# BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ANR v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS - **Citation:** [1990] 3 S.C.R. 744 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1990-08-17 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4521 of 1986 - **Bench:** K.N. Singh, M.H. Kania - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bharat-coking-coal-ltd-and-anr-v-state-of-bihar-and-ors-10785 - **Pages:** 28 ## Headnote Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957: Sections 2, 3, 5, 13, 18--Coal slurry escaping from coal mine washeryDeposited on river-bed and Raiyati /and-Lease for disposal thereof-· --=r _ Competence of State Government-Non-framing of Rules by Central C Government-Whether cunfers legislative competence on State Legislature-Extent of executive power in the execution of lease-Coal slurry-Whether constitutes mineral. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 162-State's executive D power-Whether co-extensive with legislative power-State denuded of its legislative competence-Whether State's executive power extends. E F G Articles 245 and 246 and Schedule Vll List I Entry 54 and List II Entry 23-Subject matter falling under Union list-Absence of Parliamentary legislation-Whether confers power on State Legislature. Practice & Procedure: Pleading-Party taking a particular stand throughout-Before the Courts-Deviation therefrom-Whether open "' to it-Operation of estoppel. Words & Phrases: "Conservation"-"Mine"-Meaningof. The three appellant companies claimed their respective right to the slurry that escaped from their washery plant/pond and got deposited in the Bokaro and Damodar River beds, as also in certain Raiyati land. The State Government did not accept their plea and leased out the .i, right to remove the said slurry to the respondent on payment of royalty. The first two appellants filed Writ Petitions before the Patna High Court challenging the State Government's action in leasing out the right to the Respondent's for removing the slurry. The third company instituted criminal proceedings against the contractors, who in turn filed Writ Petitions before the Calcutta High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings and for a direction permitting them to collect l_ H slurry under the lease granted by the State Government. 744 BHARAT COKING COAL v. STATE OF BIH/\.R 745 The Full Bench of the Patna High Court dismissed the Writ Peli· lions and held that slurry was neither coal nor mineral; jt was an industrial waste of coal mine which was not regulated by the provlslC)ns of the Act. It also held that collection of slurry did not lnvo.lve a·ny mining operations and the settlement made by the State Government In favour of the respondents was not a mining lease and so the State Government was not under any legal obligation to ubtain previous S8J1C· lion of the Central Government under the Mines and Minerals (l!.egulation and Development) Act, 1957. It further held that after the slurry escaped into the river bed or to some other land, it ceased to belong to the appellants and the State Government was entitled to execute the lease for collection of the slurry. The Writ Petitions filed by tbe Contractors before the Calcutta High Court were dismissed by a Single Judge who held that tJte third appellnat-company was the owner of the slurry and the State Govern. ment had no authority to grant any lease to the respondent-contractors for removal of the same. On appeal by the contractors the Division Bench held that the lease granted by the State of Bihar in favour of the contractors was not a mining lease and the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, were not applicable to the grant of lease. On the question of appellants' claim to the property rights for collecting slurry, the Bench held that the slurry deposited on the appellants' land, belonged to them and the respondents had no right to collect the same but if the slurry settled down on other's I.and the respondents have right to remove the same. Against the above decisions of the two High Courts, the appella11tcompanies have preferred the present appeals. A B c p t"' On behalf of the appellants, it was inter alia contended ·lbat the F slurry jSludge was in substance coal, a mineral specified in the First . f, schedule to the Act; that the State Government had no authority In law to grant any lease to the respondents for the collection, remov.al .o ## Text _Characters 0–39,651 of 75,338. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39651 for what follows._ A B BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ANR. v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. AUGUST 17, 1990 [K.N. SINGH AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.] Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957: Sections 2, 3, 5, 13, 18--Coal slurry escaping from coal mine washeryDeposited on river-bed and Raiyati /and-Lease for disposal thereof-· --=r _ Competence of State Government-Non-framing of Rules by Central C Government-Whether cunfers legislative competence on State Legislature-Extent of executive power in the execution of lease-Coal slurry-Whether constitutes mineral. