9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the grant of mining lease. 2. Power of Central Government to review its own order. 3. Interconnected nature of relief sought by the 5th respondent. 4. Exercise of suo moto power by the Central Government. Validity of the grant of mining lease: The case involved a dispute over the grant of a mining lease for fireclay in a specific area. The Deputy Commissioner announced the availability for regrant of mining rights in a village, and the appellant partnership firm applied for the lease. Subsequently, the State Government granted the lease to the appellant, rejecting other applicants. The 5th respondent challenged this grant before the Central Government, which dismissed the petition on the grounds of being time-barred. The Central Government later issued an order setting aside the State Government's grant, citing procedural irregularities. The appellant challenged this order before the High Court and subsequently the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Central Government's order lacked clarity on the exercise of suo moto power and failed to provide the appellant with an opportunity to respond adequately. Consequently, the grant of the mining lease to the appellant was upheld, and the Central Government was directed to pay the appellant's costs. Power of Central Government to review its own order: The appellant argued that the Central Government did not have the power to review its own order under the Mines and Minerals Act or the Mineral Concession Rules. The High Court upheld the Central Government's order based on the grounds that the initial order was not complete and that the Central Government possessed the suo moto power to review State Government orders. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that there was no provision empowering the Central Government to review its order. The Court emphasized that the lack of explicit communication regarding the exercise of suo moto power by the Central Government invalidated the subsequent order. Interconnected nature of relief sought by the 5th respondent: The 5th respondent sought two reliefs in his application: setting aside the grant to the appellant and granting the lease to himself. The High Court viewed these as independent prayers but the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the reliefs were interconnected. The Court emphasized that the grant in favor of the 5th respondent was contingent on setting aside the initial grant to the appellant. Therefore, the dismissal of the 5th respondent's application as time-barred applied to both aspects of his request. Exercise of suo moto power by the Central Government: The Central Government's order was purportedly made under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, and other enabling powers. The Supreme Court noted that the order did not explicitly indicate the exercise of suo moto power. The Court highlighted that the lack of communication regarding the exercise of such power deprived the appellant of the opportunity to respond adequately. The Court concluded that the Central Government's failure to inform the appellant of the intended exercise of suo moto power rendered the order invalid. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Central Government to bear the appellant's costs.
|
