1. Application for mining lease rejected by State Government — Revision application filed before Central Government — Dismissal of revision via non-speaking order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1967 Supreme(SC) 101
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, C.J.I., J.C. SHAH, J.M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
Bhagat Raja (ID both the appeals), Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others (In both the appeals), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2596 and 2597 of 1966,
D/- 29-3-1967.
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. J. Sorabji and A. J. Rana, Advocates and M/s. J. R. Gagrat and B. R. Agrawal, Advocates of M/s. Gagrat and (Co., for Appellant (In both appeals); Mr. G. N. Dikshit, Advocate and Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate for Mr. S. P. Nayyar, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1 (In both the Appeals); Mr. P. Ram Reddy, Senior Advocate. (Mr B. Parthasaarathy, Advocate, with him ), for Respondent No. 2 (In both the appeals);Or M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate. (Mr. B. Dutta, Advocate and Mr. O. C. Mathur, Advocate for M/s. l. B. Dadachanji and Co with him), for Respondent No. 3 (In both the appeals).
Advocates:
A.J.RANA, B.DUTTA, B.PARTHASARTHY, B.R.AGRAWAL, G.N.DIKSHIT, GAGRAT JANEDRA LAL, J.B.DADACHAN, J.R.GAGRAT JANEDRA LAL, M.C.SETALVAD, O.C.MATHUR, P.RAM REDDY, R.N.SACH, S.P.NAIR, SOLI J.SORABJI
A.J.RANA, B.DUTTA, B.PARTHASARTHY, B.R.AGRAWAL, G.N.DIKSHIT, GAGRAT JANEDRA LAL, J.B.DADACHAN, J.R.GAGRAT JANEDRA LAL, M.C.SETALVAD, O.C.MATHUR, P.RAM REDDY, R.N.SACH, S.P.NAIR, SOLI J.SORABJI
A tribunal exercising quasi-judicial powers must issue a speaking order providing reasons for its decision. This prevents arbitrariness and enables higher courts to effectively exercise supervisory or appellate jurisdiction, particularly when the original order being affirmed is laconic or nebulous.
Headnote:(A) Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 - Sections 10(3), 11(3), 30 - Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rules 26, 54, 55 - Grant of mining lease - Rejection of revision application - Requirement of a speaking order - When a reviewing authority exercises powers of revision, it discharges functions which are quasi-judicial (Para 8) - The condition of giving reasons is attached to an order made by the Government when it functions judicially as a tribunal - A reasoned order is a desirable condition of judicial disposal as it introduces clarity, excludes arbitrariness, and enables an appellate or supervisory Court to keep the tribunals within bounds (Para 13).
(B) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Speaking Orders - In cases where the decision of a tribunal is subject to the supervisory powers of High Courts or appellate powers of the Supreme Court, the failure to provide reasons places the higher courts at a great disadvantage - If the original order of the State Government is scrappy or nebulous, the reviewing authority cannot merely endorse it without specifying the reasons that are sufficient to uphold the decision (Para 9).
(C) Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of Review - Where a party is given an opportunity to show that the lower authority took into consideration irrelevant matters or based its decision on unjustified grounds, the reviewing authority must scrutinize matters not canvassed before the lower authority - A mere statement that no grounds for interference were established is insufficient if the original order lacked detailed reasoning (Paras 7, 10).
Facts of the case:
An applicant for a mining lease had their application rejected by the State Government in favor of another applicant on the grounds of experience and technical knowledge. The applicant filed a revision application before the Central Government, submitting additional evidence regarding the financial instability and lack of experience of the successful applicant. The Central Government rejected the revision application via a brief order stating that there was no valid ground for interfering with the State Government's decision, without providing any independent reasons.
Findings of Court:
The Central Government, while exercising revisional powers under the relevant Rules, acts as a tribunal performing quasi-judicial functions. The order passed was not a speaking order and failed to demonstrate that the comments and counter-comments provided by the parties had been considered. Since the original order of the State Government was laconic, the reviewing authority was required to provide reasons for its affirmation.
Issues: Whether the Central Government, in dismissing a revision application and confirming the order of a State Government, was bound to make a speaking order.
Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal exercising quasi-judicial powers must disclose its mind through a speaking order to prevent arbitrariness and ensure the decision is subject to meaningful judicial scrutiny. While a revisional authority may affirm a lower authority's order, it must provide its own reasons or explicitly refer to adequate reasons given by the original tribunal. A non-speaking order in a quasi-judicial proceeding, especially one that is subject to appeal, is an insufficient exercise of power. (Paras 13, 15).
