Advocates:
B. SUNITA RAO

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 2536 of 2001

PETITIONER:

Government of Goa

RESPONDENT:

A.H. Jaffar and Sons and Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/03/2008

BENCH:

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division

Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa in Writ Petition

no.41/93 filed by the respondents. The writ petition no.41/93

was filed seeking quashing of the orders dated 3rd January,

1991 passed by the Directorate of Mines and Labour and

dated 22nd March, 1999 passed by the Secretary, Mines,

Government of Goa. Further prayer was for direction for grant

of respondent\022s application for mining lease over an area of

34.68 hectares situated at two different villages in Ponda

Taluka after executing the necessary lease deeds in favour of

the respondents.

2. After referring to the chequered history of the litigation

the High Court ultimately directed as follows:

\02318. Considering the fact that the matter is

pending over 16 years, as the Respondents

were without addressing themselves to the

main issue involved in the matter, virtually

compelling the Petitioner to approach the

Court every now and then to make the

Respondents realize about the main issue

involved in the matter, and considering all the

observations made hereinabove, we are

compelled to direct the Respondents to dispose

of the application of the Petitioner on merits

within the period of six weeks from today. The

Respondents should be careful in disposing

the matter bearing in mind the observations

made therein and should pass a reasoned

Order addressing themselves to the main issue

involved in the matter after considering all the

materials placed on record. In the facts and

circumstances of the case, we are constrained

to impose exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- to be

paid by the Respondents to the Petitioner. The

costs to be paid within six weeks from today.

The Respondents shall furnish to the

Additional Registrar of this Court a copy of the

Order to be passed in accordance with the

directions issued herein within two weeks from

the date of passing such Order. Rule made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 3

absolute in above terms.\024

3. Though various points were urged in support of the

appeal, Mr. H.L. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel, submitted

that a dispute of similar nature involving the parties was

before this Court and issues involved were identical in State of

Goa and Ors. v. M/s. A.H. Jaffar and Sons (AIR 1995 SC 333).

It was, inter alia, held as under:

\0233. The appeal has been argued at length.

Sri Siraj Sait has attempted to support the

judgment with industry and precision. But it

does not appear necessary to decide whether

the finding recorded by the High Court that the

order of Commissioner being administrative in

nature it could be reviewed by the State

Government nor it is necessary to decide

whether the Minister could exercise any power

where the grant of lease is regulated by the

Statute as in our opinion the remedy of

revision having been provided by Sec.30 of the

Act, the proper course for the respondent was

to approach the Central Government and not

the High Court. Learned counsel for the

respondent expressed apprehension that the

period for limitation provided in Rule 54 of the

Minerals Concessions Rules, 1960 having

expired, the revision might not be entertained.

The proviso to the rule, however, empowers the

revising authority to condone delay if it is

satisfied that the revision could not be

presented for sufficient cause within time.

Since the respondent was pursuing its remedy

in High Court bona fide, it would be sufficient

cause to condone the delay and we trust the

revision if preferred within four weeks from

today shall not be dismissed as being barred

by t