9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (3) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act of 1957. The State Government rejected the application of 1.8.1960 on 7.12.1960, but granted the application made on 4th October, 1950, by the Respondent Kumara Rajah of Venkatagiri (hereinafter referred to as Venkatagiri). The ground on which the application of the appellant Rao was rejected was that Venkatagiri had a prior claim. The appellant Rao had then preferred a Revision application to the Central Government under the Mineral Concession Rules which came into force on 11th November, 1960. The Central Government had rejected the revision application on the ground that it was not filed within the prescribed time. Upon a Writ Petition filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the order of rejection of the revision application by the Central Government was quashed. The Central Government was directed to consider Rao's application on merits. The Central Government had, after giving due opportunity to be heard to the appellant Rao, dismissed his application on 18th October, 1967, holding that Venkatagiri had priority over his claim. Rao then filed a second Writ Petition which was dismissed on 26th September, 1969. The judgment and order of dismissal are now under appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant is a partnership firm, a company or an association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, its name, nature and place of business, place of registration of incorporation and except in the case of a company which is not a private company as defined in the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (7 of 1913) the names and addresses of the individuate constituting such partnership firm, company, association or body. (b) The number and date of the notification of the grant or renewal of certificate of approval of the applicant; (c) A description, illustrated by a map or plan, showing as accurately as possible the situation, boundaries and area of the land in respect of which the lease is required; (d) The mineral or minerals which the applicant intends to mine; (e) The areas and minerals within the jurisdiction of the State Government for which the applicant or any person joint in interest with him already holds a mining lease; (f) If the applicant holds a prospecting license for the area applied for, the number and date of such license; (g) The period for which the lease is required; and (h) The industry, if any, which the applicant proposes to develop and the loca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ects may be cured. Rule 32, Sub-rule 2, introduced in 1955 before the grant of the application of Venkatagiri, shows that the individual qualifications of the applicants including their special knowledge, their capacity to engage technically efficient staff, their financial soundness and stability, had to be taken into account in determining the question of priority. Again Rule 26, imposing certain restrictions, prohibits the grant of the lease to any person who does not hold a certificate of approval from the State Government or who has not produced an Income tax clearance certificate. It does not prohibit any grant on the ground that the application for it is defective or not accompanied by a map. The form of the application seems to be subordinate to the essential facts to be taken into account before granting a lease. 6. There is no provision in the Act showing that the defects in an application which is accompanied by the fee prescribed in Rule 28 cannot be subsequently removed. The information given in the application is intended for the satisfaction of the authorities granting the lease so that, after considering merits and making a grant, proper details are embodied in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduced which provided that every application under Rule 27, shall be disposed of within nine months from the date of its receipt, and had held that the effect of the amended Rule 57, which was further amended on 14.9.1956 was that an application remaining undisposed of within the period prescribed will be deemed to be rejected. It was urged that we should allow this point to be argued for the first time in this Court although it was neither raised nor argued in the High Court. It was submitted that this was a pure question of law on which no investigation of facts afresh was required. 11. On the other hand, it has been contended, on behalf of the contesting respondent, that a new point should not be allowed to be urged at this stage for which reliance was placed on Bhagwati Saran and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1961]3SCR563 at 568, S.L. Aggarwal v. General Manager, Hindustan Steel Ltd. (1970)IILLJ499SC at 365, Chitra Ghosh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [1970]1SCR413 at 420. 12. Even if we had been disposed to consider this new ground on the plea that exceptional circumstances justified our going into it, we must here point out another fact which affects the very maintai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a permit in respect of his motor vehicle, the Regional Transport Authority had the power to substitute the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle in place of the deceased applicant It was pointed out there that the right to the permit was related to the possession of the vehicle. Moreover, there was a rule enabling the Transport Authorities to substitute the heir or legal representatives of the deceased. No such rule applicable to the case of the heirs of the deceased Buchivenkata Rao has been pointed out to us. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the heirs, who have been heard, had any right to continue the appeal before us. This feature of the case is decisive not only on the right to be heard on the fresh ground but also on the right to advance any argument in support of the appeal of the deceased. 15. We may mention that it was also urged that the matter was so old that any reversal of the grant of the mining lease to Venkatagiri, as long ago as 1960, would involve considerable dislocation and injury to respondent Venkatagiri without any fault on his part. The respondent Venkatagiri must have invested considerable amount of money in mining operations. The acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