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- mining law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Whether Central Government exercising quasi-judicial powers under the Act and Rules is bound to provide reasons for rejecting a revision application. (Para 4 , 16 )
3. Central Government acts as a quasi-judicial tribunal; non-speaking orders hinder supervisory courts and risk arbitrariness, especially when fresh material is considered during revision. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
4. An administrative tribunal exercising quasi-judicial powers must pass a speaking order to ensure transparency, prevent arbitrariness, and facilitate judicial review. (Para 8 , 9 , 13 , 15 )
5. Appeals allowed — Orders of the Central Government set aside — Direction to decide review applications afresh. (Para 25 )
6. Does the Central Government exercise judicial or administrative functions when deciding a revision application under the Mineral Concession Rules?
The Central Government discharges quasi-judicial functions, acting as a tribunal to dispose of the revision, which makes its orders subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. (Para 8 )
7. Is a tribunal exercising quasi-judicial powers required to provide reasons for its decisions?
Yes, a reasoned or speaking order is a desirable condition of judicial disposal. It ensures consideration, introduces clarity, minimizes arbitrariness, and enables supervisory courts to keep tribunals within bounds. (Para 9 , 13 )
8. How does the absence of reasons in a tribunal's order affect the exercise of appellate or supervisory jurisdiction?
Without reasons, supervisory and appellate courts are disadvantaged, often forcing them to examine the entire record de novo, which is an unsatisfactory method of dealing with appeals. (Para 9 , 11 )
9. Must a reviewing authority provide independent reasons if it merely affirms the decision of the original authority?
Yes, unless the original reasons were adequate and the reviewing authority expressly adopts them. If the original order is laconic, the reviewing authority must provide its own reasons. (Para 13 , 15 )
10. Does the introduction of fresh material during a revision process increase the necessity for a speaking order?
Yes, when parties can introduce material not before the original authority, the reviewing authority must show it considered such material and explain why the original order should not be disturbed. (Para 7 , 24 )
Judgment
MITTER, J. : These two appeals, by special leave, are limited to the question as to whether in dismissing a revision and con firming the order of the State of Andhra Pradesh. the Unions of India was bound to make a speaking order. The text of the order is the same in both the cases, the only difference being in the situs and the area in respect of which the lease was applied for. One of the orders runs as follows:
New Delhi
the 22nd June, 1966
* * * * *
I am directed to refer to your revision application dated 14-12-1964 and letter dated 28-1-1966 on the above subject and to say that after careful consideration of the grounds stated therein, the Central Government have come to the conclusion that there is no valid ground for interfering with the decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh rejecting your application for grant of mining lease for asbestos over an area of Ac. 113.50 in Brahmanapalli village, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh. Your application for revision is, therefore, rejected.
2. The facts leading to the two appeals are as follows: - In response to a notification dated January 8, 1964 published in the State Gazette by the Andhra Pradesh government inviting applications under R 58 of the rules framed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules and the Act) the appellant submitted two applications in the prescribed form viz., form "I" for areas aggregating The, Ac. 113 . 50 in village Brahmanapall and Ac. 13. l0 in village Ippatta both . in the district of Cuddapah for mining asbestos. Respondent No. 3 also made similar applications on the same date. According, to the appellant his applications complied with all the requirements of form "I" while those of respondent No.3 were defective in some respects. Besides the appellant and the respondent NO. 3, there was only one other person who applied for a prospecting licence which was rejected `off hand. As between the appellant and the respondent No. 3, the Government of Andhra Pradesh preferred the latter. The relevant portion of the order dated 19th October 1964 in respect of the village Brahmanapa1li under S. 10 (3) of the Act was as follows:
"As between the other applicants Sri Bhagat Raja and M/s. Tiffin s Barytes, Abestos and Paints Ltd.. the Government prefer for M/s. Tiffin s Barytes, as they are having adequate general experience and technical Knowledge, and are old lessees in the district, without any arrears of mineral dues to the Government. The mining lease application of Sri Bhagat Raja for the areas covered by the mining lease application of M/s. Tiffin s Barytes, Asbestos and Paints Ltd. is rejected."
The text of the order with regard to village Ippatta is practically the same.
3. The appellant filed application in revision in the prescribed form i. e. form N. under S.30 of the Act read with R. 54 to the Union of India on December 14 1964. The appellant tried to bring out in his revision application that the financial condition of the 3rd respondent was extremely precarious as would be evidenced by the documents, copies whereof were annexed to his petition. The 3rd respondent filed a counter statement to the revision application. in April 1965 In March 1966 the appellant received the comments of the Andhra Pradesh Government on his revision applications The appellant filed rejoinder to the counter statements of the 3rd respondent in May 1965 and to the comments of the Andhra Pradesh Government in April 1966. He also asked for the grant -of a personal hearing before the decision of the case which was not given. Ultimately his applications were rejected by Orders quoted hereinabove.
4. Various grounds of appeal were taken in the application for special leave to appeal preferred by the appellant. In attempt has been made therein to show that respondent No. 3 had no experience in asbestos mining, that its financial position was very unsatisfactory and that its application for mining lease wa
