{"id":89731,"date":"1987-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2"},"modified":"2019-01-23T07:18:07","modified_gmt":"2019-01-23T01:48:07","slug":"bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2","title":{"rendered":"Bharat Coklng Coal Limited vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 November, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bharat Coklng Coal Limited vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 November, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 127, \t\t 1988 SCR (1) 869<\/div>\n
Author: A Sen<\/div>\n
Bench: Sen, A.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBHARAT COKlNG COAL LIMITED\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT10\/11\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nSEN, A.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nSEN, A.P. (J)\nRAY, B.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR  127\t\t  1988 SCR  (1) 869\n 1987 SCC  Supl.  394\t  JT 1987 (4)\t403\n 1987 SCALE  (2)1015\n\n\nACT:\n     The Contempt  of Courts  Act, 1971: Section 2-order for\nmaintenance of\tstatus quo  as in  the High  Court-Passed by\nSupreme Court-Suppression  of the  order from the High Court\nand obtaining  of another order-Whether amounts to contempt-\nScope and effect of status quo order.\n     Words & Phrases: 'Status quo'- Meaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n%\n     It\t was   alleged,\t in   the  petition  for  initiating\nproceedings for\t contempt, that\t despite the  fact that this\nCourt passed  an order\ton 19.12.86 directing maintenance of\n'status quo  as in  the High  Court' in\t the presence of the\ncounsel for respondent No. 4 on December 22, 1986 respondent\nNo. 4  and his son filed a miscellaneous petition before the\nHigh Court,  deliberately and  wilfully suppressing  from it\nthe fact  that this Court had directed maintenance of status\nquo, and  obtained an  order dated  January 3, 1987 in their\nfavour, and  had thus  wilfully and flagrantly disobeyed and\nviolated the status quo order of this Court.\n     This Court\t on September 23, 1987 vacated the aforesaid\norder of  the High Court and restrained respondent No. 4 and\nhis  son   and\ttheir\tagents\tand  servants  from  lifting\nsludge\/slurry from  the lands in question. This Court was of\nthe view that there was no contempt.\n     Giving reasons for its decision,\n^\n     HELD: The expression 'status quo' is undoubtedly a term\nof  ambiguity\tand  at\t  times\t gives\trise  to  doubt\t and\ndifficulty. According  to the ordinary legal connotation the\nterm implies  existing state of things at any given point of\ntime. The  qualifying words  'as in  the High Court' clearly\nlimit the scope and effect of the status quo order. [872F-G]\n     In the present case, the High Court determined only one\nquestion, namely,  that slurry\twas not coal or mineral. The\nimpugned judgment does not adjudicate upon the rights of the\nparties. It is, therefore,\n870\nobvious that  status quo  as in\t the High  Court cannot mean\nanything else  except status quo as existing when the matter\nwas pending  in the  High  Court  before  the  judgment\t was\ndelivered. Both\t the parties understood the scope and effect\nof the\tstatus quo  order as  meaning the  state  of  things\nexisting while the writ petition was still pending i.e. till\nthe delivery  of the  judgment by  the High  Court. [872G-H;\n873A-B]\n     No case  for contempt is made out on the plain terms of\nthe status quo order. The parties were relegated back to the\nposition that  obtained while the writ petition was pending.\nThey were,  therefore, subject\tto the\torder passed  by the\nHigh Court dated January 15, 1985. [873C-D]\n     The conduct  of respondent\t No. 4 for having approached\nthe  High   Court  and\t obtained  the\t impugned  order  by\nsuppressing the\t fact that  this Court had passed the status\nquo order,  is highly  deprecated. The proper course for him\nwas to\thave approached\t this Court for clarification, if he\nhad any doubt as to the meaning and effect of the status quo\norder. [873C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Misc. Petition No.
\n4673 of 1987. (In C.A. No. 452 1 of 1986).\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  order dated  20.12.1985 of\t the
\nPatna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1133 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
     L.N. Sinha and M.L. Verma for the Petitioner.
