9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short the MMDR Act ) and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (in short the MC Rules ) framed thereunder. It is the grievance of the petitioner herein that this review is instituted since the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, could not put forth its view on the interpretation of the provisions of the MMDR Act in Sandur (supra) for the reason that the copy of the special leave petition was not served upon the review petitioner which is a necessary and relevant party to the subject-matter in issue/dispute and the review petitioner did not get an opportunity of being heard. 3) It is also brought to our notice that vide notification dated 30.01.2003, the Ministry of Coal and Mines was bifurcated into separate Ministries since the petitioners in various SLPs furnished the name of the Ministry as Ministry of Coal and Mines in all the matters and according to them, it was not noticed by the Department concerned, namely, the Department of Mines. 4) We are conscious of the fact that the principles of natural justice guarantee every person the right to represent his/her case in the court of law, wherein the final verdict of the court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for an application for review which reads as under: Any person considering himself aggrieveda) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order. 12) Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; ii) Mistake or error appar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicable to both virgin and previously held areas. Now we shall discuss the above mentioned issues respectively. First Contention: 17) The first contention of learned Attorney General is two fold viz., that the Expert Committee s Report was misquoted and as a result the impugned judgment which relies on the same, shall stand erroneous on the face of law. We accede to the above contention partially. It is true that the Expert Committee s Report has been misquoted to the extent of adding four lines, which was originally not a part of the report. Thus, this Court has the power to modify the impugned judgment to the extent of deletion of the misquoted statement under review jurisdiction. 18) The Report of the Committee to Review the Existing Laws and Procedures for Regulation and Development of Minerals, referred in the impugned judgment reads as under: Para 2.1.21 of the Report: 49 The concept of first-come, first-serve has become necessary in view of the fact that the Act does not provide for inviting applications through advertisement for grant of PL/ML in respect of virgin areas. No doubt, there is provision in Rule 59 of the MC Rules for advertisement of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected . A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise . 23) This Court, on numerous occasions, had deliberated upon the very same issue, arriving at the conclusion that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. 24) In the present case, the error contemplated in the impugned judgment is not one which is apparent on the face of the record rather the dispute is wholly founded on the point of interpretation and applicability of Section 11(2) and 11(4) of the MMDR Act. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Hence, in review jurisdiction, the court shall interfere only when there is a glaring omission or patent mistake or when a grave error has crept in the impugned judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of Mineral Policies, this Court has already held in Sandur (supra) that in view of the specific parliamentary declaration as discussed and explained by this Court in various decisions, there is no question of the State having any power to frame a policy de hors the MMDR Act and the MC Rules. 28) In view of the above, the petitioner-Union of India has not invoked any valid ground for exercising the power under review jurisdiction. In addition to the same, after the judgment in Sandur (supra), another coordinate Bench of this Court followed the ratio decidendi in Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. vs. Union of India Ors., 2012 (11) SCC 1. 29) For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to accept any of the contentions raised by Learned Attorney General, therefore, the review petition is disposed of by deleting the misquoted lines in the Expert Committee Report. 30) In view of the above order and the directions issued by us in para 98 of Sandur (supra), we grant a further period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order to comply with the same. 31) In view of the dismissal of the review petition filed by the Union of India, the impleadment applications stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
