SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Large Bench)

Before:- S.S.M. Quadri, R.C. Lahoti, N. Santosh Hegde, Doraiswamy Raju, Ruma Pal and A. Pasayat, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 2002 with SLP (C) Nos. 57777, 5204, 8797, 7950, WP(C) Nos. 934 of 1992 of 16 of 1996, SLP (C) Nos. 6744 of 1993. 2303 of 1995, 13467 of 1995, 4367 of 1992, 6191-92 of 1992, W.P. (C) No. 342 of 1999, 469 of 2000, 660 of 1998, I.A. Nos. 2-3 in C.A. Nos 2797-98 of 1992, W. P. (C) Nos. 672 of 2000, 419 of 2001, and S.L.P. (C) No. 4129 of 1992. D/d. 20.2.2002.

Property Owners' Association and others - Appellants

Versus

State of Maharashtra and others - Respondents

Constitution of India, Article 39(b) - 'Material resources of community' - Whether covers even privately owned resources - View expressed in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 215, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 239, 1997 (5) SCC 536 and AIR 1984 Supreme Court 326 that the expression includes private owned resource also - Held, view requires re-consideration - Matter referred to larger Bench of 9 Judges.

[Paras 5 and 6]

Cases Referred :-

State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1978 (1) SCR 641).

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India. (1997 (5) SCC 536).

State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Abu. Kavur Bai (1984) 1 SCC 515.

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu. (1999 (7) SCC 580).

JUDGMENT

S.S.M. Quadri, R.C. Lahoti, N. Santosh Hegde, Doraiswamy - A Bench of five learned Judges has referred to a Bench of seven learned Judges these matters for the reason that it was of the opinion that the view expressed in the case of Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Anr. (1983 (1) SCC 147) required consideration.

2. Put shortly, the question is as to the interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Constitution which speaks of the distribution for the public good of the ownership and control of the material resources of the community. In State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1978 (1) SCR 641), two judgments were delivered. In the judgment delivered by Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for himself and two other Judges, the view was taken that material resources of the community covered all resources, natural and man-made, publicly and privately owned. The other judgment, delivered by Untwalia, J., on behalf of himself and three other Judges, did not consider it necessary to express any opinion with regard to Article 39(b); it was. however, made clear in this, the majority judgment that the learned Judges did not subscribe to the view taken in respect of Article 39(b) by Krishna Iyer, J.

3. The view taken by Krishna Iyer, J. in the case of Ranganatha Reddy was affirmed by a Constitution Bench in the case of Sanjeev Coke (aforementioned).

4. Now, in the course of the argument before us, the learned Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra, has drawn our attention to the judgment of a Bench of nine learned Judges in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India. (1997 (5) SCC 536). Speaking for himself and four other Judges, Jeevan Reddy, J. said, "That the material resources of the community are not confined to public resources but include all resources, natural and man-made, public and private owned is repeatedly affirmed by this Court.", and reference was made to the cases of Ranganatha Reddy, Sanjeev Coke and State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Abu. Kavur Bai (1984) 1 SCC 515.

5. Having given due consideration, we are of the opinion that this interpretation of Article 39 (b) requires to be reconsidered by a Bench of nine learned Judges : we have some difficulty in sharing the broad view that material resources of the community under Article 39 (b) covers what is privately owned.

6. Given that there is some similarity in the issues here involved and in the case of I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu. (1999 (7) SCC 580) which already stands referred to a larger Bench, preferably of nine learned Judges, we are of the view that these matters should be heard by a Bench of nine learned Judges immediately following the hearing in the case of I.R. Coelho. ).

7. Given the importance of the matter and the fact that constitutional issues are involved in I.R. Coelho as also in this case, we direct that parties shall file skeleton arguments within eight weeks.

8. The papers shall be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions.

Order accordingly.