9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include the rejection of a revision application by the Central Government under r. 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the failure of the State Government to implement a quasi-judicial order passed by the Central Government in favor of the appellant, and the subsequent refusal of the State Government to grant a mining lease to the appellant based on certain grounds. Central Government's Direction to State Government: The appellant applied for a mining license in 1958, and after the State Government failed to make a decision, the appellant filed a revision application before the Central Government. The Central Government directed the State Government to dispose of the application by a specified date, but the State Government did not comply. Subsequently, the Central Government allowed a second revision application and directed the State Government to grant the mining lease to the appellant for a selected compact block. State Government's Refusal to Implement Central Government's Order: Despite the clear direction from the Central Government to grant the mining lease, the State Government refused to implement the order citing a policy to conserve the area for cement factories. The State Government rejected the appellant's application on the basis that he did not express willingness to set up a cement plant, leading to a series of revisions and responses between the appellant, State Government, and Central Government. Central Government's Oversight and Error: The Central Government, in its subsequent orders, failed to uphold its original direction to grant the mining lease to the appellant. The Central Government overlooked its own previous order and upheld the State Government's rejection based on ongoing litigation in the area. The Central Government's decision to sustain the State Government's refusal was deemed erroneous as there was no legal justification for going back on the initial order. Judgment and Direction: The Supreme Court found that the Central Government's order rejecting the revision application could not stand. The Court set aside the Central Government's decision and directed the State Government to implement the original order dated November 21, 1964, granting the mining lease to the appellant. The appellant was also awarded costs throughout the legal proceedings. This judgment highlights the importance of adherence to quasi-judicial orders, the obligation of subordinate authorities to follow superior tribunal directives, and the need for legal justifications in decision-making processes within the framework of mining concession rules.
|
