JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, J.:— The above appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of Patna High Court dated 15-5-1978.

2. The appellant M/s. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited (in short "Hindalco")and respondent No. 5, Aluminium Corporation of India (in short respondent company), both applied for the grant of lease for mining bauxite with regard to the areas mentioned in their applications filed on 3rd March, 1965. According to the appellant, its application was earlier in point of time than the respondent-companys application and for that reason it was entitled to preferential consideration under S. 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This assertion of the appellant remained inrebutted by the respondent-company. The State Government did not pass any order on the aforesaid application of the respondent-company for nine months and as such the same was deemed to have been rejected by virtue of R. 24 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). On a revision application filed by the respondent-company, the Central Government by its order dated 21st July, 1966 directed the State Government to consider the application of the respondent-company. The State Government thereafter considered the respondent-companys application and rejected the same by order dated 8th October, 1969, on the ground that the respondent company did not appear to be interest in working the area already allotted to them. The respondent-company aggrieved by the State Governments order filed another revision application under R. 54 of the Rules before the Central Government. This revision application was allowed by the Central Government by its order dated 20th April, 19-71 land a direction was issued to the State Government to grant a mining lease in respondents favour for bauxite over an area of 362 acres in Mauza Pakhar at an early date. The order did not specify any area or specific plots, instead it only mentioned the area of 362 acres. Even after the aforesaid order, the State Government did not take any action. The respondent-company filed a writ petition in the High Court of Patna which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 1186 of 1971, praying for a,direction to the State Governmerit to grant lease to them. The State Government also filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Central Government dated 20th April, 1971. The writ petition filed by the State Government was numbered as C.W. J.C. No. 1220 of 1971.

3. After protracted negotiations held between the respondent-company and the State Government, an agreement was reached between the parties. In pursuance to the aforesaid agreement the State Government issued a direction for grant of mining lease in favour of respondent-company by a letter dated December 20, 1972. The effect of the agreement was that the respondent-company undertook not to press for the implementation of the Central Govemments order dated 20th April, 1971 and both the writ petitions were ultimately withdrawn by the State Government and respondent-company. The High Court as such dismissed both the writ petitions by order dated 10-1-1973. It is noticeable that there was a lock-out in the factory of the respondent-company from 15th September, 1973 and as such it did not take any effective steps to get the mining lease deed executed in its favour by the State Governmerit. The Director of Mines vide his letter dated 4-2-1975 asked the respondent-company to come to Patna and to have discussions with regard to the execution of lease deed. The State Government also issued a direction to the District Mining Officer to execute lease in favour of respondent-company within two months from the date of the issuance of the said order dated 12th March, 1975. The respondent-company did not take any steps to comply with the said order and allowed the same time limit to lapse.

4. On March, 3, 1965 Hindalco applied for a