9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (8) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September 26, 1962 was defective in that it was not accompanied by the full deposit of ₹ 700 required by Rule 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The Appellant rectified that defect by depositing on March 21, 1963, the amount of ₹ 100 by which the deposit was short. In meanwhile Respondent 2 had applied on December 22, 1962 for a lease for mining ''refractory clay'' from the area demised to them. It is common ground that kaolinite and refractory clay are the same mineral known by different names. On April 23, 1963 the State Government granted a mining lease to the Appellant for kaolinite over 86.48 acres and rejected the application of the second Respondent dated September 18, 1962. In reply to a let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dismissed the petition, and against that order the Appellant has approached this Court, with special leave. 3. The order passed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 is not a speaking order . This Court has in a recent judgment, Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India and Ors. C. As. Nos. 2596 and 2597 of 1966 decided on 29-3-1967 held, after a review of the relevant authorities, that the power exercised by the Central Government under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, has to be exercised judicially, and in disposing of the revision application the Central Government must record its reasons and communicate those reasons to the parties affected thereby. Mitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India and Ors. 1960 M PL J 516 : AIR 1960 S C 606: (1960) 2 S C 775 If the right to appeal is intended to be effective, the tribunal must record its reasons and make them available to the parties to the dispute. In the present case the reasons in support of the order of the Central Government were apparently not recorded and were not made available to the parties concerned in the dispute. But, it was urged by counsel for Respondents 2 and 3, the High Court had looked into the file of the Central Government and it appeared that the revision petition filed by Respondents 2 and 3 was granted by the Central Government because their application for a mining lease for refractory clay was prior in time to the application filed by the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudications by the Central Government. The observations are made presumably as inferences from the record of the Central Government; such inferences the High Court was incompetent to make. 7. It was urged by counsel for the Appellant that since the order of the State Government granting a mining lease to the Appellant for kaolinite was not challenged in a revision petition before the Central Government, it became final and could not be challenged in a petition filed against the communication by the Madhya Pradesh (Government) dated December 5, 1963. It appears, however, from the petition filed on February 4, 1964 that Respondents 2 and 3 had challenged the communication dated December 5, 1963 as well as the order dated April 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court will not be warranted. We are unable to agree with that contention. If the order passed by the Government in a revision application under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules is defective, because it does not comply with the requirements of Rule 65, the validity of the order could be challenged by a substantive appeal to this Court with special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, or by a petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. The High Court's view that the grant made in favour of the appellant by the State Government by its order dated April 23, 1963 was a nullity proceeds on the assumption that an application for a mining lease under Rule 22, which is defective is non est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
