9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (8) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 4, 1952, the appellant obtained a transfer of the said leasehold interest from the successors in interest of the said Bansilal Abirchand. After the transfer, the appellant entered into possession of the said extent of land and is alleged to have spent about ₹ 10,00,000 for the purpose of developing the area to carry out the mining operation. The said lease was to expire on September 9, 1955. On the expiry of the said lease the appellant applied for the renewal of the lease for a further period of 20 years to the appropriate authority, namely, the Secretary to Government, Commerce and Industries Department, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur. After a protracted correspondence covering a period of about 3 years, the offer on special duty, Industries and Co-operation Department, State of Bombay, informed the appellant by letter dated September 2, 1958, that the said renewal could not be granted. The appellant filed a revision against that order to the Central Government, but that was dismissed on December 14, 1958. On April 9, 1959, the State of Bombay issued a notification calling for applications from the public in respect of the least of the said mines. On May 15, 1959, the appellant f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 17, 1964, dismissing its revision petition against the order of the Government of Maharashtra. To that appeal, the Central Government is made the first respondent; the Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Steel and Mines, who made the said order, the second respondent-, and the State of Maharashtra, the third respondent. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant raised before us the following points: (1) The order passed by the Central Government is bad, because, though it is a judicial order, no reasons are given for rejecting the revision of the appellant. (2) The order is bad also because it has not complied with the principles of natural justice, namely, (i) though the appellant requested for a personal hearing, it was not acceded to; and (ii) the Central Government had taken into consideration extraneous matters without giving an opportunity to the appellant to explain them. (3) The order of the Central Government is illegal, because it ignored the final order made by the State Government granting the lease of the mines to the appellant and also because it should have held that the Central Government could not place the mines, in the public secto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision is made to the Central Government under rule 54, it may call for the record of the case from the State Government, and after considering any comments made on the petition by the State Government or other authority, as the case may be, may confirm. modify or set aside the order or pass such other order in relation thereto as the Central Government may deem just and proper : Provided that no order shall be passed against an applicant unless be has been given an opportunity to make his representations against the comments, if any. received from the State Government or other authority." A perusal of the said provisions makes it abundantly clear that the State Government exercising its powers under the Act and the Rules made thereunder deals with matters involving great stakes; presumably for the said reason, the Central Government is constituted as an authority to revise the order of the State Government. Rules 54 and 55 lay down the procedure for filing a revision against the order of the State Government and the manner of its disposal. Under r. 54, a revision application has to be filed with the prescribed court-fee; and under r. 55, the Central Government, after calling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls. The question cannot be disposed of on purely technical con- siderations. Our Constitution posits a welfare State; it is not defined, but its incidents are found in Chapters III and IV thereof, i.e., the Parts embodying fundamental rights and directive principles of State Policy respectively. "Welfare State' as conceived by our Constitution is a State where there is prosperity, equality, freedom and social justice. In the context of a welfare State, administrative tribunals have come to stay. Indeed, they ,are the necessary concomitants of a welfare State. But arbitrariness in their functioning destroys the concept of a welfare State itself. Self-dicipline and supervision exclude or at any rate minimize arbitrariness. The least a tribunal can do is to disclose its mind. The compulsion of disclosure guarantees consideration. The condition to give reasons. introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimises arbitrariness; it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made; and it also enables an appellate or supervisory court to keep the tribunals within 'bounds. A reasoned order is a desirable condition of judicial ,disposal. The conception of ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be, agreeing with those reasons. What is essential is that reasons shall be given by an appellate or revisional tribunal expressly or by reference to those given by the original tribunal. The nature and the elaboration of the reasons necessarily depend upon the facts of each case. In the present case, neither the State Government's nor the Central Government's order discloses reasons for rejecting the application of the appellant. In the circumstances the Central Government's order is vitiated, as it does not disclose any reasons for rejecting the revision application of the appellant. As regards the second contention, I do not think- that the appellant is entitled as of right to a personal hearing. It is no doubt a principle of natural justice that a quasi- judicial tribunal cannot make any decision adverse to a party without giving him an effective opportunity of meeting any relevant allegations against him. Indeed, r. 55 of the Rules, quoted supra, recognize the said principle and states that no order shall be passed against any applicant unless he has been given an opportunity to make his representations against the comments, if any, received from the State Governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Government to undertake the mining operation in the area in question. That section has, therefore, no bearing on the question 'raised. I have already noticed that after the disposal of the revision by the Central Government the State Government again changed its mind and called for applications from the public for grant of mining licence in respect of the said area and the appellant, along with others, has applied for the same. Learned counsel for the appellant, though he admits the said fact, contends that though the appellant has a fresh opportunity to apply for the lease of the mines, it has to meet competition from others who did not enter the field earlier. But the people who entered the field earlier lid not prefer any revision against the order of the State Government aid, presumably, if we interfere at this stage, there would be unnecessary complications and public interest might suffer, as it might turn out that the appellant would be the only surviving applicant in the field among the earlier applicants. Though the appellant has to compete with others who were not earlier in the field--this question we have no precise information-it has certainly an opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the application did not disclose any valid ground for interference with the order of the State Government. In our opinion, the Central Government, acting under r. 55, was not bound to give in its order, fuller reasons for rejecting the application. Mr. Pathak contended that the effect of Art. 136 of the Constitution is that every order appealable under that Article must be a speaking order and the omission to give reasons for the decision is of itself a sufficient ground for quashing it. We are unable to accept this broad contention. For the purposes of an appeal under Art. 136, orders of Courts and tribunals stand on the same footing. An order of Court dismissing a revision application often gives no reasons, but this is not a sufficient ground for quashing it. Likewise, an order of an a administrative tribunal rejecting a revision application cannot be pronounced to be invalid on the sole ground that it does not give reasons for the rejection. In support of his contention Mr. Pathak relied upon the following observations of Shah, J. in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala([1962] 2 S.C.R. 339, 357.) : "If the Central Government acts as a tribunal exerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
