SYEDSHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI

(1) 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 Ann (1983 (1) SCC 147 [LQ/SC/1982/194] ) 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 SCR 647 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 Mqfatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997 (5) SCC 536 [LQ/SC/1996/2243] ). 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 [LQ/SC/1983/320] .

(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 58O) 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 Honble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions.