9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order of the Central Government under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, is quasi-judicial or administrative. 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by not providing a hearing to the appellant before the Central Government passed its order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of the Order under Rule 54: The primary issue in this case is whether the order of the Central Government under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, is quasi-judicial or administrative. The appellant was initially granted a mining lease by the State of Orissa, which was later reviewed and altered by the Central Government without providing the appellant an opportunity to be heard. The appellant contended that the Central Government was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and thus was required to follow the principles of natural justice, including granting a hearing before deciding the review application. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant rules, specifically Rules 52 to 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949. Rule 52 provides a statutory right to any person aggrieved by an order of the State Government refusing a mining lease to apply for review to the Central Government within two months. Rule 53 prescribes a fee for such an application. Rule 54 states that upon receiving such an application, the Central Government may call for relevant records and information from the State Government and, after considering any explanation, cancel or revise the State Government's order as deemed just and proper. Rule 55 declares that the Central Government's order under Rule 54 is final. The Court referred to previous judgments to distinguish between administrative and quasi-judicial acts. It cited the definition of a quasi-judicial body from the case of Province of Bombay v. Kushaldas S. Advani, which requires three conditions: legal authority, determination of questions affecting rights, and a duty to act judicially. The Court concluded that the Central Government, when acting under Rule 54, fulfilled these conditions and thus was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The appellant argued that the Central Government's failure to provide a hearing before deciding the review application violated the principles of natural justice. The Court agreed, noting that when a statutory rule grants a right to an aggrieved party to apply for a review, a lis (dispute) is created between the aggrieved party and the party in whose favor the original order was made. This necessitates the duty to act judicially, which includes providing a reasonable opportunity for the affected party to present their case. The Court found that Rule 54 did not negate the duty to act judicially. The rule's requirement for the Central Government to act "justly and properly" aligns with the principles of natural justice. The fact that the Central Government is not bound to call for records does not negate this duty, as courts themselves have the power to dismiss appeals without calling for records. The Court held that the Central Government, by not providing a hearing to the appellant, failed to act judicially, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order of January 28, 1954, was liable to be quashed. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and quashing the Central Government's order of January 28, 1954. The Court directed that the Central Government may proceed to decide the review application afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to represent his case. The appellant was awarded costs throughout from the third respondent, who was the principal contesting party. Appeal allowed.
|
