TMI Blog1971 (2) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1948). Both the Act and the Rules were subsequently replaced by new ones viz.. Mines Minerals (Regulation Development) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957) and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. 3. In response to the said application on December 6. 1949 the petitioner applied for grant of a mining lease in respect of 93 and odd acres of land in village Gurda, P.S. Chamakpur. District-Keonjhar in the State of Orissa. The area on final assessment is found to be 99 acres but nothing turns on the difference in the area. The application of the petitioner along with that of others was considered by respondent No. 1 and by an order dated May 16, 1955 the said respondent directed granting of the mining lease in respect of the said area in favour of the petitioner. This grant was made subject to the conditions which the State Government would propose to incorporate in the lease deed of which the petitioner would be apprised being accepted by him. 4. In furtherance of the aforesaid grant on the very same date the said respondent offered to deliver possession to the petitioner on yearly licence for immediate commencement of the work on its accepting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order was communicated to the petitioner by a memo dated April 11, 1962 issued by the Collector, Keonjhar and this memo reads as hereunder. Sub:-- Grant of mining lease for Manganese Ore over 99 acres in Gurda Village. Dear Sir, You were allowed to execute the mining lease referred to above in this office letter No. M-1650 dated 20-8-58. As you failed to execute the same so long Government has been pleased to revoke the order in which the mining lease was granted in your favour. You are therefore requested to stop working of the said mine at once on receipt of this order and quit possession forthwith. Yours faithfully Sd/- G. N. Das. Collector, Keon.1har. Against this order as communicated by the Memo dated April 11, 1962 the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 which had in the meantime superseded the said Rules of 1949. The Central Government rejected the revision petition and affirmed the original order of revocation. This order of the Central Government was communicated to the petitioner by a memo dated August 6, 1965. 6. It is not disputed that pending revision before the Central Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred to in the memo dated August 6. 1965 is being challenged in this writ petition. Mr. Deb appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of this writ petition has raised several points which I shall have occasion to refer hereinafter while I deal with points so raised individually. 8. The respondents 1 and 2 are appearing to contest this Rule. An affidavit was filed on their behalf on February 4, 1969. Broad facts set out hereinbefore are not in dispute between the parties though there has been some dispute as to the true implication or effect of some of the orders and or the communications referred to hereinbefore. Mr. Chakraborty has contested each of the points raised by Mr. Deb in support of this Rule and has in his turn further raised two objections to the maintainability of the writ petition as framed. In the first place, Mr. Chakraborty has contended that as all the respondents have their offices and are located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. Secondly Mr. Chakraborty has contended that it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the consequential order like the one impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present writ petition is overruled. 9A. Now I proceed to consider the petitioner's challenge on its merits and along therewith the other objection raised by Mr. Chakraborty. Mr. Deb has first contended that there exists no order of revocation apart from the impugned order dated September 22, 1967 so that when it refers to a revocation by the State Government it refers to a non-existent order. Incidentally, Mr. Deb also contends that if the impugned order itself be treated as an order of revocation it is ex facie illegal as it was passed ex parte without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. I am however unable to construe the impugned order dated September 22, 1967 to be an order of revocation by the State Government so that it should be struck down on a ground as contended for by Mr. Deb. It is equally difficult for me to accept the contention of Mr. Deb that there exists no order of revocation and as such the impugned order should be condemned as one based on non-existent grounds. I cannot ignore the existence of an order of revocation dated April 4, 1962 which has been disclosed in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not served earlier at any point of time on the petitioner. It is no doubt true that it is always desirable that in these cases actual orders should be served on persons grants in whose favour are being revoked inasmuch as they have a right of revision against the order but I am unable to find any authority in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad which would entitle me to hold that notwithstanding the communication dated April 11, 1962 I should treat the order of revocation to be non-existent. in Mahabir Prasad's case the Supreme Court only rejected an offer made by the respondents to disclose certain orders which were never disclosed in the proceedings before the High Court and which were never served earlier on the petitioner. The facts in the present case are widely different. 10. Incidentally Mr. Deb suggested that even if there had been an order of revocation such order should itself be deemed to have been revoked by the order dated April 28, 1962. It is not possible to accept this suggestion firstly because the order dated April 28, 1962 never purported to do so nor was it possible for the Collector to revoke an order passed by the State Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, 1949 at least confers a legal right on the grantee to have a mining lease executed on his fulfilling the other obligations. This itself is a valuable right which grantee loses if the grant is revoked. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Pottery Works Private Ltd. v. B. P. Sood, [1967]1SCR695 (para. 7). Such being the position revocation necessarily entails deprivation of such rights of the grantee. Furthermore under Rule 31 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960--in purported exercise of which powers the revocation had been made---the revocation could be made only on the existence of certain facts that is default on the part of the grantee. Therefore an objective determination was called for and it was necessary for the respondents to give reasonable opportunity to the grantee to show cause why the grant should not be revoked. This principle, in my view, is now well settled in view of a number of decisions by the Supreme Court. Reference may be made to the cases of Sivaji Nathu Bhai v. Union of India, [1960]2SCR775 , Purtabpur Company v. Cane Commissioner, [1969]2SCR807 , A. R. Kraipak v. Union of India, [1970]1SCR457 and State of Ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being a case prior to the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution incorporating Article 226(1A). the Orissa High Court took the view that It had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the final order in the case had been passed by the Central Government which was located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The matter having gone on appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Orissa High Court. In so doing the Supreme Court held that the Orissa High Court could not have set aside the order of the State Government refusing the mining lease when the said order had merged into the order of the Central Government passed on review. That such initial orders merge into the revisional or review orders like the appellate orders is reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in a still later decision in the case of Sankar v. Krishna, [1970]1SCR322 . This being the position I am of the view that the order of revocation had now merged into the order passed by the Central Government in revision and when the petitioner is not challenging the said order and is not seeking any relief to have the same set, aside, he cannot challenge the original order of rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order should merge in appellate or revisional orders. He tried to distinguish the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Gopal Rangta, AIR1962SC1513 by pointing out that there the review was preferred under Rule 57 of the Mineral Concession Rules. 1949 and it is only because of the provisions of Rule 60 of the said Rules that the Supreme Court took the view that the Initial order refusing the grant merged Into the review order passed by the Central Government. According to Mr. Deb there being no similar provision in the present Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 like the one as in Rule 60 of the Old Rules, this Court should not accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that there had been a complete merger of the order of revocation into the order passed by the Central Government in revision. Reliance is placed by Mr. Deb on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madras v. Madurai Mills, [1967]1SCR732 . I am however unable to read the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Gopal, AIR1962SC1513 in the manner suggested by Mr. Deb and hold that the Supreme Court proceeded to hold that there had been a merger of the order of refus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aja v. Union of India, [1967]3SCR302 where the Supreme Court set aside an order passed in exercise of powers under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 which was same on its terms as in the present case. The said decision might have been of great assistance to Mr. Deb if he had challenged the order of the Central Government but that not having been done I am unable to hold that the said decision can be of any help to him. In this view the present writ petition should fail on the ground that the order of revocation having now merged into the order of the Central Government the validity whereof is in no way under challenge in this proceeding, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief in respect of the consequential order dated September 22, 1967 thereto. 15. There is one other difficulty in the way of the petitioner getting any relief from this Court on the present writ petition. It is not disputed that the petitioner's original application for grant of a mining lease was made and disposed of under the provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949. The grant was made on December 6, 1949. Under the provisions of Rule 28A as incorporated in the said Rules wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