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 162-State's executive D power-Whether co-extensive with legislative power-State denuded of its legislative competence-Whether State's executive power extends. E F G Articles 245 and 246 and Schedule Vll List I Entry 54 and List II Entry 23-Subject matter falling under Union list-Absence of Parliamentary legislation-Whether confers power on State Legislature. Practice & Procedure: Pleading-Party taking a particular stand throughout-Before the Courts-Deviation therefrom-Whether open "' to it-Operation of estoppel. Words & Phrases: "Conservation"-"Mine"-Meaningof. The three appellant companies claimed their respective right to the slurry that escaped from their washery plant/pond and got deposited in the Bokaro and Damodar River beds, as also in certain Raiyati land. The State Government did not accept their plea and leased out the .i, right to remove the said slurry to the respondent on payment of royalty. The first two appellants filed Writ Petitions before the Patna High Court challenging the State Government's action in leasing out the right to the Respondent's for removing the slurry. The third company instituted criminal proceedings against the contractors, who in turn filed Writ Petitions before the Calcutta High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings and for a direction permitting them to collect l_ H slurry under the lease granted by the State Government. 744 BHARAT COKING COAL v. STATE OF BIH/\.R 745 The Full Bench of the Patna High Court dismissed the Writ Peli· lions and held that slurry was neither coal nor mineral; jt was an industrial waste of coal mine which was not regulated by the provlslC)ns of the Act. It also held that collection of slurry did not lnvo.lve a·ny mining operations and the settlement made by the State Government In favour of the respondents was not a mining lease and so the State Government was not under any legal obligation to ubtain previous S8J1C· lion of the Central Government under the Mines and Minerals (l!.egulation and Development) Act, 1957. It further held that after the slurry escaped into the river bed or to some other land, it ceased to belong to the appellants and the State Government was entitled to execute the lease for collection of the slurry. The Writ Petitions filed by tbe Contractors before the Calcutta High Court were dismissed by a Single Judge who held that tJte third appellnat-company was the owner of the slurry and the State Govern. ment had no authority to grant any lease to the respondent-contractors for removal of the same. On appeal by the contractors the Division Bench held that the lease granted by the State of Bihar in favour of the contractors was not a mining lease and the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, were not applicable to the grant of lease. On the question of appellants' claim to the property rights for collecting slurry, the Bench held that the slurry deposited on the appellants' land, belonged to them and the respondents had no right to collect the same but if the slurry settled down on other's I.and the respondents have right to remove the same. Against the above decisions of the two High Courts, the appella11tcompanies have preferred the present appeals. A B c p t"' On behalf of the appellants, it was inter alia contended ·lbat the F slurry jSludge was in substance coal, a mineral specified in the First . f, schedule to the Act; that the State Government had no authority In law to grant any lease to the respondents for the collection, remov.al .or lifting of the slurry coal deposited in the river bed or on any l!.aiyati land without obtaining the sanction of the Centra.1 Government u11der Section 5 of the Act; that the deposit of the slurry in the .river bed ;!lid G the land was by natural process of flow of water discharged from the washeries; that there was no law made by the State Legislature authorising the State Government to interfere with the appellants' property J right by way of executive orders; that slu.rry .discharged ·from the washeries of the appellants' coal mines constituted waste and effiue11t of coal mines, its disposal was exclusively within the legislative compe· H A B c D E F G 746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 3 S.C.R. tence of the Parliament; and that in view of the Parliament's declara· tion under Section 2 read with Sections 13 and 18 of the Act, the State Government was denuded of all its legislative competence to make any ~ law with regard to disposal of waste or effiuent discharge of coal mines, and hence the State Government had no executive power to deal with the same. The main contentions on behalf of the respondents were that once the slurry escaped from the washery plants of the appellant it ceased to belong to them and as it polluted the river water and affected the fertility of Raiyati land the State Government was justified in providing for its collection and removal to prevent pollution; that the appellants could not have any right in the goods which they abandoned; that the \vasheries do not form integral part of the mining operations, and there· fore the slurry could not be treated as a waste of coal mine. Alterna· tively it was contended that even if slurry was a waste of coal mine the State Government was competent to provide for its collection and removal as the Central Government had failed to make any rule under Section 18 of the Act regulating the disposal of the slurry. Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD: 1. Slurry is a descriptive expression, it may be cement slurry or coal slurry, depending upon the character or quality of the mixture of mineral in the liquid form. There is no doubt that in the "' i!lstant cases, slurry is coal slurry, as admittedly small particles of coal escape from the washery plant alongwith water. After it overflows the storage pond the slurry flows into the river and is deposited on the river bed, which is later on collected and used as fuel after it is formed into briquettes. The deposit which is collected from the river bed continues ,... to be carbonaceous in character having all the elements of coat. 