( 1 ) ON December 3, 1949. the first respondent invited applications for grant of a mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 (hereafter referred to as the 1949 Rules ). These Rules were framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as the 1948 Act ). Both the Act and the Rules were subsequently replaced by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereafter referred to as the 1957 Act) and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 thereafter referred to as the 1960 Rules ).

( 2 ) IN answer to the invitation, the appellant applied for grant of a mining lease on December 6, 1949, for 93 and odd acres of land in Village Gurda, P. S. Chamakpur, District Keonjhar, Orissa. The appellant's application along with those of others was considered by the first respondent and by an order dated May 16. 1955, the first respondent directed grant of a mining lease in respect of the said area in favour of the appellant. The lease, however, was to be subject to such condition as the first respondent light incorporate in the deed of lease.

( 3 ) PURSUANT to the decision of the first respondent to grant the lease to the appellant, the first respondent offered to make ever possession of the land to the appellant for commencing mining operations, on the basis of yearly licence, upon certain terms and conditions. The appellant accepted the offer and thereupon on July 27, 1955, the first respondent directed possession of the land to be made over to the appellant with permission to carry on mining operations for a year, with an assurance to renew the permission from year 1o year, until finalisation of the lease. Possession was delivered to the appellant on August 13, 1955.

( 4 ) FOR 3 years thereafter, the first respondent took no steps for execution of a mining lease in accordance with the 1948 Rules in spite of representations made from time to time by the appellant for that purpose. On July 26, 1958, the first respondent sent a draft lease to the appellant for executing a formal lease. On August 22, 1958, the draft lease with suggested modifications was returned by the appellant to the Collector of Keonjhar for final approval. A date for execution of the lease was fixed by the Collector, but this date was extended more than once at the instance of the appellant.

( 5 ) ON October 25. 1958, the appellant made a representation to the respondent's suggestion that an additional clause be incorporated in the lease to safeguard certain rights of the lessee created by the amended provisions of Rule 41 (I) (ii) of the 1949 Rules. Thereafter somehow or other the matter appears to have been lost sight of. The appellant, however, continued to make representations and send reminders either to the first respondent, or to the Collector, requesting a decision on the suggestions by the appellant for incorporation of a new clause in conformity with Rule 41 (1) (ii) of the 1949 Rules. While this was going on, a dispute arose over payment of royalties by the appellant. The respondents alleged that the appellant was heavily in arrears in payment of royalty and the appellant denied the liabi-lity. On April 4, 1962, the first respondent purported to revoke the grant originally made on May 16. 1955 on the ground that the appellant failed to execute the lease though called upon to do so. According to the appellant, no such decision was taken by the first respondent for revocation of the grant and at any rate the order of revocation was never communicated to the appellant and for that reason the order of revocation itself was invalid.

( 6 ) ON April 11, 1962. the Collector wrote a letter to the appellant in which he stated that the appellant was allowed to execute the mining lease which he failed to do. and for that reason the Government had revoked the order by which the mining lease was granted to the appellant. T