The power of an appellate authority to interfere with the decision of a lower authority is not limited to questions of law but also extends to questions of fact. The appellate authority has the power to review or reassess the entire evidence and come to its own conclusion.

Headnote:
MINING LEASE - COMPETENT OFFICER - DISCRETION - APPELLATE AUTHORITY - JURISDICTION - MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY PROVISIONS - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - PREFERENCE - EXTRADITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a brick manufacturer, applied for a mining lease for brick clay. The respondent society, a co-operative society of brick makers, also applied for the same area. The Collector initially rejected the society's application on technical grounds but later granted it a mining lease. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court, which set it aside and remitted the matter back to the Collector for reconsideration. The Collector again granted the mining lease to the petitioner, but the State Government, acting as an appellate authority, set aside this order and directed the Collector to consider the society's application on its merits.
Finding of the Court:

1. The State Government, as an appellate authority, has the power to interfere with the Collector's decision to grant or refuse a mining lease, as this power is not fettered by any guidelines in the relevant rules. 2. The provisions of rule 4(2) of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Vidarbha Region) Rules, 1966, requiring an applicant for a mining lease to submit a certificate of financial standing, are directory and not mandatory. Substantial compliance with this provision is sufficient. 3. The omission of certain words from the name of the co-operative society in its application for a mining lease does not render the application invalid, as long as the identity of the society is not in doubt. 4. The principle of priority in granting mining leases does not apply to minor minerals like clay. 5. The State Government's policy of giving preference to co-operative societies in the grant of mining leases is not without authority of law, as it is in line with the directive principles of state policy in Part IV of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government, as an appellate authority, has the power to interfere with the Collector's decision to grant or refuse a mining lease. 2. Whether the provisions of rule 4(2) of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Vidarbha Region) Rules, 1966, requiring an applicant for a mining lease to submit a certificate of financial standing, are mandatory or directory. 3. Whether the omission of certain words from the name of the co-operative society in its application for a mining lease renders the application invalid. 4. Whether the principle of priority in granting mining leases applies to minor minerals like clay. 5. Whether the State Government's policy of giving preference to co-operative societies in the grant of mining leases is without authority of law.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of an appellate authority to interfere with the decision of a lower authority is not limited to questions of law but also extends to questions of fact. The appellate authority has the power to review or reassess the entire evidence and come to its own conclusion. 2. The provisions of rule 4(2) of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Vidarbha Region) Rules, 1966, are directory and not mandatory. The obligation to submit a certificate of financial standing is to be satisfied at the time of execution of the mining lease. Substantial compliance with this provision is sufficient. 3. The omission of certain words from the name of the co-operative society in its application for a mining lease does not render the application invalid, as long as the identity of the society is not in doubt. 4. The principle of priority in granting mining leases does not apply to minor minerals like clay. 5. The State Government's policy of giving preference to co-operative societies in the grant of mining leases is not without authority of law, as it is in line with the directive principles of state policy in Part IV of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

DHARMADHlKARI J. -The petitioner Pandit Bhullan alias Ramshankiar Tiwari who is carrying on business of manufacturing bricks filed an application bearing No. ML·274/67 to the Collector, Nagpur on 18th of May 1967 for grant of mining lease for brick clay over 15.30 acres of land from survey No. 12113 of village Rohna, Patwari Halka No. 53, tahsil Saoner, district Nagpur.

2. After filing of this application, the respondent No.4 Bansilal Paliwal who is the Secretary of the Society known as Sarvodaya Vita, Kavelu Kumbharkam Sahakari Audyogic Utpadak Sanstha Limited filed an application for mining lease for the same area on behalf of the society on 11-7-1967. This application came to be dismissed by the Collector according to the petitioner on the ground that the financial position of the said Co-operative Society was not sound, whereas according to the respondents, on a technical ground of the absence of certificate from the District Deputy Registrar (Co-operative Societies), Nagpur, about the working of society. However, it is an admitted position that the said application of the society was rejected vide the order dated 21st of July 1967. After the said order of rejection was passed, vide order dated 9th August 1967, the Collector made the said area available to the petitioner excluding 150 feet distance from the river bed and 30 feet distance from the road and asked the petitioner if he was willing to proceed further with his mining lease application. He was also directed to furnish correct plans for the said purpose and it was also made clear that in case the reply of the petitioner was not received by the 25th of August 1967, it would be presume-d that he was not willing to proceed further. In pursuance of this letter from the Collector, according to the petitioner, he submitted six correct copies of the plans and expressed in writing his willingness to take the mining lease vide his writing dated 23rd of August 1967.

3. According to the petitioner on 25th September 1967 Paliwal obtained the solvency certificate of the value of Rs. 4,000 on the basis of his personal properties, though the mining lease application was in the name of the society and not in his own name. He also filed another incomplete mining lease application on 19-10-1967 bearing ML-361 /67 in the name of the society. This application was accompanied by the solvency certificate, which was in the name of Shri Paliwal. The Collector by his order dated 31-10-1967 refused to grant the area to the society though there is some dispute about the reason for such a rejection. According to the petitioner thereafter his application was sent to the Tahsildar for report and recommendation.

4. After this report was received the Collector on the basis of the instructions issued by the Government reviewed his own order dated 31st October 1967 whereby he rejected the application of the society and ultimately granted the mining lease to the society vide his order dated 5-12-1967. As a necessary consequence of this, the Collector executed a deed of mining lease in favour of the society on or about 5-1-1968.

5. Being aggrieved by this order of the Collector the petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Government. It appears that during the pendency of the hearing of the appeal, an ad interim stay was granted by the Government vide order dated 5·12-1967. However, ultimately the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on 27th of March 1968.

6. Being aggrieved by these orders the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court bearing Special Civil Application No. 489 of 1968 This Court vide its order dated 29-}-1969 allowed the said writ petition and made the rule absolute. The High Court remitted back the applications filed by the petitioner for reconsideration in advertence to the observations made in the judgment.

7. Consequent to the order of this Court the Collector was again seized of the applications of both the parties and thereafter the society

Click Here to Read the rest of this document