'II Thus, the slurry is coal in liquid form, and slurry coal deposited in the river bed or lands in substance as well as in its character con· ---( tinues to be coat. [757F; 758C·D I Kesari Mal Jain v. State of Bihar, AIR 1985 Patna 114, approved. Websters New 20th Century Dictionary; Encyclopaedia Britannica, referred to. 2. The definition of "mining operation" and "mine" are very l. wide. The expression ''mining of mineral'' in the definition of ''mining H operation'' under Section 3( d) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & BHARAT COKING COAL v. STATE OF BIHAR 747 Development) Act, 1957 is spacious enough to comprehend every activity by which a mineral is extracted or obtained from the earth irrespective >· of whether such activity is carried out on the surface or in the bowels of the earth. It is not a requirement of the definition of "mining opera· lion", that the activity for winning the mineral must necessarily be an underground activity. The essence of 'mining operation' is that it must be an activity for winning a mineral whether under the surface or winning the surface of.earth. The slurry which is deposited on the river bed is not dumped there artificially by any human agency instead coal j>·~ particles are carried to the river bed by the flow of water through • natural process. Therefore the view taken by the High Court that the slurry which is deposited in the river bed is dumped by the appellants by artificial process is incorrect. Once the coal particles are carried away by the water which is discharged from the washery and the same are settled in the river bed, any operation for the extraction of lifting of the coal particles from the river bed would involve wino- - - ·-· ing operations within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the Act. However. in the instant cases. it is not necessary to express any final opinion on this question. [759D·Gl Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu v. B.D. Dey & Co. & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1669. relied on. Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1976) 3 SCR 869, referred to. 3. The State Legislature is competent to enact law for the regulation of mines and mineral development under Entry 23 of State List but this power is subject to the declaration which may be made by Parliament by law as envisaged by Entry 54 of Union List. Thus the legislative competence of the State Legislature to make law on the topic of mines and minerals is subject to Parliamentary Legislation. The Parliament has enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Ry Section 2 of the Act the Parliament has declared that it is expedient in public inter~st that the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent provided in the Act. In view of Parliamentary declaration as made in section 2 of the Act, the State Legislature is denuded of its legislative power to make any law with respect to the regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent as provided hy the Act. [760G·H; 76IA) A B c D E F G 4.1 An analysis of the provisions of the Act makes the extent of H 748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990) 3 S.C.R. A Parliamentary declaration clear that the disposal and discharge of sludge or slurry emanating or coming from the washery of a coal mine is exclusively within the legislative power of Parliament. The Act further provides that the Central Government has exclusive power to frame any _....._ rule either under Section 13(2)(0) or under the amended Section ! 8( 1 )( k) of the Act regulating disposal of slurry. The effect of the B Parliamentary declaration as contained in the Act is that the matters referred to in the declaration, stand abstracted from List II and these become matters of legMation in List I of the Seventh Schedule. As a result of the declaration made by the Parliament, under Section 2 of the -} Act, the State Legislature is denuded of its legislative power with respect to the regulation of mines and minerals development and the entire c legislative field has been taken over by Parliament. [763C-E) 4.1 The Central Government has not framed any rule either under Section 13 or under Section 18 of the Act. Prior to the Amending Act 37 of 1986 Section 13(2)(0) conferred power on the Central Govern- -·· men! to frame rules for the purpose of granting prospecting licences D and mining leases including the disposal of discharge of any tailings. slime or other waste products. Sub-clause (o) of Section 13(2) was transposed into Section 18(2) as sub-clause (k) by the Amending Act 37 of 1986. Section 18 (I) confers general power on the Central Government to frame rules and to take all such steps as may be necessary for the conse.rvation and development of mJnerals in India. Section 18(2) does E not affect or restrict the generality or width of legislative power under . '< Section 18(1) as the matters specified in various sub-clauses of Section 18(2) are illustrative in nature. Even in the absence of sub-section (2) or its various sub-clauses, the Central Government was invested with the power of subordinate leJ!islation in respect of any matter which could reasonably be connected with the purpose of "conservation and 1 F development of minerals" by Section 18(1) of the Act. Power to frame rules, regulating the discharge or disposal of slime or slurry emanating from a coal mine including its collection from the river bed or from '"" Raiyati land after its escape