\n     S.N. Kacker,  S.B. Upadhyay, M.M. Kashyap and Smt. Asha
\nUpadhyay for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The following order of the Court was delivered:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t      O R D E R
\n     This is  an  application  made  by\t the  appellant\t for
\ninitiating proceedings for contempt against respondent no. 4
\nRam Nath  Singh and  his son  Vijendra Singh.  It is alleged
\nthat despite  the fact\tthat this Court had on 19th December
\n1986 after  hearing learned  counsel for the parties granted
\nspecial leave and also passed an order directing maintenance
\nof status  quo as  in the  High Court  in  the\tpresence  of
\nlearned counsel\t for respondent no. 4, three days after i.e.
\nOn 22nd\t December, 1986\t respondent no. 4 Ram Nath Singh and
\nhis  son  Vijendra  Singh  filed  a  criminal  miscellaneous
\npetition no. 4841\/86 (R)
\n871<\/span>
\nbefore the  Ranchi Bench  of the  Patna High  Court alleging
\ninter alia  that respondent  no. 4  had the right to collect
\nslurry, deliberately  and wilfully  suppressed from the High
\nCourt the  fact that  this Court had directed maintenance of
\nstatus quo,  and thereby  obtained an  order from  the\tHigh
\nCourt dated  3rd January,  1987 in  the said  proceedings by
\nwhich respondent  no. 4\t was allowed to transport briquettes
\nfrom  the  area\t in  question  i.e.  Iands  covered  by\t the
\nnotification issued  under s.  9 of  the Coal  bearing Areas
\n(Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 including the disputed
\nplot no. 370, and bad thus wilfully and flagrantly disobeyed
\nand violated the status quo order of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     After hearing  learned counsel for the parties at quite
\nsome length,  we were  satisfied that the High Court was not
\njustified in  passing the  impugned order. We accordingly by
\norder dated 23rd September, 1987 vacated the aforesaid order
\nof the\tHigh Court  dated 3rd January, 1987 and also allowed
\nthe  application  made\tby  the\t apellant  for\tgrant  of  a
\nprohibitory order  and restrained  respondent no. 4 Ram Nath
\nSingh and  his son  Vijendra  Singh  and  their\t agents\t and
\nservants from  lifting sludge\/slurry  from the lands covered
\nby the\tnotification under  s. 9 of the Act, in terms of the
\nregistered  indenture\tof  lease  dated  October  20,\t1984
\nexecuted by the State Government in favour of respondent no.
\n4 and  further directed\t that all  operations carried  on by
\nthem shall  stop forthwith.  There was\ta further  direction
\nmade with  regard to the withdrawal of the amounts deposited
\nby respondent  no. 4 and his son towards the price of slurry
\ncollected by  them in  pursuance of  the order passed by the
\nHigh Court  dated l5th\tJanuary,  1985\ton  furnishing\tbank
\nguarantee. As the conclusion of the hearing we were inclined
\nto the view that there was no contempt. The reasons therefor
\nfollow.\n<\/p>\n
     The question  whether respondent  no. 4  Ram Nath Singh
\nand his\t son Vijendra  Singh are  guilty of contumacious and
\nwilful disregard  of this  Court’s order  must depend on the
\nprecise meaning\t of the\t words `status\tquo as\tin the\tHigh
\nCourt’. There  is not  much of a controversy as to the scope
\nand effect  of the  status quo\torder passed  by this Court.
\nShri L.N. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
\nsubmitted that\tthe words  ‘status quo as in the High Court’
\nmean status  quo as  prevailing between the parties when the
\nmatter was  pending in the High Court and not after the High
\nCourt had  passed the  impugned judgment and disposed of the
\nwrit  petition.\t The  learned  counsel\tcontends  that\tsame
\nmeaning must  be given\tto these  words\t as  otherwise,\t the
\napplication  for   grant  of   prohibitory  order  would  be
\ninfructuous and\t the order passed by this Court meaningless.
