Back
1967 Supreme(SC) 225
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. C. Shah, S. M. Sikri & J. M. Shelat, JJ.
Pragdas Vaishya
Vs.
Union of India & others
C. A No. 657 of 1967 from order of the M. P. High Court dated 17th December 1966; given in M. P. No. 92 of 1966
Decided on : 17-8-1967
S.T. Desai, Senior Advocate, M/s B. Datta and O.C. Mathur, Advocates of M/s Dadachanji and Co. for appellant
R.H. Dhebar, Miss Lily Thamus, R.N. Sachthey and S.P. Nair Advocates for respondent No.1, B.C. Mishra, Senior Advocate with M.V. Goswami for respondents Nos. 2 and 3, R.P. Kapoor Advocate for I.N. Shroff for respondent No.4.
Headnote:(1) Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 - Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - R. 55 - powers of the Central Government - should be exercised judicially -reasons for the order should be recorded.
(2) Tribunals - exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers - must give reasons for their orders - orders appealable - giving of reasons necessary.
The power exercised by the Central Government under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, has to be exercised judicially, and in disposing of the revision application the Central Government must record its reasons and communicate those reasons to the parties affected thereby.
After all a tribunal which exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers can certainly indicate its mind as to why it acts in a particular way and when important rights of parties of far reaching consequence to them are adjudicated upon in a summary fashion, without giving a personal hearing where proposals and counter proposals are made and examined, the least that can be expected is that the Tribunal should tell the party why the decision is going against him in all cases where the law gives a further right of appeal. CAS Nos. 2596 and 2597 of 1966; decided on 29-3-1967 (SC) relied on. [Para 3]
If the right of appeal is to be effective, the tribunal must record its reasons and make them available to the parties to the dispute. [Para 3]
(3) Constitution of India - Arts. 226 & 227 - order of the Central Government made under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rule challenged before High Court - High Court should examine reasons given by the Central Government - he conclusions cannot be supported on reasons searched from the record.
Where the Central Government did not give reasons for an order made by it in revision under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, and the order was challenged in the High Court, it is not fur the High Court to give reasons which the Government might have, but has not chosen to give, in support of its conclusion. Since no reasons were given in support of the order passed by the Central Government, the order was ex facie defective, and the defect could not be remedied by looking into the file maintained by the Government and constructing the reasons in support of that order. [Para 5]
(4) Constitution of India - Art. 136 - orders passed by Central Government under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - are appealable to the Supreme Court.
(5) Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - R. 55 - orders passed by Central Government are appealable to the Supreme Court. The order passed by the Central Government in exercise of its revisional authority under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, is subject to appeal to the Supreme Court. (1960) 2 SCR 775 relied on. [Para 4]
(6) Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - R. 54 (1) - power of condoning delay in revision - is with the Central Government - sufficiency or otherwise of the reason of delay - is to be examined by the Central Government and not by the High Court or the Supreme Court.
By the proviso to Rule 54 (1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the Central Government has the power, if the applicant satisfies the Central Government that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within time, to condone the delay. Sufficiency or otherwise of the cause for condoning the delay has to be determined by the Central Government, it cannot be determined by the High Court or the Supreme Court. [Para 7]
(7) Practice - order passed on defective application - order appealable or revisable - cannot be ignored and treated as a nullity - Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - R.22.
Where an application under Rule 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, was defective, the High Court assumed that the application was Non est, and the order made On such an application may be ignored.
Held: It is difficult to appreciate the validity of the conclusion that an order passed by an authority which is subject to correction by a higher authority may be ignored merely because it appears that there was some defect in the proceeding which initiated it. [Para 9]
JUDGMENT
Shah, J.
1. The appellant Pragdas was granted by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh a lease for mining "corrundum" from an area of 2,660 acres in villages Phora and Karkota, Tahsil Singarauli, District Sidhi. Sometime thereafter respondents 2 & 3 were granted a lease for mining "Sillimanite" from an area of 488.21 acres out of the area for which a mining lease was granted to the appellant. On September 26, 1962, the appellant applied to the State Government for a lease for mining "kaolinite". The application dated September 26, 1962 was defective in that it was not accompanied by the full deposit of Rs. 700 required by R. 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The appellant rectified that defect by depositing on March 21, 1963, the amount of Rs. 100 by which the deposit was short. In the meanwhile respondent 2 had applied on December 22, 1962 for a lease for milling "refractory clay" from the area demised to them. It is common ground that "kaolinite" and "refractory clay" are the same minerals known by different names. On April 23, 1963 the State Government granted a mining lease to the appellant for "kaolinite" over 86.48 acres and rejected the application of the second respondent dated September 18, 1962. In reply to a letter dated November 26, 1963, the Government of Madhya Pradesh informed the second respondent on December 5, 1963 that his application "was delayed in the office of the Director of Geology and Mining and could not be proceeded with ''properly". and since a mining lease for "kaolinite" was already granted to the appellant, the application for a lease for "refractory clay" stood rejected. The respondents 2 & 3 moved the Central Government by an application under R. 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, against the orders of the State Government. On that application the Central Government asked for the "comments" of the appellant, the respondents 2 & 3 and of the State Government and on February 3, 1966 set aside the order of the State Government dated December 5, 1963 and directed the State Government to include "refractory clay" as an additional mineral in the existing mining lease for "sillimanite" granted to respondents 2 & 3 after cancelling the mining lease for "kaolinite" granted to the appellant.
2. The appellant then moved a petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order of the Central Government, and for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh not to give effect to the impugned order, and to restore to the appellant the mining lease for "kaolinite" granted to him by the State Government. The High Court dismissed the petition, and against that order the appellant has approached this Court, with special leave.
3. The order passed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under R. 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 is not a "speaking order". This Court has, in a recent judgment Bhagat Raja Vs. The Union of India and Ors. CAS Nos. 2596 & 2597 of 1966; decided on March 29, 1967 held, after a review of the relevant authorities, that the power exercised by the Central Government under R. 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, has to be exercised judicially, and in disposing of the revision application the Central Government must record its reasons and communicate those reasons to the parties affected thereby. Mitter, J., speaking for the Court, observed :
"x x x it will be amply clear that in exercising its powers of revision under R. 55 the Central Government must take into consideration not only the material which was before the State Government but comments and counter-comments, if any, which the parties may make regarding the order of the State Government. In other words, it is open to the parties to show how and where the State Government had gone wrong or, why the order of the Slate Government should be confirmed ".
Mit