from the washery of the coal mines. would clearly fall within the expression "conservation of mineral". Slurry admittedly contain coal particles, its collection from land or river is G reasonably connected with the 'conservation of miner~l'. Section I 8(2)(k) which expressly confers power on the Central Government to regulate disposal or discharge of waste of a mine makes the Parliamentary declaration apparent that the State Legislature is not competent to regulate waste discharge of a coal mine. Mere absence of any ..l._ rule framed by the Central Government under Sections 13 or 18 of the H Act with regard to the disposal of slime or waste of a coal mine does not BHARAT COKING COAL v . . STATE OF BIHAR 749 confer legislative competence on the State Legislature to make any law ) or rule. Once a particular topic of legislation is covered by the · - - Parliamentary declaration. the State Legislature is denuded of its power to make any law or rule in respect of that topic or subject matter and the absence of Rules would not oonfer legisb\tive competm. STATE OF BIHAR [SINGH, J.I 751 Government has no authority in law to make any settlement or grant >- any l~ase to any person for the c~llection of slurry deposits eit.her from . · the river bed or other land. The impugned settlements made m favour of the respondents by the State Government are illegal and the respondent-lessees have no right nor title to collect the slurry deposits and they are restrained from lifting or collecting the same from the land in dispute. [77JH; 772A] [This Court directed that the money deposited pursuant to the interim orders passed by the High Court and this Court will be paid to the successful party.] [ 771 C] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4521 of 1986. etc. etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.1985 of the Patna --..__ --- High Court in C.W.J.C. No 1133 of 1984(R). Ashok Desai, Solicitor General, Kuldip Singh, Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor Generals, K.K. Veuugopal, R.K. Jain, Gobind Das, R.N Sachthey, Shanti Bhushan, Dr. L.M. Singhvi, L.N. Sinha, M.L. Verma, Ranjit Kumar, K.K. Lahiri, R.F. Nariman, S. Sukumaran, P.K. Jain, P. Saswidia, P. Parmeshwaran, C.V. Sobba Rao, P.P. Singh, D Goburdan, S.B. Upadhyay, P.C. Kapoor, M.M Kashyap, A. y Sharan, R.D. Upadhyay, S.K. Sinha, Apurb Lal, Anip Sachthey, C. Badri Nath Babu, B.B. Singh, A.K. Mitra, O.C. Mathur, A.N. Dittia, Aron Madan, Ms. A Subhashini/C.V. Subba Rao, Mrs. Sushma Suri and A.M. Ditta for the Appearing Parties. -.. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ' SINGH, J. In these appeals a common question of law is involved whether the State of Bihar had legal authority to execute leases in favour of the respondents for collection of slurry on payment of royalty to it. Since the question involved in these appeals are common the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. Civil Appeal No. 4521 of 1986 and Civil Appeal Nos. 61-62 of 1987 are - directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court while Civil Appeal Nos. 230-231 _of 1987 are directed against the judgment of the J Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. In order to appreciate the controversy in question it is necessary to recapitulate the facts. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.-appellant in A B c D E F - G H 752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990] 3 S.C.R. A C.A. 4521 of 1986 is a Government Company which carries coal mining operations in village Sudamdih in the State of Bihar. There is a coal washery adjacent to the appellant's coal mine in village Sudamdih. After the coal is extracted from the mines, it is crushed into pieces of different sizes for purposes of grading. Since the coal is mixed up with mud and other impurities, same is brought to the washery for B washing and cleaning the same for reducing the ash percentage and for use by metallurgical consumers. In the process of washing small coal particles escape from the washery in the form of slurry along with water and the same are deposited in the slurry ponds constructed for their storage by the appellant company. But when the ponds are full, the slurry overflows the p~nd and flows down into the river Damodar. After the water is soaked by the soil the small particles of coal get C deposited in the river bed. These coal particles are collected and formed into briquettes which are sold in market for energy and fuel purposes. The slurry coal has acquired high commercial value as it is of exceptional quality and high grade, it is used by steel plants and thermal power stations. The State of Bihar granted lease in favour of Ram D Nath Singh-respondent No. 4 for collecting the coal particles settled in the Damodar river bed and other land including plot No. 370 of Mauza Sudamdih. The appellant claimed that plot No. 370 which formed part of river bed of Damodar belonged to it having been acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 for the purpose of mining of coal. Pursuant to the lease, E respondent No. 4 has been collecting the coal particles from plot No. 370. The appellant company raised objection before the Revenue Authorities of the State of Bihar claiming property rights to collect and obtain slurry deposited in the river bed in plot No. 370, but its objections were over-ruled and respondent No. 4 was permitted to collect the coal particles from the aforesaid plot. The appellant thereupon F filed a writ petition in the High Court of Patna challenging the State Government's action in granting lease to respondent No. 4 for lifting slurry from the river bed, on the ground that the property belonged to the appellant company and the State Government had no authority in law to grant a mining lease without the prior approval of the Central Government under Section 5 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation G and Development) Act 1957. