The law provides for a right of revision under Rule 54 only against the first deemed rejection. It does not provide for a second deemed rejection or a second revision.

P. A. CHOUDHARY, J.

( 1 ) THIS matter arises under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The petitioner made an application to the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 22-7- 1975 under the aforesaid Act seeking grant of a mining lease for mica over an extent of Ac. 20- 05 cents in Kalichedu village. Rapur Taluk, Nellore District. This application of the petitioner was made under the Mineral concession Rules, 1960 made under the aforesaid Act. Rules requires the State Government to"dispose of the application within twelve months from the date of its receipt". Where the State Government rejects an application for grant of a lease, Rule 54 of the aforesaid Rules provides for a revision to the Central Government within three months from the date of the communication of the order refusing to grant the lease. The Statute added an Explanation to R. 54. This Explanation deals with a situation where the State Government keeps the application for the grant of a mining lease without disposing of it either by granting or refusing to grant the lease within the aforesaid period of twelve months. The aforesaid period of twelve months. The aforesaid Explanation treating such an inaction on the part of the Government as amounting to refusal to grant a mining lease, permits the aggrieved party to make a revision to the Government under the aforesaid R. 54.

( 2 ) THE petitioners application dated 22- 7- 1975, was not disposed of within the aforesaid statutory period of twelve months. The petitioner therefore, acting under the aforesaid Explanation to Rule 54, preferred a revision to the Central Government on 30- 9- 1976. This revision was allowed by the Government of India on 5- 10- 1976, with a direction to the State Government to dispose of the petitioners application dated 22- 7- 1975 within hundred days. But, however strange it may look, the state Government had once again failed to dispose of the petitioners application within the period of hundred days. But, however strange it may look, the State Government had once again failed to dispose of the petitioners application within the period of hundred days. The State Government has clearly disobeyed the directions of the Central Government dated 5-10-1976. In those circumstances, the petitioner had once again preferred a second revision to the Central Government on 4-4-1977. The Central Government by its order dated 21-7-1977 had allowed this revision and directed the State Government to grant a mining lease for mica over an area of Ac. 20. 05 cents in Kalichedu village, to the petitioner for a period of twenty years. But the State Government which is the authority to grant the lease had once again refused to obey the orders of the Central Government. Th petitioner now seems to be means of this Writ petition (Sic) with a direction to the State Government to implement the order passed by the Central Government on 21-7-1977 by executing a lease in his favour with respect of the aforesaid Ac. 20-05 cents in Kalichedu village. Unfortunately in this case, neither the State Government nor the Central Government filed any counter. I have therefore received no assistance whatsoever from the parties who are greatly interested in the adjudication of this matter. Mr. Krishna Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that inasmuch as the Central Government had allowed the second revision, the State Government is bound by that order and that it would be wholly proper for this Court to enforce obedience of this order of the Central Govt. by the State Govt. I have no manner of doubt that an unlawful defiance by the State Govt. of an order made by the Central Govt. would gravely imperil the Federal character of our Union. Article 356 of the Constitution treats such a defiance"as a failure of Constitutional machinery in the State". The only question therefore that arises for my consideration in this case is whether the Central Government acted within the constitutionally appointe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document