J.M. SHELAT, J.

(1) THE question arising in this appeal is whether the appellant companys application bearing the date 20/09/1961, for renewal of a mining lease was time-barred and therefore not a valid application.

(2) THE Company is a public limited company having its registered office in New Delhi and is engaged in quarrying state and marketing the same. The company had secured a perpetual lease, dated March 22, 1879, of certain lands in village Majra and Manhatti in District Gurgaon. The Controller of Mining Leases under powers reserved under Section 16 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act 67 of 1957 (hereinafter called the Act), read with Rule 6 of the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Amendment Rules, 1960, modified the said lease reducing its period so as to expire on 22/03/1962. In consequence of certain correspondence which took place between the company and the Director of Industries, Punjab, the companys secretary met that official on 12/09/1961, when he was advised that the compant should apply for renewal of lease in Form J if it so desired. Consequently, it was said that the company made an application bearing the date 20/09/1961, which was received by the Director of Industries on 9/10/1961. The company thereafter applied for and obtained on 10/11/1961, a certificate of approval under Section 5 of the Act. The Director of Industries, however, rejected the said application on two grounds, (1) that it was beyond the time prescribed under Rule 28 of the Mining Concession Rules, 1960 and (2) that it was not a valid application under Form J as it was not accompanied by a copy of the certificate of approval. The company there- upon filed a revision application under Rule 54 of the said rules to the central Government. The central government by its order, dated 14/12/1962, rejected it on the ground that it saw no valid ground for interfering with the decision of the government of Punjab. Aggrieved by the said orders, the company filed a writ petition in the High court of Punjab challenging the validity of the said two orders. In the petition the company averred that the said application for renewal, though received by the Director of Industries on 9/10/1961, was sent by the petitioner on 20/9/1961. The petition also averred that the company had obtained the certificate of approval as required by Section 5 of the Act and though it did not accompany the said application it was obtained before the Director passed his said order and, therefore, the certificate was within the knowledge of the State government. In the petition the company challenged the said orders on the grounds that there was no valid ground to hold the said application to be time-barred, that there was no provision in the Act or the rules requiring the company to be in possession of the certificate of approval at the time of the said application, that the company had obtained that certificate and that fact was known to the Director, and lastly, that the order of the central government not being a speaking order was invalid.

(3) THE learned single Judge of the High court, who heard the writ peti- tion, held that though the said application was rejected on two grounds, one of them was demonstratively untenable, the authority having recognised that the company had obtained the certificate of approval under Section 5(1) of the Act. He further held that the Director of Industries having relied upon two grounds for rejection, one of which was untenable, it was difficult to say which of the two grounds was considered sufficient by the central Government to uphold the rejection in view of its order not containing any reasons whatsoever. The learned Judge relying upon the decision in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Jhunjhuwala held that the order of the central Government not being a speaking order was invalid. A letters patent appeal against the said order was heard by a division bench of the High court. The Division