BAIJNATH KEDIA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

BAIJNATH KEDIA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

The second proviso to s. 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (as amended in 1964) was ultra vires as the legislative field relating to minor minerals was covered by s. 15 read with the declaration in s. 2 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957; consequently, Rule 20(2) of the Bihar...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Baijnath Kedia; Respondent: State of Bihar & Ors.; Respondent: Respondent No. 4 (C.A. No. 687/1967) and Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 (C.A. No. 688/1967); Intervener: Intervener (C.A. No. 685/1967)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 August 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals / Appeal From Patna High Court Judgment/orders in Writ Petitions Under Article 226
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Legislative Competence, Mines and Minerals Regulation, Ultra Vires Legislation, State Vs Union Legislative Powers, Retrospective Effect of Rules
Constitutional Law Mining and Minerals Legislative Competence Mines and Minerals Regulation Ultra Vires Legislation State Vs Union Legislative Powers Retrospective Effect of Rules

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baijnath Kedia

Appellant

State of Bihar & Ors.

Respondent

Respondent No. 4 (C.A. No. 687/1967) and Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 (C.A. No. 688/1967)

Respondent

Intervener (C.A. No. 685/1967)

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals / Appeal From Patna High Court Judgment/orders in Writ Petitions Under Article 226

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bihar Legislature had legislative competence to enact the second proviso to s. 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 after the enactment of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957
  2. 2 Whether Rule 20(2) of the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1964 could validly operate retrospectively to alter terms of pre-existing leases

Ratio Decidendi

The second proviso to s. 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (as amended in 1964) was ultra vires as the legislative field relating to minor minerals was covered by s. 15 read with the declaration in s. 2 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957; consequently, Rule 20(2) of the Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1964 was also invalid for lack of legislative support and could not operate retrospectively to alter existing lease terms.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Mandamus issued restraining the State Government from enforcing the provisions of the second proviso to s. 10(2) of Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Bihar Act 4 of 1965) and the second sub-rule of Rule 20 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964.