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd.-the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 61-62 of 1987, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It owris steel plant at Jamshedpur and it also owns captive coal mines in the District of Hazari Bagh and Dhanbad. These coal mines H are commonly known as West Bokaro Collieries. There is no dispute - I BHARAT COKING COAL v. STATE OF BIHAR [SINGH, J.[ 753 that large area of land in the District of Hazari Bagh and Dhanbad f have been settled with the appellant company for purposes of mining operations and the company enjoys mineral rights in respect of the surface and sub-soil. It is not necessary to refer to the historical facts relating to the acquisition of mining rights by the appellant, as there is no dispute that under Section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act the appellant's existing mining leases became statutory leases in the State of Bihar. The appellant has established washery plant in the District of --rHazari Bagh as well as in Jama Dhoba and Zora Pokhar in District Dhailbad for purposes of washing the coal after extraction from the coal mines and crushed into different sizes. In the process of washing • ·- )- the coal small particles of coal escape from the washery and over-flow from the plant and the same are deposited in the storage pond constructed by the appellant. But sometime they overflow from the storage pond and settle down in the Raiyati land and in the Bokaro river bed. The appellant has been claiming right that the slurry which escaped from the washery belonged to it and no other person had right to collect the same. The State Government did not accept the appellant's claim instead it settled the rights of collection of slurry with the respondents under the indentures granted in their favour. Under the settlement the respondents have been authorised by the State Govemmen_t to collect sludge and slurry which settles down in the Bokaro river bed or in the Raiyati land on payment of royalty to the State. The appellant filed two writ petitions before the Patna High Court challenging the authority of the State Government's action on the ground that slurry was a mineral being coal and as such its collection or mining was regulated by the provisions of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the State Government had no authority to grant any lease for collection of sludge/slurry without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The aforesaid petitions were heard and disposed of by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court (AIR 1986 Patna 242). The Full Bench dismissed the writ petitions on the findings that the slurry was neithe_r coal nor mineral instead it was an industrial waste of coal mine which-· was not regulated by the provisions of the Act. The collection of slurry did not involve any mining operations and the settlement made by the State Government in favour of the respondents for collecting the same _l "was not a mining lease, therefore, the State Government was not under any legal obligation to obtain previous sanction of the Central Government under the Act. The High Court further held that after the slurry escaped into the river bed or to some other land, the same A B c D E F G H 754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R. A ceased to belong to the appellants and the State Government was entitlement to execute lease for collection of the same. Civil Appeal Nos. 230-231 of 1987 are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (AIR 1985 Calcutta 143). Tue Central Coalfields Ltd. and the Coal India Ltd. the B appellants are Government Companies which own coal mines in the District of Giridih in the State of Bihar. The appellants have set up coal washeries at Kathara, Kargali and Sawang in the District of Giridih for washing the coal extracted from its mines. In the process of washing, particles of coal escape from the washery along with water which ultimately flows into the river Damodar. The Mining DepartC ment of the State of Bihar granted lease to Industrial Fuel Marketing Company and Ors.-respondents for removing the slurry from the river bed on payment of royalty but the appellants resisted the collection of slurry from their land and they instituted criminal proceedings against the contractors. Thereupon, the respondents-contractors filed writ petitions before the Calcutta High Court for quashing the criminal D case registered against them, and also for the issue of a direction permitting them to collect slurry under the lease granted to them by the State of Bihar. Before the High Court the appellants herein contended that the slurry belonged to them and the State of Bihar had no authority in law to grant any lease in respect of the same. