tribunal.  This Court  in  a  recent
\ndecision in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. The State of  Andhra
\nPradesh<\/a> (1) observed:\n<\/p>\n
“The principles governing  the “doctrine of bias”  vis-a-vis
\njudicial tribunals are well-settled and they are: (i) no man
\nshall be a judge in his own cause; (ii) justice\t should\t not
\nonly be done but manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done.
\nThe  two  maxims  yield the result that if  a  member  of  a
\njudicial  body is ” subject to a bias (whether financial  or
\nother) in favour of, or against, any party to a dispute,  or
\nis in such a position that a bias must be assumed to  exist,
\nhe  ought  not\ttake  part in the decision  or\tsit  on\t the
\ntribunal”; and that ,any direct pecuniary interest,  however
\nsmall,\tin the subject-matter of inquiry will  disqualify  a
\njudge, and any interest, though not pecuniary, will have the
\nsame  effect, if it is sufficiently substantial to create  a
\nreasonable  suspicion  of bias”.  The  said  principles\t are
\nequally\t applicable  to\t authorities, though  they  are\t not
\ncourts\tof  justice or judicial tribunals, who have  to\t act
\njudicially   in\t deciding  the\trights\tof   others,   i.e.,
\nauthorities  who  are empowered to  discharge  quasijudicial
\nfunctions.”\n<\/p>\n
In view of the foregoing principles the first question to be
\nconsidered is whether in the present case the
\n(1)  [1959] S.C.R. Supp. (1) 319.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    621<\/span><\/p>\n
authority   functioning\t for  the  State  Government-it\t  is
\nadmitted  that the then Revenue Minister of the\t State\tmade
\nthe impugned order-had personal bias against the petitioner.
\nSecondly, we will have to scrutinize the record to ascertain
\nwhether\t reasonable opportunity was given to the  petitioner
\nto show cause or whether it was denied that right.  Thirdly,
\nwe will have to ascertain whether the State Government found
\nthat the petitioner was guilty of repeated failure to comply
\nwith  any  of the other provisions of the Act or  the  rules
\nmade  thereunder and cancelled the licence on the  basis  of
\nthat finding.  It may be mentioned that the learned Advocate
\nGeneral,  who  appeared before us on behalf  of\t the  State,
\nsubmitted  that\t the State Government  exercised  its  power
\nunder s. 25(1)(c) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The notice to show cause was issued by the State  Government
\nto the petitioner on March 7, 1953.  The licence granted  in
\nfavour\tof  the\t petitioner  was  cancelled  by\t the   State
\nGovernment  by\tits notification dated\tSeptember  1,  1955.
\nAdmittedly, during this period Sri Krishna Ballav Sahay\t was
\nthe Revenue Minister of the Government of Bihar, and he\t was
\nin  charge of the department dealing with mines.  There\t was
\npolitical  rivalry  between the said Minister and  Sri\tRaja
\nBahadur\t Kamakshya Narain Singh, the ex-landlord of  Ramgarh
\nand  Serampur  estates in the district\tof  Hazaribagh,\t who
\nleased the lands in question to the petitioner.\t The case of
\nthe  State  is that the said lease was benami only  for\t the
\nsaid proprietor; and the case of the petitioner is that\t the
\nwife of the proprietor, Rani Lalita Rajya Luxmi Devi, is the
\nregistered  share  holder  of  the  Company.   The  question
\nwhether\t the lease is only benami for the proprietor or\t not
\nis  now in dispute in title suit No. 53 of 1954\t pending  on
\nthe file of the court of the Subordinate Judge,\t Hazaribagh.
\nWe  shall,  therefore, assume for the purpose of  this\tcase
\nthat there is a dispute on the question of title, the  State
\nGovernment  asserting that the lease is only benami for\t the
\nproprietor and the petitioner claiming to be the real lessee
\nand  the  wife\tof the proprietor only\ta  registered  share
\nholder of the
\n622<\/span>
\nCompany.    Whichever  version\tis  true,  the\t proprietor,
\ndirectly or because of his wife, is very much interested  in
\nthe Company,at any rate, the Government’s case is that he is
\nthe  owner.   It is alleged in the petition  that  the\tsaid
\nproprietor  opposed  the  Revenue Minister  in\tthe  general
\nelection  held in 1952 to the Bihar Legislative Assembly  in
\nthe constituency of Giridih and Barkagaon and defeated\thim.
