9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (1) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26th February, 1962. In the meantime, the respondent No. 1 had applied on 2nd November, 1961, for a prospecting licence for 748.16 acres out of which 272.40 acres were common with those for which the appellant had already applied. No orders were passed disposing of the application of the appellant within 90 days of the making of it. The appellant treated this omission to be tantamount to refusal of his application, as provided by rule 11 (1 ), and preferred a revision application before the Central Government under Section 30 of the Act. On 20th October, 1964, the Central Government asked the State Government to consider the application of the appellant dated 14th October, 1961, within the next nine months. On 13th January, 1965, the State Government offered the appellant a prospecting licence for an area of 365 acres. On 12th February, 1965, the appellant moved the Central Government for revision of the order making the offer. On 19th March, 1965, the Central Government in- formed the appellant that his application was premature since neither nine months had elapsed nor final orders had been passed by the State Government. On 9th May, 1965, the Central Government actually rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reasons contained in the letter dated 12th April, 1973, sent to the appellant. It shows that both the parties between whom the dispute relating to 272.4.0 acres of land for grant of a prospecting licence had gone before the Central Government several times, and the matter was not finally decided by the State Government. Even though the State Government may have, according to its own erroneous view disabled itself from granting a prospecting licence to the respondent in respect of disputed 272.40 acres, due to its decision to grant this area to the respondent, yet, as the letter from the Central Government points out, the prospecting licence of the respondent who was impleaded in the revision proceedings before the Central Government and duly heard on all questions, was due to expire on 30th April, 1972. After considering the legal position and all the facts and equities of the case, the Central Government correctly held, on the question law before it, that the appellants application before the State Government was a valid one as it had been entertained without objection even if it was not accompanied, when flied, by the correct amount of fee. In a communication sent, the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure technicalities, which, as had been pointed out in the letter sent from the Central Government to the appellant, had ceased to matter. The deficiency in the fees having been duly accepted on behalf of the State Government, it was bound to proceed on the assumption that there was a proper application before it valid from the date of filing it. It was precluded, by its own dealings, from denying the validity of the application. It is not very becoming for governmental authorities, when duties laid down by statutory rules. have not been performed by them, to take shelter behind such technicality for denying a citizen's rights to have his application considered and decided. Rule 11 (1) of the Rules framed was a recognition of that right so that an applicant for a licence under the rules could approach the Central Government in case the State Government did not pass the required orders within a reasonable time. The Central! Government had passed a very fair order after considering the matters' before it. We have been taken very laboriously through all the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules to convince us that the High Court's view was correct that there was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... personally, its receipt shall be acknowledged forthwith. (2) Where such application is received by registered post, its receipt shall be acknowledged on the same day. (3) In any other case, the receipt of such application shall be acknowledged within three days of the receipt. (4) The receipt of every such application shall be acknowledged in Form D. The next rule provides: 11. Disposal 0f application for the grant and renewal 0f prospecting licence.---(1) An application for the grant of a prospecting licence shall be disposed of within nine months 11-112SCI/77 from the date of its receipt and, if it is not disposed of within that period, it shall be deemed to have been refused. (2) An application for the grant or renewal of a prospecting licence shall be made at least ninety days be(ore the expiry of the prospecting licence and shall be disposed of before the expiry of the licence and if the application is not so disposed of within that period, it shall be deemed to have been refused. (3) The State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, at the time of renewal, reduce the area applied for. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a grant made without due compliance with all rules. It is nowhere said that the act of making an application will be similarly void for a breach of rules. Another submission made before us is that the grant of a prospecting licence in favour of Phulchand, not having been set aside by the Central Government, the High Court had rightly interfered. In view of the provisions of Section 19 of the Act the prospecting licence in favour of respondent No. 1 was itself void to the extent of an area of 272.40 acres for which a licence had already been properly applied for by the appellant. Unless the appellant's application had been properly refused, for a valid reason, he could not be denied the benefit of section 11 (2) of the Act. Section 11 (2) reads as follows: 11(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section where two or more persons have applied for a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of the same land, the applicant whose application was received earlier shall have a preferential right for the grant of the licence or lease, as the case may be, over an applicant whose application was received later. Reliance is placed on behalf of the respondent on the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
