1. Mining lease application — Deemed refusal under Mineral Concession Rules — Central Government revisional order — Second revision directing grant of lease — Challenge by State Government. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 1275
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE OF orissa
VERSUS
Union of India
DECIDED ON: December 13, 1994
Important Points
The State government has locus standi to challenge central government orders under Article 226 as the owner of minerals. A second revision under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules is not maintainable if the State fails to comply with a revisional direction, as no new deemed refusal occurs.
Subject
Mining and Minerals - Mining Lease
Act Referred
Headnote
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 - Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Leases and licences - Lease for manganese ore over an area - Expiry of Lease Period - Issued a notification for re-grant of mining area - Writ application seeking to challenge decision of central government - Application for a grant of renewal of iron ore lease for a period of 30 years in respect of said area - This renewal application was rejected by State government since central government, in their order had refused to accord approval for this renewal - In meantime, in view of surrender of said lease in respect of manganese ore by M/s Serajuddin and Co - State government issued a notification for re-grant of the said mining area – Held, State government has further pointed out that in view of order passed by Calcutta High court as far as back in August which is still in operation, it is unable to carry out the first order of the central government passed in revision - Undoubtedly, during the period of 100 days which was granted to the State government for passing the orders, there was no such order of Calcutta High court - Order of Calcutta High court was passed a little later - Nevertheless, it is not now possible to direct State government to carry out order of central government unless the order of Calcutta High court is vacated. It is unfortunate that an interim order of status quo should have continued for a period of 15 years - We, request Calcutta High court to dispose of pending Civil Revision Case within four months from today if it is not already disposed of. In the event of any order being passed by Calcutta High court vacating interim order of status quo in favour of appellant, it may still have to be considered whether in public interest, after a lapse of 15 years, State government should be directed to grant a lease in favour of an applicant in terms of the offer made by him 17 years ago, even assuming that second order of the central government is valid in law. We, however, need not go into this question in view of our earlier findings - Appeal allowed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Maintainability of writ petition by State Government challenging Central Government's revisional order — Competence of Central Government to entertain second revision for non-compliance with first order. (Para 9 , 11 )
3. State Government as owner of minerals has locus standi to challenge orders under Article 226 — Second revision is impermissible absent a fresh deemed order of refusal. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. Revisional power under Rule 54, Mineral Concession Rules, applies only to deemed refusals under Rule 24; failure to comply with revisional directions does not create a revisable order. (Para 14 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Writ petition remanded for disposal on merits. (Para 18 )
6. Can a State Government challenge a Central Government's revisional order via a writ petition?
Yes. The State Government is not merely a subordinate authority but also the owner of the mines and minerals, providing it locus standi to challenge such orders under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 12 )
7. Is a second revision maintainable before the Central Government if the State Government fails to comply with a previous revisional direction?
No. Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules only allows revision of deemed refusals occurring after the statutory period. Failure to follow a revisional timeline is not a deemed refusal under the rules. (Para 13 , 14 )
8. What is the remedy for an aggrieved party when a State Government fails to carry out directions issued by the Central Government in revision?
The aggrieved party may seek a remedy in accordance with the law in an appropriate court, as the Central Government cannot exercise revisional powers again for the same deemed refusal. (Para 14 , 15 )
JUDGMENT
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) THIS appeal by special leave is filed at the instance of the State of orissa against an order of a division bench of the High court of orissa holding that awrit application filed by the State of orissa under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the decision of the central government dated 10/5/1978 in Revision Application No. 2/299/77-MV, was not maintainable, The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:
( 3 ) THE State of orissa is the owner of mines and minerals within its territorial jurisdiction. The grant by the State of mining leases and licences is regulated by the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The State of orissa had granted a mining lease for manganese ore over an area of 830 acres in Village Balda under Champua Sub-Division of Keonjhar District in the State of orissa to one M/s Serajuddin and Co. for a term of 20 years effective from 3/12/1957. Subsequently on 2/6/1962 a coterminous mining lease for iron ore over the above area was also executed in favour of M/s Serajuddin and Co. Both these leases were to expire on 3/12/1977, which was the date on which the primary lease was to expire. Before the expiry of the lease period, M/s Serajuddin and Co. surrendered their lease in respect of manganese ore. This was accepted by the State government on 26-11-1974, M/s Serajuddin and Co. however, filed an application on 25/11/1976 for a grant of renewal of the iron ore lease for a period of 30 years in respect of the said area. This renewal application was rejected by the State government on 5/7/1979, since the central government, in their order dated 25/5/1979, had refused to accord approval for this renewal. In the meantime, in view of the surrender of the said lease in respect of manganese ore by M/s Serajuddin and Co. the State government issued a notification dated 15/11/1975 for re-grant of the said mining area admeasuring 60. 70 hectares in the said Village Balda in the Champua Sub-Division of Keonjhar District in the State of orissa.
( 4 ) PURSUANT to the said notification two applications were filed for a mining lease in respect of manganese/iron ore on 25/1/1976. One application was filed by the 2nd respondent Ganpatrai Jain and another application was filed by one Jagdish Mishra. Thereafter on 3/2/1976 a third application was presented by M/s Ferro Alloys Corporation. The applications were processed in the Directorate of Mines which recommended to the State government that all the applications should be rejected as manganese was proposed to be exploited through a public sector undertaking. The State government, however, did not pass any orders on these applications for more than a year.
( 5 ) IN respect of applications for mining leases. Rule 24 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 as in force at the relevant time, provides as follows:"24. Disposal of application for mining lease. ( I ) An application for the grant of a mining lease shall be disposed of within twelve months from the date of receipt, (2 * * * (3 If any application is not disposed of within the period specified in sub-rule (1, it shall be deemed to have been refused. " The applications of the second respondent as well as the other two applications aforesaid were not disposed of within a period of 12 months. These applications were deemed to be refused by reason of the above Rule 24.
( 6 ) FROM this deemed refusal, the second respondent filed a revision petition before the central government under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The other two applicants also filed revision petitions before the central government. In this connection, the relevant portion of Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 provides as follows:"54. (1 Any person aggrieved by any order made by the State government. . . in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Act or these rules may