\nIt is also stated that before the said election, the Revenue
\nMinister filed a criminal case against the proprietor in the
\nDistrict  Court of Hazaribagh charging him under s.  500  of
\nthe  Indian Penal Code.\t The High Court in a judgment  dated
\nApril  15, 1952, delivered in the petition to  transfer\t the
\nsaid  case  to some other Court recorded the  admitted\tfact
\nthat  there was political rivalry between the  Minister\t and
\nthe proprietor.\t Ultimately, this Court transferred the said
\ncriminal  case\tfrom  the State of Bihar to the\t file  of  a
\nMagistrate’s  Court  in Delhi on the ground that  there\t was
\npolitical rivalry between the two persons.  These facts\t are
\nnot denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the State.\t  In
\nthe  said counter-affidavit the following cryptic  statement
\noccurs:\n<\/p>\n
” That the allegations in para. 14(b) of the petition  about
\nthe  alleged political rivalry between Sri Kamakshya  Narain
\nSingh  and  Sri\t Krishna Ballav Sahay,\tthe  then  Minister,
\nRevenue, has no bearing on the facts of this case so far  as
\nthe  orders  of\t the Government are concerned  and  to\tthat
\nextent the allegations are denied.”\n<\/p>\n
It  may,  therefore,  be  taken\t that  the  allegations\t of’
\npersonal bias of the Revenue Minister against the proprietor
\nis not denied.\tIt is also not disputed that the proceedings
\nagainst the petitioner were started during the tenure of the
\nsaid   Revenue\tMinister  and  that  the  actual  order\t  of
\ncancellation  was  made by him.\t We have  no  hesitation  in
\nholding that the Revenue Minister had personal bias  against
\nthe  proprietor\t and that he was also acting on\t the  belief
\nthat the lease was only benami for the said proprietor.\t We,
\ntherefore, hold that the said Revenue Minister had  personal
\nbias within the meaning of the decisions and he should
\n\t\t\t    623<\/span>
\nnot  have taken part in either initiating the enquiry or  in
\ncancelling the licence.\n<\/p>\n
On  the\t basis\tthat s. 25 of the  Act\tis  constitutionally
\nvalid,\tthe  question  is whether  the\tprovisions  of\tthat
\nsection\t have  been complied with in the present  case.\t  If
\nthey  were  not\t complied  with,  the  order  of  the  State
\nGovernment  made in derogation of the said provisions  would
\ncertainly infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioner.
\nThe main objection to the validity of the impugned order  is
\nthat  the  State Government did not  afford  the  petitioner
\nreasonable opportunity to show cause why his licence  should
\nnot  be\t -cancelled.   The  subject-matter  of\tthe   mining
\nleasehold  interest  is in respect of 3,026 villages  for  a
\nperiod\tof 999 years.  It is alleged in the petition that  a
\nlarge  amount  of  about  Rs. 16 lakhs\twere  spent  by\t the
\npetitioner  to\tobtain the mining lease and  in\t addition  a
\nconsiderable sum was spent in prospecting and developing the
\nmines.\t On March 7, 1953, the Government of  Bihar  through
\nits Secretary in – the Revenue Department issued a notice to
\nthe petitioner asking it to show cause within 15 days of the
\nreceipt of the said notice why action to cancel the  miner’s
\nlicence No. 261-H under s. 25(1)(c) of the Act should not be
\ntaken  by the Government.  It is stated in the\tnotice\tthat
\nthe petitioner committed ”  violations of ss. 10, 12 and  14
\nin respect of their mica godowns at Marhand and Sultana, ss.
\n10 and 12, in respect of the godowns at Simaria and s. 10 in
\nrespect\t of  Kowabar godowns and have thus  been  guilty  of
\nrepeated  failures  to comply with those provisions  of\t the
\nBihar Mica Act, 1947.” On receipt of this notice, the  peti-
\ntioner\tby  its\t letter\t dated March  20,  1953,  asked\t the
\nGovernment to furnish it with particulars of the allegations
\ncontained in the said notice and on March 27, 1953,  renewed
\nits  request for the said particulars.\tOn May 1, 1953,\t the
\nGovernment  sent  a  Memorandum No.  A\/M1-8022\/53R.  to\t the
\npetitioner Company giving the particulars of the  violations
\nof the provisions of the Act.  The subject of the memorandum
\nis  described  as  ” Repeated failure  to  comply  with\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe Bihar Mica Act, 1947.”  The\t particulars
\nshow that between December 3, 1952, and December 11, 1952,
\n624<\/span>
\nthe  Inspector of Mica Accounts inspected different  godowns
\nof the petitioner and found contravention of the  provisions
\nof ss. 10, 12 and 14 of the Act. What is important to notice
\nis  that the inspection, though spread over a few days,\t was
\nreally\t one  inspection  of  different\t godowns   and\t the
\nparticulars disclosed were comparatively trivial defaults in
\ncarrying  out  the provisions of the Act.  It  may  also  be
\nnoticed that one of the particulars related to an inspection
\nalleged to have been made on March 6, 1952; and, in  respect
\nof  that  inspection,  the  petitioner\twas  prosecuted\t and
\nconvicted;  but\t the licence was renewed for  the  next\t two
\nyears  in spite of the said conviction.\t The result of\tthat
\ninspection  is,\t therefore,  not  germane  to  the   enquiry
\ninitiated  by the notice dated March 7, 1953.  After  giving
\nthe  particulars  the memorandum concludes., ” it  is  clear
\nthat  the  Company has been guilty of  repeated\t failure  to
\ncomply with the provisions of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947 ” and
\non these allegations the Company was directed to show  cause
\nwhy the licence should not be cancelled under s. 25(1)(b) of
\nthe  Act.  Section 25(1)(b) says that the  State  Government
\nmay cancel the licence of any licensee who, ” being a person
\nto  whom a miners’s licence has been granted  extracts\tmica
\nfrom a mine the particulars of which are not endorsed on his
\nlicence.”  It  is admitted by the learned  Advocate  General
\nthat the Government did not take action under cl. (b) of  s.