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the E findings that the appellants herein are the owner of the slurry and the State Government had no authority to grant any lease to the respondent contractors for removal of the same. On appeal by the contractors a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court vide its judgment (AIR 1985 Calcutta 143) held that the lease granted by the State of Bihar in favour of the contractors was not a mining lease and the provisions of F the Act were not applicable to the grant of lease. On the question of appellants' claim to the property rights for collecting slurry, the Bench held that the slurry deposited on the appellant's land, belonged to them and the respondents had no right to collect the same but if the slurry settled down on other's land the respondents have right to remove the same from the river bed. Aggrieved, the Central Coalfields G Ltd. and Coal India Ltd. have challenged the correctness of the High Court's view by these appeals. The main question which falls for consideration is whether the State of Bihar has authority to grant lease/settlement to the respondents for collection/lifting of coal slurry deposited in the river bed or H on any other land after its escape from the appellants' washeries. BHARAT COKING COAL v. STATE OF BIHAR [SINGH, J.] 755 Before the High Court the appellants contended that in view of the provisions of the Act the State of Bihar had no authority to grant any .> lease regarding collection of slurry without the prior approval of the Central Government. The State of Bihar and other respondents contended before the High Court that the slurry was not a mineral, and its collection or lifting from the river bed involved no mining operations, therefore, the Act did not apply and the State Government was.free to grant leases for collection of the same. The appellants further pleaded before the High Court that since slurry after its escape from their washeries settled down in their own land, it continued to be their property and the State of Bihar had no authority to grant lease for collection of the same from their land. The Full Bench of the Patna High Court held that the slurry was neither coal nor a mineral instead it was a reject residue or waste of an industrial process consisting of mud, ash and oily substances having carbonaceous ingredients. Since collection of slurry did not involve any mining operations the provi- ~-~- sions of the Act did not apply and the State Government had authority to settle the removal of slurry with private parties. With regard to the appellants' claim of ownership of the slurry deposited on the appellants' land, the Full Bench did not decide the question, on the ground that these issues involved disputed questions of fact which could properly be adjudicated in a civil suit. ' ,. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the lease granted by the State of Bihar was not a mining lease as the river bed or the land from where the slurry was collected was not a mine as no winning or mining operations were involved in collecting the same. The Bench further held that the lease granted by the State Government in favour of the respondents for collecting the slurry did not confer any right in them for carrying out coal mining operation nor such right relates to winning or mining of coal. However the Bench held that the slurry deposited on the appellants' land belonged to them and the respondents-lessee had no right to collect slurry from the appellants' land. But if the slurry was deposited on the land not owned by the appellants, the lessee was entitled to remove the same under the settlement made by the State of Bihar. Thus, both the High Courts held that the slurry which escaped from the washeries and deposited in the river bed or on other land did not constitute a mineral and it was not regulated by the Central Act, consequently, the State of Bihar had l authority to settle the collection of slurry. Learned counsel for the parties made elaborate submissions before us in support of their case. On behalf of the appellants it was A B c D E F G H 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R. A urged that slurry/sludge the subject matter of dispute in the instant cases, in substance is coal, a mineral specified in the First Schedule to the Act. The State Government had no authority in law to grant any """ lease to the respondents for the collection or removal or lifting of the slurry coal deposited in the river bed or on any Raiyati land without B obtaining the sanction of the Central Government under Section 5 of the Act. The counsel for the appellants further emphasised that slurry which escaped from washery of the coal mines, contains small particles of coal having carbonaceous character, and it is used for energy and fuel purposes. Assailing the findings of the Full Bench of the Patna ·-.," ~' - High Court and the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, the appellants' counsel submitted that slurry coal was not deposited in the river bed or other land by any artificial mode instead the same were r C deposited in the river bed and the land by natural process of flow of water discharged from the washeries. The process of collection or removal of the same from the river bed or Raiyati land by the respondent/lessees involved winning operations. Winning or mining operation according to the learned counsel did not always requite D excavation or extraction of a mineral from the bowels of the earth instead a mineral like sand or gravel may be deposited on the earth and removal of the same would also involve winmng or mining operation. The appellants further urged that if the slurry which is the subject matter of the lease or settlement, is not a mineral, the State Government had no authority in law to authorise any other person to remove E the same from the appellants' land. There is no law made by the State "" Legislature authorising the State Government to interfere with the appellants' property rights. In the absence of any law the State of Bihar had no authority to interfere with the appellants' property rights by executive orders. In the alternative learned counsel for the appelF lants urged that on the admitted pleadings of the parties slurry dis- -' charged from the washeries of the appellants' coal mines constituted waste and effluent of coal 111ines, its disposal was exclusively within the legislative competence of the Parliament. In view of the Parliament's .