Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. : This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution is filed by the Mineral Development Limited against the State of Bihar and another for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Government of Bihar dated September 7, 1955, canceling the petitioner s licence and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing them to forbear from giving effect to the said order of cancellation.

2. One Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh (hereinafter called the proprietor) was the proprietor of Ramgarh and Serampur estates in the district of Hazaribagh in the State of Bihar. On December 29, 1947, the said proprietor executed a mining lease in favour of the Mineral Development Limited (hereinafter called the Company) for all minerals in respect of 3026 villages for a period of 999 years. On or about January 3, 1951, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, granted the Company a licence bearing No. H. L. 261-H in from B under S. 6 of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) for mining mica. The licence was renewed from year to year by the relevant authority and the last of the renewals expired on 31-12-1954. The Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Revenue Department issued a notice dated March 7, 1953, to the company charging it with violations of Ss. 10, 12 and 14 of the Act and calling upon it to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice why action should not be taken to cancel the licence issued in favour of the Company. By letter dated March 20, 1953, the Company requested the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Bihar, to furnish the Company with particulars of the alleged violations of the provisions of the Act. After a reminder was sent, the Company was furnished by the Government with the particulars by its letter dated May 1, 1953. On or about May 17, 1953, the Company sent a written representation to the Government denying the allegations made against it and explaining how the Company complied with the provisions of the Act. After this letter, no further correspondence passed between the Government and the Company. But on September 7, 1955, i.e., two years after the said representation the Government issued a notification canceling the Company s licence No. 261-H of 1951. The result of this notification was that the Company was prevented from carrying on the mining operations in large tracts of land it had taken on lease from the said proprietor.

3. The Company in its petition has stated that it had invested a large sum of about Rs. 16 lakhs to obtain the mining lease and spent a considerable sum in prospecting and developing the mines, that by the arbitrary act of the Government it could not work the mines, that a large number of labourers had been thrown out of employment and that in the result it was being put to heavy loss. It has filed the present petition for the reliefs mentioned already for the reasons, among others, that the Government acted illegally and with mala fides and infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Art 19(1), sub-cls. (f) and (g), of the Constitution. The first respondent to the petition is the State of Bihar and the second respondent is the Additional Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Revenue Department. They filed a counter denying the allegations made against the Government and particularly stated that they had acted within their rights and cancelled the licence in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act.

4. The arguments of Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, may be broadly formulated under the following four heads: (i) The Bihar Mica Act, 1947, as amended by the Bihar Mica (Amendment) Act, 1949, is ultra vires for want of constitutional competence; (ii) the provisions of the Act are repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act 53 of 1948, and, therefore, to the extent of such repugnancy the former Act should yield to the latter Act, with the result that the licensing prov