\n25(1) and that the mention of that clause in the  memorandum
\nwas  only a mistake for cl. (c) of s. 25(1) of the Act.\t  On
\nMay  17, 1953, the petitioner submitted to the Government  a
\ndetailed  explanation  in  regard to  the  charges  levelled
\nagainst it.  It premised its explanation with the  statement
\nthat all the relevant books of accounts and stock books\t had
\nbeen  seized by the Inspector of Mica Accounts and  had\t not
\nbeen  returned\tin  spite  of  repeated\t requests  and\tthat
\ntherefore it reserved its right to make further\t submissions
\nwhen  the books were returned. It also pointed out  that  at
\nthe  time  of  inspection it was not asked  to\texplain\t the
\nalleged irregularity in accordance with the usual  procedure
\nin  regard  to such matters.  In then  proceeded  to  answer
\nevery one of
\n\t\t\t    625<\/span>
\nthe  allegations made against it.  The explanation given  by
\nthe  Company appears to be plausible and the  contraventions
\nalleged,  even\tif true, appear to be too  trivial  for\t the
\ndrastic\t action taken by the State.  In 1954 the  Government
\nfiled  a suit against the said proprietor for a\t declaration
\nthat  the  various companies brought into existence  by\t him
\nwere bogus ones and the various transactions entered into by
\nhim were all benami for him.  After the explanation given by
\nthe  petitioner, there was a lull for more than\t two  years.
\nThe State Government neither returned the account books\t nor
\ninvited\t the  petitioner  to  make  further  submissions  by
\nallowing  it  to  look\tinto  the  accounts  seized  by\t the
\nauthorities  concerned.\t Suddenly, on September 7,  1955,  a
\nnotification  was issued to the effect that the Governor  of
\nBihar  was pleased to cancel the petitioner’s  licence.\t  It
\nwas also directed to stop operating the mica mines forthwith
\nand  to produce the books of account relating to  the  above
\nmines in respect of their godowns on September 12, 1955.
\nFrom the foregoing narration of facts it is obvious that the
\nlicence affecting rights of great magnitude was cancelled to
\nsay the least, for trivial reasons.  The enquiry was held by
\nthe  department\t headed by the Minister\t who  was  obviously
\nbiased\t against  the  petitioner.   Some   technical\tnon-
\ncompliances  of\t the rules alleged to have  been  discovered
\nduring\tthe inspection of certain godowns were given  as  an
\nexcuse\tto withdraw the licence no opportunity was given  to
\nthe  petitioner to inspect its accounts and to\texplain\t the
\nalleged-defaults with reference to the accounts.  After\t the
\npetitioner  gave  its reply, a sense of false  security\t was
\ncreated\t in the petitioner and after a period of  two  years
\nthe  Government\t issued\t the  notification  cancelling\t the
\nlicence.   Meanwhile,  as a second string to  the  bow,\t the
\nstate filed a suit against the proprietor for a\t declaration
\nthat the lease was benami and for other reliefs.  The hidden
\nhand  of the Revenue Minister can be seen in  this  enquiry.
\nThe  proceedings were started because of  political  rivalry
\nbetween\t the  proprietor and the Revenue  Minister.   Though
\nheavy  stakes were involved, the enquiry was conducted in  a
\nmanner which
\n80<\/span>
\n626<\/span>
\ndid  not  give\tany real opportunity to\t the  petitioner  to
\nexplain\t its  conduct and to disprove the  allegations\tmade
\nagainst it; and the order of cancellation of the licence was
\nmade admittedly by the same Revenue Minister, who was behind
\nthe enquiry.  In the circumstances, we\tmust  hold  that  no
\nreasonable  opportunity was given to the  petitioner  within
\nthe meaning of the second proviso to s. 25(1) of the Act.
