( 1 ) THE following question has been referred for the opinion of the Full Bench : 'can a writ of this High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution be issued to bind the Central Government in a case in which' under the mineral Concession Rules, 1949 the Central Government has declined to review an order passed by the State Government?'

( 2 ) THE reference came to be made under the following circumstances. The appellant Seth Surajmal applied for a mining lease in respect of 20. 45 acres in village Botejhari, tahsil Waraseoni, district Balaghat. The application of Seth surajmal was dismissed by the State Government and the State Government's decision was communicated to Seth Surajmal by the Deputy Commissioner, balaghat, in memorandum No. 1381-7438-7-kh dated 27-12-1954 under endorsement No. K. Kh. Li. dated 19th January 1955. I reproduce the memorandum here: 20. 45 acres. area 'the State thrown open vide Government has notification in C. P rejected the gazette part 3, application of Srimati page 8, dated 7-1lajwanti jeewar and 55. Application to Surajmal Vaidhya be received on and for a mining lease in from 21-2-55. Shri respect of an area of surajmal Vaidhya. 22 94 acres in the village Botejhari. Tahsil Waraseoni. District Balaghat on the ground that the application is premature.

( 3 ) UNDER the Mineral Concession Rules Seth Surajmal applied to the Central government for a 'revision' of the order under Chapter VI of the Rules. The Central government rejected the application, and the result was communicated to Seth surajmal by memorandum No. 154 (6)/55-M. II, New Delhi, dated 29th, July 1955. The memorandum was signed by Shri N. S. Gidwani, Deputy Secretary to the government of India. It is necessary to reproduce that memorandum because I shall have to refer to its terms later. That memorandum is as follows : 'government OF INDIA MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND scientific RESEARCH. "sir, i am directed to refer to your application dated the 28th January, 1955 on the above subject and to say that after careful consideration of the facts stated therein, the Central Government have come to the conclusion that no case has been made out for revising tho decision, of the Government of Madhya Pradesh rejecting your application for grant of a mining lease for manganese over an area of 20. 45 acres in village botejhari in Waraseoni tahsil in Bala-ghat district, Yqur application for revision is, therefore, rejected. Yours faithfully, sd/- N. S. Gidwani, deputy Secretary to the Government of India. '

( 4 ) WHEN this memorandum was received 'by Seth Surajmal, he moved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution requesting that the two orders be quashed. The petition was heard in the presence of the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the Union of India, and in describing the second respondent it was mentioned by the petitioner that the Union of India was 'functioning under R. 57 of the Mineral concession Rules as the Central Government through the Secretary, Ministry of natural Resources and Scientific Research, New Delhi. It appears that by the time the petition came to be made there were other applicants for the mining lease, and they are shown as respondents 3 to 9 in this appeal. The learned Single Judge who heard the petition dismissed it on two grounds : The first ground was that the High Court of Nagpur did not possess jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Central Government. The second was that the order passed by the State Government and affirmed by the Central Government was correct and did not need to be set aside. The present appeal was filed against that order, and during the course of the arguments the question was raised whether a writ could be issued from this Court against the state Government arid/or the Central Government binding the Central government acting under the Mineral Concession Rules. It was in these circumstances that the above mentioned question came to b