9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Central Government's order for not providing reasons. 2. Compliance with principles of natural justice. 3. Legality of the Central Government's order in light of the State Government's final order and Section 17 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Central Government's Order for Not Providing Reasons: The appellant contended that the Central Government's order was invalid as it did not provide reasons for rejecting the revision. The court emphasized that the Central Government, acting as a tribunal, must provide reasons for its decisions to ensure transparency and minimize arbitrariness. The necessity for giving reasons was founded on the existence of an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The court highlighted that a reasoned order is a desirable condition of judicial disposal, ensuring that the tribunal discloses its mind and provides satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made. However, the court noted that the Central Government's order did not disclose any reasons for rejecting the revision application, thereby vitiating the order. In contrast, another judge disagreed, stating that the Central Government's order, which agreed with the State Government's reasons, was sufficient. The judge argued that the Central Government was not bound to provide fuller reasons, as the rejection was based on agreement with the State Government's detailed reasons. 2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice: The appellant argued that the order violated principles of natural justice as the appellant was not granted a personal hearing and the Central Government considered extraneous matters without giving the appellant an opportunity to explain. The court held that while a quasi-judicial tribunal must provide an opportunity to make representations, this need not necessarily be through a personal hearing; written representations could suffice. The court found that a written representation would meet the requirements of natural justice in this case. However, the court acknowledged the appellant's concern that the Central Government considered an extraneous matter (application by Manganese Ore (India) Ltd.) without informing the appellant but did not pursue this further due to other grounds for dismissing the appeal. 3. Legality of the Central Government's Order in Light of the State Government's Final Order and Section 17 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957: The appellant contended that the Central Government's order was illegal as it ignored the State Government's final order granting the lease and failed to comply with Section 17 of the Act. The court dismissed this contention, stating that the State Government's order could only be construed as a recommendation to the Central Government, as the State Government lacked the power to grant the lease without the Central Government's approval. Regarding Section 17, the court clarified that it applies only when the Central Government proposes to undertake mining operations in an area not already held under a prospecting license or mining lease. Since there was no such proposal in this case, Section 17 was irrelevant. The court also noted that the State Government had called for fresh applications for the mining lease, providing the appellant with another opportunity to apply. Despite the appellant's concern about increased competition, the court found no grounds for interference, emphasizing the discretionary nature of its jurisdiction under Article 136. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed without costs, with the court concluding that the Central Government's order was not invalid for lack of reasons, the principles of natural justice were not violated, and Section 17 of the Act was not applicable. The court also highlighted the appellant's opportunity to reapply for the lease, deeming it inappropriate to interfere under its discretionary jurisdiction.
|
