The Central Government's power to reject a revision application under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and its power to withhold approval of a mining lease under Section 5(2) of the Act, must be exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice, especially when it adversely affects the rights or interests of a person.

N.L.Untwalia, J.

1. The petitioner has obtained a rule from this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the Government of India, Ministry of Steel. Mines and Metals (Opposite party No. 1), the State of Bihar (Opposite Party No. 2) and others to show cause why the order of the Government of India contained in their letter dated the 27th June, 1967, a copy of which is Annexure "F" to the writ application, should not be quashed and opposite party No. 1 should not be directed to consider the application of the petitioner for a mining lease in accordance with law. Cause has been shown on behalf of the opposite party No. 1, by learned Government Pleader No. 1, and on behalf of opposite party No. 4, by Sri S. K. Mazumdar.

2. The petitioners case is that he has a lease of coal mining and works over an extensive area in village Turiyo, in the district of Hazaribagh. He raises coal of all grades in his colliery. He intended to extend the area of his operation and, therefore, applied on the 29th November, 1961, for mining lease for the adjacent area in village Turiyo. This application was rejected because of the pendency of some litigation wherein interim injunction had been made. When the interim injunction was vacated, the petitioner renewed his application on the 18th March, 1965, a copy of which application is An-nexure C. No order was passed by the Government of Bihar on the said application within the time prescribed by the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 , hereinafter called the "Rules", framed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act 67 of 1957), hereinafter referred to as the "Act". The petitioner, therefore, submitted an application in revision to the Government of India in accordance with Sec.30 of the Act and Rule 54 of the Rules, a copy of the said application is Annexure "D". Several other persons also had applied for granting lease for the area for which the petitioner had made the application. The Government of Bihar was asked to submit its comments on the revision application filed by the petitioner. It submitted its comments. Other interested parties were also given notice and they submitted their comments. The petitioner submitted counter comments, copies of which are Annexures "E", "E-1" and "E-2". The Government of India by its impugned order dated 27th June, 1967, rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the area was reported to contain low grade coal, for which there was no demand, and any production of the grade of coal which could be found in the area for which mining lease had been asked for would be against the planned production of coal and against national interests. The petitioner feels aggrieved by this order. His only grievance is that the point on which his application in revision has been rejected was not taken in any of the comments filed by the Government of Bihar or the private parties and did not arise on the records of the revision before the Government of India. Rejection of the revision application on a new ground, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say, or of making his representation in that regard, was an order of rejection in violation of the principles of natural justice. The order should therefore, be quashed, and opposite party No. 1 should be directed to dispose of the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation in regard to the ground on which the application in "evision has been rejected.

3. The stand taken on behalf of the contesting opposite parties is that the petitioner was aware of the fact and had made his representation in his counter comments in relation to that, which facts form the basis of the rejection of his application in revision. In the alternative, it has been submitted on their behalf that the Central Government had power to reject the revision application on materials apart from those which were available befo