\nHe placed emphasis on the
\n872<\/span>
\nword ‘in’  in the collocation of the words ‘status quo as in
\nthe High Court’ to define the scope and effect of the status
\nquo order.  According to him, the word ‘in’ must mean status
\nquo while the matter was in the High Court; it was in seisin
\nof the High Court till the moment before the delivery of the
\nfinal judgment.\t Once the  judgment had\t been delivered, the
\nmatter came  to an  end in  the High Court. In substance, 13
\nthe contention\tis that the status quo as prevailing between
\nthe parties  when the  matter was  pending in the High Court
\nhad to be maintained.\n<\/p>\n
     In reply  Shri Kacker,  learned counsel  for respondent
\nno. 4  Ram Nath\t Singh and  his son Vijendra Singh submitted
\nthat the  words ‘status\t quo as\t in the\t High Court’ must be
\ninterpreted to\tmean that the parties were relegated back to
\nthe position  that  obtained  between  them  when  the\twrit
\npetition was  still pending.  Upon that\t basis he  submitted
\nthat the  contemnors were  governed  by\t the  terms  of\t the
\nearlier order  passed by  the High Court dated 15th January,
\n1985 permitting\t them to  collect sludge\/slurry\t from public
\nland. It  is urged  that the  disputed plot  no. 370 is such
\npublic land  from which\t respondent no.\t 4 in  terms of\t the
\nregistered  indenture\tof  lease  dated  October  20,\t1984
\nexecuted by the State Government in his favour, was entitled
\nto remove sludge\/slurry from the lands covered by the lease.
\nThe learned  counsel points out that although respondent no.
\n4 had been restrained by the High Court by its earlier order
\ndated 19th  October, 1984  from removing  sludge\/slurry from
\nthe disputed  plot of  land, it\t had by the subsequent order
\ndated  15th   January,\t1985   permitted  him\tto   collect
\nsludge\/slurry on  certain conditions.  One of the conditions
\nwas that  respondent no. 4 was required to deposit Rs. 10000
\nin the\tHigh Court  and that had been done. He also drew our
\nattention to  cl.(B) of that order which directed respondent
\nno. 4  to deposit  the price  of slurry\t in court along with
\nmonthly returns\t and it is said that several lakhs of rupees
\nare in deposit in the High Court on that account.\n<\/p>\n
     The expression  ‘status quo’  is undoubtedly  a term of
\nambiguity and  at times\t gives rise to doubt and difficulty.
\nAccording  to  the  ordinary  legal  connotation,  the\tterm
\n‘status quo’  implies the  existing state  of things  at any
\ngiven point  of time.  The qualifying  words ‘as in the High
\nCourt’ clearly\tlimit the scope and effect of the status quo
\norder. In  the present\tcase, the High Court determined only
\none question,  namely, that  slurry was not coal or mineral.
\nIt refrained  from entering  into the  question of  right or
\ntitle  of  the\tparties\t on  the  ground  that\tit  involved
\ninvestigation into  disputed questions\tof facts. Therefore,
\napart from the abstract question that slurry was not coal or
\nmineral, the  impugned judgment does not adjudicate upon the
\nrights of the
\n873<\/span>
\nparties. Viewed\t from that  angle, it is obvious that status
\nquo as\tin the\tHigh Court  cannot mean anything else except
\nstatus quo  as existing\t when the  matter was pending in the
\nHigh Court  before the\tjudgment  was  delivered.  Both\t the
\nparties understood  the scope  and effect  of the status quo
\norder as meaning the state of things existing while the writ
\npetition was  still pending  i.e. till\tthe delivery  of the
\njudgment by  the High Court. Respondent no. 4 moved the High
\nCourt in  Crl. M.P.  No. 4841\/86  (R) without impleading the
\nappellant herein  and obtained\tthe impugned  order from the
\nHigh Court dated 3rd January 1987 which we have vacated. The
\nproper course  for respondent  no. 4  to have adopted was to
\nhave approached\t this Court to seek clarification, if he had
\nany doubt  as to  the meaning  and effect  of the status quo
\norder. We  highly deprecate  the conduct of respondent no. 4
\nfor having  approached\tthe  High  Court  and  obtained\t the
\nimpugned order\tby suppressing\tthe fact that this Court had
\npassed the  status quo order. Even so, strictly speaking, no
\ncase for  contempt is  made out\t on the\t plain terms  of the
\nstatus quo  order. The\tparties were  relegated back  to the
\nposition that  obtained while the writ petition was pending.
