Field occupation in mineral regulation displaces state levy, while accrued fee liabilities survive under saving principles.

Parliamentary declaration under Entry 54 of List I was held to occupy the field of mines and mineral development to the extent covered by the 1957 Central Act, displacing the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 in that field and invalidating the State levy there. The absence of rules under the Central Act did not preserve State competence. The Court further held that supersession by necessary implication attracts the saving principle in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, so liabilities and demands for fee that had accrued before commencement of the Central Act survived and remained enforceable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 had occupied the field of mineral regulation and development so as to supersede the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 and invalidate the levy of the fee under that State Act. (ii) Whether, on such supersession, liabilities and demands for fee that had accrued before the commencement of the Central Act were saved and remained recoverable under the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Issue (i): Whether the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 had occupied the field of mineral regulation and development so as to supersede the Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 and invalidate the levy of the fee under that State Act.

Analysis: The legislative power of the State under Entry 23 of List II is subject to the declaration made by Parliament under Entry 54 of List I. The Central Act of 1957 contained the requisite declaration and its scheme, especially Sections 13 and 18, showed an intention to take under Union control the regulation and development of mines and minerals to the extent provided by the Act. The Court held that the later Central enactment covered the same field as the State Act in substance, and that the absence of actual rules framed under the Central Act did not matter, because the declaration itself, read with the statutory scheme, was sufficient to exclude State competence to the extent of the covered field.

Conclusion: Yes. The Central Act superseded the State Act to the extent of the field occupied by Parliament, and the State levy could not continue as a valid exercise of legislative power in that field.

Issue (ii): Whether, on such supersession, liabilities and demands for fee that had accrued before the commencement of the Central Act were saved and remained recoverable under the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Analysis: The Court treated the supersession of the earlier State law by the later Central law as equivalent in effect to repeal for the purpose of applying the saving principle in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The underlying principle was that rights accrued and liabilities incurred under a superseded enactment are preserved unless the later law shows a contrary intention. The Court held that the same saving principle applies where repeal is by necessary implication, because the legislative intent to displace the earlier law carries with it the ordinary incidents of repeal. As the fee liabilities had accrued before the Central Act came into force, they were not destroyed by the later displacement of the State Act.

Conclusion: Yes. The accrued fee liabilities survived and the demands remained enforceable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the writ petitions failed, but the pre-existing fee liabilities were held to be preserved notwithstanding the later Central legislation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Parliament, by a law made under Entry 54 of List I, declares Union control over the field of mines and mineral development, the corresponding State law is superseded to that extent; and if such supersession occurs by necessary implication, the saving principle in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 preserves accrued rights and liabilities unless a contrary intention appears.

---