PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE:
Introduction
As we know, India is a federal state, but not in the proper sense. That’s why it is referred to as Quasi-federal system. In other words, it is clear that during any emergency situation the union will take precedence over states which also have some powers assigned to them under the constitution of India. One such case where the legislative power of the union government encroached upon the powers of the state government was State of West Bengal v Union of India. Facts and issues are as follows.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner in this case is State of West Bengal and it had through its legislative powers enacted West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act 1954.The act enabled West Bengal government to acquire lands that were held by ryotwari systems etc. Then Parliament enacted Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 with a background like stated above whereby provisions were now made for acquisition by lease or otherwise for prospecting licences or mining leases of land in any part of India and these provision related only to coal bearing areas in India. This culminated into one action under this act that was at issue here which led to issuance by two notifications by Union Government – one in 1959 and another in 1960 respectively expressing its intention or purpose to acquire those coal lands owned by plaintiff state that became cause for filing this suit. After some differences had arisen between them concerning their respective interests involved, each side wanted court to determine those constitutional questions arising from this case as well declare invalidity just because Parliament lacks competence within jurisdiction under Constitution; hold Act ultra vires there being no locus standi vested with Parliament on subject-matter namely Coal Act 1957 passed Union; while plaintiff seeks injunction restraining defendant from carrying out any orders towards implementation thereof particularly acquisition coals belonging her territory i.e., petitioner said he should be restrained exercising either his statutory duties regarding taking possession leasing same out. Issues were framed as follows.
Issues involved:
There were several important constitutional questions that needed to be settled and the Supreme Court of India had formulated them. They are as follows.
Firstly, whether the union government has the legislative power to make a law relating to the compulsory acquisition of the lands and properties that were present with the state government or not?
Whether West Bengal State is sovereign authority or not a sovereign authority?
If it is proved to be a sovereign authority, then can the union government, through a law, acquire its lands and the properties or not?
Can provisions of Act 1957 be held ultra vires parliamentary legislative competence so far petitioner concerned she entitled any relief?
Laws involved:
Article 32 – Original jurisdiction
Article 131 – Special Leave petition
Article 226 – Jurisdiction of High Court
S:1,7 CBA Act (1957)
Arguments:
On the other hand, the defendant state countered that almost all arguments made by the Petitioner, were grounded on public interest.
According to him, India’s industrialization projects are undertaken with public interest in mind. It is in such a context that it asserts that this rapid industrialization would call for greater coal production since it is vital for industrial processes.
Another of its points was that these coal mines and minerals should be controlled by Union. Consequently, legislation relating to control over mines and minerals was enacted by Parliament in the overall interests of the public good.
Lastly they concluded by saying regulation and acquisition would become very necessary even in such an industrialization process.
Decision:
Firstly, as per this section of 1957 act itself; Supreme Court of India has held: “The acquisition of a land or lands with coal there under which vest s in a State Government are also within the purview of this provision,”
In considering whether or not parliament had competence to enact the Act of 1957, the court said it did not ultra wires its legislative powers. In other words entry 42 list three seventh schedule give power to union government or parliament to make laws regarding acquisition from states territory but doesn’t take away from them their legislative powers
In terms of devolution of powers between centre and state judiciary has taken a narrow stand indicating that states can only legislate on local issues while union legislates on all industries business related matters. It added that like other countries’ cases states do not have absolute sovereignty over these matters. The scope for making laws pertaining to state property is unlimited under entries 52 &54 union list ,and shall include law-making on acquisition of property belonging to states without any restriction provided by constitution.
The apex court distinguished between these sovereigns power among them under Indian Constitution i.e., union and states respectively when dealing with their jurisdiction over the acquisition. The two sovereigns’ powers he explained are limited in nature only to private persons’ properties and for acquisition of its own property it doesn’t need even compensation
So that would make it void when there is an intrusion without relevant regulations in the requisite legislation.
Thus, the petition was dismissed with no costs against the respondent – Union of India.
