9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (1) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. On 12-1-1970 the petitioner applied for grant of prospecting licence over acres 12.50 cents of land. 4. On the same day, the 4th respondent herein filed an application for the grant of a lease of mining for 20 years. 5. Before the application of the petitioner filed an application on 5-3-1970 to convert his previous application for the grant of prospecting licence to that of granting of lease for 20 years. 6. The State Government , however , refused to convert the application. But nevertheless it treated the new application as an application for grant of lease for 20 years . 7. Since the Government had not disposed of the applications , the petitioner filed a revision to the Central Government . The Central Government called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the Central Government referred to this decision and it is in the context of this decision that the above said observations are made by the Central Government . 13. When the matter came back to the State Government , the State Government by the impugned order , granted the lease for two years to respondent 4 the Central Government. It is to challenge the correctness of this order that the Writ Petition was filed . 14. The learned Judge , before whom the writ petition came up for hearing , dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the Central Government seems to have considered all aspects of the case and therefore there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order . 15. In this appeal Sri. K. Mahipathi Rao , th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r as well as respondent No. 4 in the light of the observations made in the said judgment. It could not has so considered the applications. On the other hand the lease was granted to the 4th respondent more or less mechanically only on the ground that his application was filed earlier than the application of the petitioner . It cannot be in doubt that such an approach to the disposal of the applications under Section 10(3) read with Section 11(2) in the light of the abovesaid Bench decision is bad in law. 18. It was however , contended by the learned Central Government Pleader as well as the advocate for the 4th respondent that the petitioner has not challenged the central Government's direction given to the State Government and parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case a special case under Section 11(4) of the Act, the Central Government completely ignored that aspect of the case and made the above said observations in respect of Section 11(2) and gave the abovesaid instructions . 21. If the judgment in the appeal given by the Bench of this court were to be brought to the notice of the Central Government , which judgment was given much earlier than the order of the Central Government, we have no doubt that the Central Government would not have made such observations as abovementioned . 22. It must be remembered that any order of this Court if brings back to life or continues the operation of an order which is ex facie illegal , it should not be permitted to have that effect. It is the func ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
