9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 689 - SC - Indian LawsIs Rule 25A, as introduced in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, w.e.f. 1st April, 1991, by way of amendment dated 20th February, 1991, clarificatory in nature, and hence retrospective, or is it only prospective in nature? Whether the dismissal of the SLP on 24th August, 2001, filed by the appellant against the judgment of the High Court dated 2nd July, 2001 in OJC No. 11537 of 1999 would attract the principles of res judicata, so as to disentitle the appellant from urging the invalidity of the application of the legal heirs in place of the deceased Dr. Pradhan, in the pending proceedings in OJC No. 3662 of 2002, the judgment which is the subject matter of the present appeal?
Issues Involved:
1. Clarificatory or Prospective Nature of Rule 25A. 2. Application of Res Judicata due to Previous SLP Dismissal. 3. Validity of the Central Government's Order and Adherence to Natural Justice. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Clarificatory or Prospective Nature of Rule 25A The primary issue was whether Rule 25A, introduced in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, effective from April 1, 1991, was clarificatory and hence retrospective, or only prospective in nature. The appellant argued that upon the death of an applicant for a mining lease, the application abates, and legal heirs cannot maintain the application. This argument was based on the Supreme Court's interpretation in Saligram Khirwal vs. Union of India & Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 689, which held that Rule 25A was only prospective. The High Court had earlier allowed the substitution of legal heirs of Dr. Pradhan based on its interpretation that Rule 25A was clarificatory. However, the Supreme Court in Saligram's case reversed this interpretation, stating that the rule was prospective, and legal heirs could not pursue an application for a mining lease filed by the deceased. Issue 2: Application of Res Judicata due to Previous SLP Dismissal The second issue was whether the dismissal of the SLP on August 24, 2001, filed by the appellant against the High Court's judgment dated July 2, 2001, would attract the principles of res judicata, preventing the appellant from challenging the substitution of legal heirs in the pending proceedings in OJC No. 3662 of 2002. The High Court held that the dismissal of the SLP had attained finality, and the question of allowing the legal heirs to be substituted for the deceased applicant had also attained finality between the parties, operating as res judicata. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that even if the judgment was erroneous, it operated as res judicata between the parties. The Court emphasized that the principle of res judicata is based on equity, justice, and public interest, ensuring that litigation reaches finality. Issue 3: Validity of the Central Government's Order and Adherence to Natural Justice The appellant contended that the Central Government's order dated September 27, 2001, was void as it was passed by Dr. R.K. Khatri, Deputy Secretary, who did not hear the parties. The appellant argued that the proceedings before the Central Government were quasi-judicial, necessitating that the officer who heard the parties should have passed the order. The High Court found that the order was based on a detailed note prepared by Mr. S.P. Gupta, Joint Secretary, who heard the parties, and it was approved by the Secretary and the Minister. The High Court concluded that the order was a case of institutional hearing, and the communication of the decision by a different officer did not violate natural justice. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the decision-making process was not flawed and adhered to the principles of natural justice. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the High Court's judgments. It held that Rule 25A was prospective, the principle of res judicata applied due to the previous SLP dismissal, and the Central Government's order was valid, having complied with natural justice. The Court emphasized the importance of finality in litigation and the legitimacy of institutional hearings in administrative decisions.
|