\ declaration under Section 2 read with Sections 13 and 18 of the Act, the State Government was denuded of all its powers in the matter relating to the disposal of slurry which would include its removal or collection. G Since the State Legislature is denuded of its legislative competence to make any law with regard to disposal of waste or effluent discharge of coal mines, the State Government has no executive power to deal with the same. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar and other respondents reiterated their stand as taken by them before the High Court .J. that the slurry was not a mineral and its removal did not involve any H mining operations, consequently the settlement deed was not a mining >- 1 .BHARAT COKING COAL v. STATE OF BIHAR [SINGH, J.[ 757 lease under the Act. On behalf of the State Government it was further contended that once the slurry escaped from the washery plants of the appellants it ceased to belong to them and as it polluted the river water and affected the fertility of Raiyati land the State Government was justified in providing for its collection and removal to prevent pollution. The appellants could not have any right in the good~ which they abandoned. It was further urged that the washeries do not form integral part of the mining operations, therefore the slurry could not be treated as a waste of coal mine. In the alternative learned counsel contended that even if slurry was a waste of a coal mine the State Government was competent to provide for its collection and removal as the Central Government had failed to make any rule under Section 18 of the Act regulating disposal of the slurry. Before, we consider the contentions of the parties, we think it necessary to briefly discuss the nature arid characteristic of the slurry. There is no dispute that coal is found in seams mixed with mud and other impurities. After its extraction from the mines, it is crushed into different sizes, thereafter it is washed in the washeries of the coal mines for removing its impurities for purposes of making it fit for use for metallurgical purposes. In the washery plants, coal is washed with the medium of water mixed with pine oil and sand through mechanical process. In the process of washing, large quantity of water is discharged through pipes which carry the discharged water to storage ponds constructed for the purpose of retaining the slurry. Alongwith the discharged water, small particles of coal are carried away to the pond where the coal particles settle down on the surface of the pond, and the same is collected after the pond is de-watered. The coal particles so collected are of fine quality, ash free and the same is used as fuel. The slurry is a descriptive expression, it may be cement slurry or coal slurry, depending upon the character or quality of the mixture of mineral in the liquid form. In Websters New 20th Century Dictionary, 'slurry' is defined as follows: "A thin mixture of water and any of several fine, insoluble materials as clay, cement, soil etc." In common parlance slurry is a liquid form mixed with some. other material. In Encyclopaedia Britannica 'slurry' is defined as under: "Slurry-watery mixture or suspension of insoluble matter. In the manufacture of portland cement, a mixture of the A B c D E F G raw materials with water is called a slurry. Cement may be H A B c D E F G H 758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R. piped as a slurry m building construction. Coal may be transported over long distances as a slurry via pipeline; this method of transmission is economical between large pro- ~ ducing areas and markets where large tonnages are used at a fairly uniform rate. The shipment of iron ore as slurry, either by pipeline or by tanker, also has increased. When slurry reaches its destination, the material is separated from the water before use or further processing." Viewed in the light of the above meaning of slurry, there is no _) _ doubt that in the instant cases slurry is coal slurry, as admittedly small particles of coal escape from the washery plant alongwith water. After it overflows the storage pond the slurry flows into the river and is deposited on the river bed, which is later on collected and used as fuel after it is formed into briquettes. The deposit which is collected from the river bed continues to be carbonaceous in character having all the elements of coal. Thus, the slurry is coal in liquid form. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Kesari Mal Jain v. State of Bihar, AIR 1985 Patna 114 placing reliance on Nelson's Dictionary of Mining which defined 'slurry' as 'slurry inter alia means fine carbonaceous discharge from a colliery washery" held that the carbonaceous particles so discharged from the coal washery is used for producing energy or heat therefore it was coal. The Bench further held that coal particles which flow out with the water from the coal washeries are formed into balls or briquettes for sale in the market for purposes of producing · '< energy or heat, therefore, slurry was coal. The Division Bench's view was not accepted by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court as it held that the slurry deposit did not constitute a mineral.