Coal washery slurry is neither coal nor mineral; collecting it is not mining under the statute.
Industrial effluent from a coal washery, consisting of water, mud, fine coal particles and other waste, is not "coal" under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 because common parlance and market tests do not treat a processing residue as coal itself. It is also not independently a "mineral", since it is an artificial deposit created by discharge from the washery and does not arise from a mine. Collection of such slurry from soil or a river bed is therefore not a winning or mining operation, and the earlier contrary view treating slurry as coal was overruled.
Issues: (i) Whether slurry flowing from a coal washery is coal within the meaning of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. (ii) If not coal, whether slurry is independently a mineral within the meaning of the said Act. (iii) Whether collection of slurry from the soil amounts to a winning or mining operation. (iv) Whether the earlier view treating slurry as coal was correct.
Issue (i): Whether slurry flowing from a coal washery is coal within the meaning of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.
Analysis: Slurry was held to be the residual waste or reject of an industrial coal-washing process, consisting of water, mud, oily and chemical substances, fine coal particles and carbonaceous material. Applying the common parlance and market yard tests, the term "coal" could not include such an industrial effluent. A residue of processing coal could not be equated with coal itself, and slurry was neither synonymous with nor interchangeable with coal.
Conclusion: Slurry is not coal and does not fall within the ambit of the Act on that basis.
Issue (ii): If not coal, whether slurry is independently a mineral within the meaning of the said Act.
Analysis: The term "mineral" was treated as not having a fixed universal meaning, but the material in question still had to satisfy basic requirements. Slurry did not stem from a mine and was not a natural deposit in the earth. It was an artificial or man-made deposit created by discharge from the washery. On that footing, it lacked the essential character of a mineral.
Conclusion: Slurry is not independently a mineral within the meaning of the Act.
Issue (iii): Whether collection of slurry from the soil amounts to a winning or mining operation.
Analysis: Winning of a mineral presupposes the existence of a mineral deposit that can lawfully be extracted as such. Since slurry was neither coal nor a mineral and was deposited artificially, collecting it from the river bed or land could not amount to mining or winning. The leases for collection were therefore not mining leases and the mining statute did not apply.
Conclusion: Collection of slurry from the soil is not a winning or mining operation.
Issue (iv): Whether the earlier view treating slurry as coal was correct.
Analysis: The earlier Division Bench view was found to have proceeded without full consideration of the legal issues and authorities. The Court held that the earlier decision did not correctly state the law and should not be followed.
Conclusion: The earlier view was overruled.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the core legal contention that slurry was coal or a mineral was rejected, and the disputes that remained were factual matters unsuitable for determination in writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: Industrial effluent from a coal washery that is an artificial or man-made residue is neither coal nor a mineral under the mining statute, and its collection from a place of deposition does not constitute mining or winning of a mineral.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
