JUDGMENT :- The petitioner was granted a mining lease after approval of the State Government on 20-5-2003. The lease deed was executed for a period of three years. The petitioner moved an application for cancellation of the lease on 8-11-2004. The District Magistrate issued a notice for recovery of four months royalty and for forfeiture of the security amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner by an order dated 12-5-2006 set aside the order of the District Magistrate and directed the petitioner to file a representation and the District Magistrate was directed to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner. In consequence of the order of the Commissioner, the District Magistrate decided the matter afresh and passed the impugned order forfeiting security and directing the petitioner to pay royalty for the third semester 2004-05 (September). The order of the District Magistrate has been challenged by the petitioner.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Rule 58 of U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963, no order for forfeiture of security furnished by : the petitioner can be passed and that the respondents are not entitled to royalty because the petitioner has not done mining work after September 2004 and has rather submitted an application for cancellation/ surrender of the mining lease. A preliminary objection has been raised regarding the maintainability of this petition as an appeal under Rule 11 of U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 lies before the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the remedy of appeal is not an efficacious remedy. On the other hand, learned standing counsel submitted that the remedy of appeal is quite efficacious and that the appellate authority has also the power to grant stay during the pendency of the appeal.

3. We have considered the preliminary objection and in our opinion the preliminary objection has merit. Rule 77 of the U.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules is quoted below :

"77. Appeal. An appeal against an order passed under these rules by the District Officer of the Committee shall lie to the Divisional Commissioner within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of such order to the party aggrieved."

4. It is well settled that the powers of the appellate authority unless circumscribed by the statute are co-extensive with those of the authority of first instance whose order is under challenge in appeal. While it is true that an appellate authority not being a Court does not have inherent power to grant a stay order but it is equally well settled that the appellate authority is possessed of all such powers as may be required for effective exercise of the appellate power. In Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammad Kunhi AIR 1969 SC 430 it was held that "it is a firmly established rule that an express grant of statutory power carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective (Sutherland Statutory Construction, Third Edition, Articles 5401 and 5402). The powers which have been conferred by Section 254 on the Appellate Tribunal with widest possible amplitude must carry with them by necessary implication all powers and duties incidental and necessary to make the exercise of those powers fully effective. In Domats Civil Law, Cushings Edition, Vol. 1 at page 88, it has been stated :

"It is the duty of the Judges to apply the laws, not only to what appears to be regulated by their express dispositions but to all the cases where a just application of them may be made, and which appear to be comprehended either within the consequences that may be gathered from it."

5. Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Eleventh Edition contains a statement at p. 350 that "where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts, or e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document