1971 (2) TMI 130 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order dated September 22, 1967.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition.
3. Existence and communication of the order of revocation dated April 4, 1962.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the revocation order.
5. Merger of the original order of revocation with the order passed by the Central Government in revision.
6. Impact of Rule 28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 on the grant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order Dated September 22, 1967:
The petitioner, Serajuddin & Co., challenged the order dated September 22, 1967, issued by the Secretary, Department of Mining & Geology, Government of Orissa. The order directed the petitioner to stop working and quit possession of the mining area within 30 days. The petitioner limited its challenge to this order, arguing it was based on a non-existent or void revocation order. The Court found that the revocation order dated April 4, 1962, did exist and was communicated to the petitioner through a memo dated April 11, 1962. Therefore, the Court did not accept the argument that the impugned order was based on a non-existent order.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Entertain the Writ Petition:
The respondents contended that the High Court lacked jurisdiction as all respondents were located outside its territorial jurisdiction. However, the Court overruled this objection, citing the Fifteenth Amendment of 1963 to Article 226(1A) of the Constitution, which allows the High Court to entertain writ petitions if part of the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction. In this case, the service of the impugned order at the petitioner's Calcutta address provided sufficient cause of action within the Court's jurisdiction.

3. Existence and Communication of the Order of Revocation Dated April 4, 1962:
The petitioner argued that there was no valid order of revocation. The Court found that the revocation order dated April 4, 1962, did exist and was communicated to the petitioner through a memo dated April 11, 1962. The Court held that the communication of the substance of the order was sufficient to make the order effective in law.

4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice in the Revocation Order:
The petitioner contended that the revocation order was void as it was made without affording an opportunity to show cause, violating principles of natural justice. The Court agreed, stating that the revocation deprived the petitioner of a valuable right without due process. The Court cited several Supreme Court decisions affirming the necessity of following natural justice principles in such cases.

5. Merger of the Original Order of Revocation with the Order Passed by the Central Government in Revision:
The respondents argued that the original revocation order had merged with the Central Government's order passed in revision, which was not challenged by the petitioner. The Court agreed, stating that the order of revocation had merged into the order passed by the Central Government in revision. Since the petitioner did not challenge the Central Government's order, it could not seek relief against the original revocation order or the consequential order dated September 22, 1967.

6. Impact of Rule 28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 on the Grant:
The Court noted that the petitioner's original application for a mining lease was made under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, and the grant was made on December 6, 1949. Under Rule 28A, if the formal lease was not executed within six months, the grant stood revoked by operation of law. The Court found that the grant stood revoked under Rule 28A, and thus, the petitioner had no legal basis for its claim.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged. The Court found that the petitioner had no valid grounds to challenge the order dated September 22, 1967, as the original revocation order was validly communicated and had merged with the Central Government's order in revision. Additionally, the grant stood revoked by operation of law under Rule 28A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949. The Court stayed the operation of its order for one month.