Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment which deals with the nationalization policy of coal mines passed by the Government. 
• This judgment was delivered by a Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice PN Bhagwati, Justice O Chinnappa Reddy, Justice ES Venkataramiah, Justice Bharul Islam and Justice Amarendra Nath Sen. 

Facts 

• All the coal mines known to exist in the country were nationalized consequent to the passing of Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 which was replaced by the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973 and the Coal Mines ( Nationalisation) Act, 1973. 
• All coal mines-whether they are coking coal mines or non coking coal mines were nationalized. 
• Along with the coal mines the coke oven plants in or belonging to the mines were also nationalized.  
• All the other coke mines were left out of the scheme of nationalization for private exploitation.   
• Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company, Bhowra Coke Company challenged the inclusion of their coke oven plants in the Second Schedule as violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
• A writ petition regarding the same was filed in the Calcutta High Court. 
• These were withdrawn to the Supreme Court under Article 139A of the COI.   

Issue Involved  

• Whether the inclusion of coke oven plants of the petitioner is violative of provisions of Article 14 of the COI?   

Observations 

• The object of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act is to recognize and reconstruct coking coal mines and coke oven plants for protecting, conserving and promoting scientific development of the resources of coking coal needed to meet the growing requirements of the Iron and Steel Industry. 
• The Court held that the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1972 is a legislation for giving effect to the policy of State towards securing the principle specified in Article 39 (b) of the COI and is therefore, immune under Article 31 C from attack on the grounds that it offends the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 of the COI. 
• Further, the Court also held that the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act is not violative of Article 14. The Court gave the following reasoning regarding the same: 
  • Nationalization of any industry or means of production may be achieved in stages. 
  • If in the process of nationalization some units are left out in the earlier stages either because it is planned or because of some mistake it cannot be said that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the COI.
• The Court further held that the expression “material resources of the community” as used in Article 39 (b) of COI is not confined to natural resources. The Court therefore held that this is not confined to resources owned by public rather it includes all resources natural and man-made, public and private owned. 
• In the same breath as above the Court held that when Article 39 (b) refers to material resources of the community it does not refer only to resources owned by the community as a whole but also refers to resources owned by individual members of the community. 
• The distribution therefore envisaged by Article 39 (b) takes within it’s stride the transformation of wealth from private- ownership into public- ownership and is not confined to that which is already public owned. 
• The Court also held that a law designed to promote a directive principle even if it came into conflict with the formalistic view of equality before law it would certainly advance the broader egalitarian principle and the desirable constitutional goal of social and economic justice to all.     

Conclusion

• This is a very important judgment that justifies and highlights the objects of policy of nationalization of resources. 
• This judgment is of great relevance in the present scenario as the Supreme Court recently in the case of Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (2024) took a different view with regards to the expression “material resources of the community” than was taken in this case. 
• While this judgment lays down that the “material resources of the community” would constitute both public and private property, the recent judgment of the Supreme Court negates the above view.