Back
2007 Supreme(Ori) 652
2007 (Supp.-II) OLR — 744
THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND N. PRUSTY, J.
M/s. Kalinga Mining Corporation...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and 9 others...Opp. Parties
OJC No.3662 of 2002
(Date of Judgment : 31.8.2007)
For Petitioner:Dr. Debiprosad Pal, Senior Advocate M/s. R. K. Mohanty, B. K. Sharma & S. N. Biswal
For Opp. Parties:Asst.Solicitor General (for O.P. Nos.1, 8 & 9)
Govt. Advocate (for O.P. Nos. 2 to 6)
M/s. S. P. Mohanty, P. K. Lenka & S. K. Das (for O.P. No.7)
Mr. S. Pal, Senior Advocate M/s. B. Routray, D. K. Mahapa¬tra, B. B. Routray, D. Mund & D. Routray (O.P. No.10)
Headnote:1. MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1960 - Rule 25-A - Death of the applicant during the pendency of the application either for grant/renewal of the mining lease or execution of such lease, shall not invalidate the application - Application for lease shall be deemed to have been made by the legal representatives - Lease shall be deemed to have been executed in the name of the legal heirs of the original applicant. (Para - 18)
2. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Sec. 11 - Res judicata - Whether a judgment which has become final inter-parties can be re-opened because of a subsequent judgment between different parties on a question which was considered in that final judgment and a decision has been taken ? - When a particular decision has become final, it cannot be set at naught even on the ground that such a decision is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution - Finding given by Court having become final between the parties, the same cannot be re-opened on the basis of observations in a different matter between different parties. (Paras - 23 to 36)
JUDGMENT
A. K. GANGULY, C.J. : This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Kalinga Mining Corporation and the main prayer is to quash the approval to the grant of mining lease in favour of the legal heirs of late Dr. Sarojini Pradhan over an area of 171.226 hec¬tares in village Kalaparbat in the district of Keonjhar given by the Central Government for a period of 20 years under Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the mining lease application by the legal heir of Dr. Sarojini Pradhan and con¬tended that on the death of Dr. Pradhan, the application for mining lease filed by her abates and her legal representatives cannot maintain the same.
3. It appears that the impugned order of the Central Government was passed pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 2.7.2001 in OJC No.11537 of 1999.
4. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner applied before the State Government for prospecting licence on 27.10.1953 and on that application the State Government on 15.9.1961 passed orders granting prospecting licence to the petitioner in respect of an area of 480 acres in Kalaparbat Hill range of Keonjhar district subject to compliance of the lease stipulations. It may be noted that the petitioner also applied to the State Government for grant of mining lease for iron and manganese ore over 420 acres in Kalaparbat Hill range of Keonjhar district. As the same was not considered by the State Government, the petitioner filed a revision before the Central Government. The Central Government vide its letter dated 23.7.1962 intimated the State Government that since prospecting licence was not granted in favour of the petitioner, the grant of mining lease application for the same area cannot be considered unless the prospecting licence is executed. Thereafter, the Central Govern¬ment disposed of the revision filed by the petitioner by direct¬ing the State Government to consider the petitioner’s mining lease application dated 4.9.1961 on merit by 1.1.1964.
5. But no order was passed by the Government within the time fixed by the Central Government and thus the mining lease application dated 4.9.1961 filed by the petitioner was deemed to have been refused. Thereafter by notification dated 20.7.1965 an area of 438.50 acres of Kalaparbat Hill Range area was thrown open by the State Government for grant of mining lease under Rule 58(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. On 10.9.1965, six applicants including the petitioner and Dr. Pradhan submitted their applications for grant of mining lease. But the mining lease applications of the petitioner and Dr. Pradhan were not disposed of by the State Government within the statutory period and therefore, both of them separately moved the Central Govern¬ment in revision. By order dated 7.4.1967, the Central Government allowed the revision petitions o the petitioner as well as that of Dr. Pradhan directing the State Government to consider their mining lease applications. The State Government again delayed the disposal of the mining lease application for which the petitioner filed another revision petition before the Central Government on 22.7.1967. The Central Government rejected the revision by order dated 13.10.1967.
6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed OJC No.855 of 1969 seeking a direction from this Court for grant of mining lease in its favour. In that writ petition Dr. Pradhan intervened and this Hon’ble Court by an order dated 21.6.1971 dismissed the said writ petition. Pursuant to the order of the Central Govern¬ment dated 7.4.1967, the State Government on 3.9.1971, for the first time, passed an order recommending grant of mining lease in favour of Dr. Pradhan and sought for approval of the Central Government under Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Develop¬ment and Regulation) Act, 1957. By order dated 18.1.1972 the Central Government re