\nThey were  therefore subject to the order passed by the High
\nCourt dated  15th January,  1985.  No  other  conclusion  is
\npossible looking to the terms of the status quo order.\n<\/p>\n
     We must  add that\tthere is  no merit in the contention
\nthat the disputed plot no. 370 was public land and the State
\nGovernment was\tentitled to  grant a  lease for\t removal and
\ncollection of  sludge\/slurry despite the notification issued
\nunder s.  9 of\tthe Act. It is quite clear upon the terms of
\nthe notification issued that the Central Government has made
\nthe requisite  declaration under  s. 9(1)  of  the  Act\t for
\nacquisition of the lands measuring 778.45 acres as specified
\nin Schedule  ‘A’ and  it specifically  includes the disputed
\nplot no. 370 in Village Sudamdih. The appellant in paragraph
\n11 of  the application\tfor contempt has averred that on the
\npublication in\tthe official  gazette of such declaration by
\nthe Central  Government\t under\ts.  9(1)  of  the  Act,\t the
\naforesaid  lands   vast\t absolutely  in\t it  free  from\t all
\nencumbrances.  The  aforesaid  declaration  by\tthe  Central
\nGovernment under  s. 9(1)  further specifies  as enjoined by
\ncl.(b) of sub-s(2) thereof that the acquisition of the right
\nin or over lands measuring 778.45 acres describe in Schedule
\n‘A’ also  carries with\tit the\tright to mine, quarry, bore,
\ndig and search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the
\nlands. It  is pertinent to observe that respondent no. 4 Ram
\nNath Singh  and his  son Vijendra  Singh  have\tnot  in\t the
\ncounter-affidavit denied  the  aforesaid  averment  made  in
\nparagraph 11 except to say that they are a matter of record.
\nIt is  plain upon  the terms  that the area in question i.e.
\nplot
\n 874<\/span>
\nno. 370\t has been acquired under s. 9(1) of the Act together
\nwith the  right to  mine, quarry,  bore, dig and search for,
\nwin, work and carry away the minerals thereon. lt is idle to
\ncontend that  the disputed plot no. 370 was open land. It is
\nnothing but an afterthought and is illconceived.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  unfortunate that  the  appellant  rested  itself
\ncontent by  obtaining the status quo order in terms in which
\nit was\tpassed. It  should instead have for safeguarding its
\ninterests  insisted   upon  a\tprohibitory  order.  In\t the
\nmeanwhile, we  are informed  that respondent  no. 4 Ram Nath
\nSingh and  his son Vijendra Singh have been taking advantage
\nof the\tqualified status quo order by removing sludge\/slurry
\nor briguettes  worth about  Rs.50,000 per day. The appellant
\nis at  liberty to  take recourse  to such legal remedy as is
\navailable for the protection of its rights. We have tried to
\nsecure its interests to some extent by permitting withdrawal
\nof the\tmoneys deposited  by respondent no. 4 Ram Nath Singh
\nand his\t son Vijendra  Singh in the High Court on furnishing
\nbank guarantee.\n<\/p>\n
     C.M.P. is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
N.P.V.\t\t\t\t       Petition disposed of.\n875<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bharat Coklng Coal Limited vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 November, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 127, 1988 SCR (1) 869 Author: A Sen Bench: Sen, A.P. (J) PETITIONER: BHARAT COKlNG COAL LIMITED Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT10\/11\/1987 BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) BENCH: SEN, […]<\/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-89731","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBharat Coklng Coal Limited vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 November, 1987 - 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\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharat Coklng Coal Limited vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2\" \/>\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=\"1987-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-23T01:48:07+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharat Coklng Coal Limited vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 November, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-23T01:48:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2\"},\"wordCount\":1828,\"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\\\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2\",\"name\":\"Bharat Coklng Coal Limited vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-23T01:48:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharat Coklng Coal Limited vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 November, 1987\"}]},{\"@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":"Bharat Coklng Coal Limited vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 November, 1987 - 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\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharat Coklng Coal Limited vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-23T01:48:07+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharat Coklng Coal Limited vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 November, 1987","datePublished":"1987-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-23T01:48:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2"},"wordCount":1828,"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\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2","name":"Bharat Coklng Coal Limited vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-23T01:48:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coklng-coal-limited-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-10-november-1987-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharat Coklng Coal Limited vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 November, 1987"}]},{"@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\/89731","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=89731"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89731\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89731"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89731"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89731"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}