1. Application for mining lease — Rejection by State Government — Review rejected by Central Government — Petition under Article 226 challenging jurisdiction. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 108
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
16th March, 1962
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.
Madan Gopal Rungta, Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to the Government of Orissa and others, Respondents.
The Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. Intervener.
Civil Appeal No. 407 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India (M/s. B.R. Iyengar and P. D. Menon, Advocates, with him), or Respondents; Mr. B. M. Patnaik, Advocate and M/s. S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., for Intervener.
Advocates:
B.M.PATNAIK, B.R.IYENGAR, C.K.DAFTARY, N.C.CHATTERJI, P.D.MENON, P.K.CHATTERJI, P.L.VOHRA, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY
B.M.PATNAIK, B.R.IYENGAR, C.K.DAFTARY, N.C.CHATTERJI, P.D.MENON, P.K.CHATTERJI, P.L.VOHRA, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY
High Court jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to authorities located within its territorial jurisdiction. If an inferior authority's order merges into a final order passed by a superior authority located outside that jurisdiction, the High Court cannot issue a writ against the inferior authority.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Territorial jurisdiction - Two-fold limitation on the power of the High Court to grant a writ: firstly, the power is to be exercised throughout the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction; and secondly, the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be within those territories. (Para 4)
(B) Administrative Law - Merger of orders - Where an order of an inferior authority within the jurisdiction of a High Court is taken in appeal or review before a superior authority located outside said jurisdiction, the order of the inferior authority merges into the order of the superior authority. A writ issued against the inferior authority would be infructuous as the order of the superior authority remains outstanding and operative. (Para 6)
(C) Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 - Rule 60 - Order of the central government passed in review prevails and is the final order dealing with an application for a mining lease. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
An applicant for a mining lease had their application rejected by a state government. A subsequent review petition filed with the central government was also rejected. The applicant challenged the rejection in the high court under Article 226. The high court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the final order was passed by the central government, which was located outside its territorial jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The high court was correct in holding that it had no jurisdiction to issue a writ under Article 226 as the final order was that of the central government, which was not situated within the territories over which the high court has jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the high court has jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue a writ against a state government when the final order on a review petition was passed by the central government located outside the high court's territorial jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction of a high court under Article 226 is limited by the location of the authority to whom the writ is issued. When a superior authority outside the jurisdiction passes a final order on review, the order of the inferior authority merges into it. Consequently, any writ issued against the inferior authority would be infructuous because the superior authority's order remains operative and final.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 when the final order is passed by the Central Government located outside its territorial jurisdiction. (Para 3 )
3. High Court jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to territories and authorities located within its jurisdiction; orders of inferior authorities merge into final orders of superior authorities. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. A writ under Article 226 cannot be issued against an authority located outside the High Court's territorial jurisdiction, especially when an inferior order merges into a final superior order. (Para 4 , 6 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 7 )
6. What are the territorial limitations on the power of a High Court to grant a writ under Article 226?
The power is limited in two ways: first, the writs issued by the High Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction; second, the person or authority to whom the writ is issued must be amenable to its jurisdiction by residence or location within those territories. (Para 4 )
7. Does an order passed by a state authority merge into a subsequent order passed by a central authority on review?
Yes, where a superior authority passes a final order on review, the order of the inferior authority merges into it, making the superior authority's order the effective and final one, rendering a writ against the inferior authority infructuous. (Para 6 , 7 )
8. Can a High Court issue a writ against the Central Government if the final order is passed outside the High Court's territorial jurisdiction?
No, if the final order is passed by the Central Government and it is not located within the territories over which the High Court exercises jurisdiction, the High Court has no power to grant a writ. (Para 4 , 6 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Orissa High Court. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. The appellant made an application to the State Government of Orissa in 1949 for grant of a mining lease for manganese ore over an area comprising 5400 acres situated in the district of Keonjhar. The appellant was the first applicant for the lease of the aforesaid area, and subsequently other persons applied for lease of the same area including M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as Tatas), the intervener in the present appeal. The Government of Orissa decided to grant the lease in favour of Tatas and in January 1956 referred the matter in the Central Government for its approval under r. 32 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which lays down that it more than one application regarding the same land is received, preference shall be given to the application received first, unless the State Government, for any special reason, and with the prior approval of the Central Government decides to the contrary. The appellant made a representation to the Central Government against the recommendation of the State Government. Eventually, on April 9, 1957, the Central Government turned down the recommendation of the State Government about the grant of the mining lease to Tatas. It also directed that the applications received prior to the application of Tatas should be considered according to the Rules but added that in case the Government of Orissa desired to work the area on a departmental basis, the Central Government would have no objection to consider a proposal for that purpose. Thereafter the State Government rejected the application of the appellant in December 1957 on the ground that the State Government proposed to arrange for the exploitation of the area in the public sector.
2. This was followed by an application for review to the Central Government under r. 57 of the Rules. This application was rejected by the Central Government in June 1959. Thereupon the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court in July, 1959. This petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter under Art. 226 as the final order in the case was passed by the Central Government which was located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The appellant then applied to the High Court for a certificate to appeal to this Court, which was rejected. He then asked for special leave from this Court, which was granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us.
3. The main question raised before us is the limit of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 in circumstances like those in the present case. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that as the Central Government had merely dismissed the review petition, the effective order rejecting the appellant s application for the mining lease was that of he State Government & therefore the High Court could have jurisdiction to grant a writ under Art. 226, and that the principle laid down in Election Commision India v. Venkata Rao , 1953 SCR l144 : would not apply. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh, 1958 SCR 595
4. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court beginning with Venkata Rao s case 1953 SCR l144 : that there is two-fold limitation on the power of the High Court to grant a writ under Art. 226. These limitations are firstly that the power is to be exercised throughout the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction, that is to say, the writs issued by the High Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction, and secondly that the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be within