\nThat  apart,  the  State  Government did  not  find  on\t the
\nmaterial that the petitioner was guilty of repeated  failure
\nto  comply  with  any of the provisions\t of  the  Act.\t The
\nparticulars furnished by the Government did not disclose any
\nsuch  repeated\tfailure.   Under s.  25(1)(c)  of  the\tAct,
\nrepeated failure to comply with any of the provisions of the
\nAct  is\t a  necessary condition for the\t cancellation  of  a
\nlicence.   Unless  there  is  repeated\tfailure\t within\t the
\nmeaning of that clause the State Government has no power  to
\ncancel\tthe  licence  under the said  clause.\tThat  apart,
\nneither in the notice initiating the proceedings nor in\t the
\nnotification cancelling the licence issued by the Government
\nit  was stated that the petitioner was guilty of ”  repeated
\nfailure ” within the meaning of the said clause.  But in the
\nparticulars furnished, the State Government alleged that the
\npetitioner  had\t been guilty of repeated failure  to  comply
\nwith the provisions of the Act, but the particulars did\t not
\nsupport\t that  statement,  for, apart from  the\t default  of
\nMarch,\t1952,  the  alleged  contravention  of\trules\twere
\ndiscovered by the Inspector of Mica Accounts only during the
\ninspection of some of the godowns between December 3,  1953,
\nand  December 11, 1953.\t The result of that  one  continuous
\ninspection  cannot  be\tthe  basis  for\t holding  that\t the
\npetitioner  was\t guilty of ” repeated failure ”\t within\t the
\nmeaning\t of  s. 25(1)(c) of the Act.  There  is\t nothing  on
\nrecord to show that the petitioner was found to be guilty of
\ncontravention  of  any of the provisions of the Act  on\t any
\nother  occasion\t after\tMarch, 1952.  Apart  from  the\tonly
\nprosecution,  which we have already noticed, the  petitioner
\nwas  not  prosecuted  for any  other  contravention  of\t the
\nprovisions of ss. 10, 12 or 14 of the Act.  That prosecution
\ncannot be pressed into
\n627<\/span>
\nservice,  as  the State Government renewed the\tlicence\t for
\n1953-54.   In  this state of record we must  hold  that\t the
\nrespondents  failed to prove that the petitioner was  guilty
\nof  repeated  failure to comply with the provisions  of\t the
\nAct.   On  the basis of the said  finding,  the\t respondents
\nwould have no power to take action under S. 25(1)(c) of\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
The  foregoing\tdiscussion  establishes\t that  neither\t the
\nnecessary condition to enable the Government to take  action
\nunder  s. 25(1)(c) of the Act has been established  nor\t the
\nState Government had afforded reasonable opportunity to\t the
\npetitioner  within the meaning of the second proviso  to  s.
\n25(1).\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t result we accept the petition and issue a  writ  of
\ncertiorari against the respondents quashing the order of the
\nGovernment  of\tBihar dated September  1,  1955,  cancelling
\nminer’s\t licence No. 261-H of 1951 granted in favour of\t the
\npetitioner.   The  respondents\twill pay the  costs  to\t the
\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Petition allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mineral Development Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And Another on 15 December, 1959 Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 468, 1960 SCR (2) 909 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Gupta, K.C. Das, Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: MINERAL DEVELOPMENT LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMineral Development Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And Another on 15 December, 1959 - 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-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959\" \/>\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 State Of Bihar And Another on 15 December, 1959 - 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-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959\" \/>\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=\"1959-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-07T16:04:35+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=\"33 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-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mineral Development Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And Another on 15 December, 1959\",\"datePublished\":\"1959-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-07T16:04:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959\"},\"wordCount\":5678,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959\",\"name\":\"Mineral Development Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And Another on 15 December, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1959-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-07T16:04:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mineral Development Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And Another on 15 December, 1959\"}]},{\"@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 State Of Bihar And Another on 15 December, 1959 - 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-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mineral Development Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And Another on 15 December, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1959-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-07T16:04:35+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":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mineral Development Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And Another on 15 December, 1959","datePublished":"1959-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-07T16:04:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959"},"wordCount":5678,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959","name":"Mineral Development Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And Another on 15 December, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1959-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-07T16:04:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mineral-development-ltd-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-another-on-15-december-1959#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mineral Development Ltd vs The State Of Bihar And Another on 15 December, 1959"}]},{"@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\/64571","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=64571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64571\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}