TMI Blog1973 (9) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct which was included in the lease granted to the appellant, but as no orders were passed by the State Government within the statutory period the application was ,deemed 'to have been rejected. He thereafter filed a revision petition to the Central Government which called for the comments of the State Government. The State Government intimated to the Central Government that it wanted to work the area itself and for that reason had in fact rejected all the applications for this area including that of the first respondent. On receipt of this comment, the Central Government rejected the revision petition of the first respondent. It appears that the appellant had pursuant to an advertisement in the newspapers applied along with others for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onferred by subrule (2) of rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, 61 7 hereby authorise the State Government to grant mining lease for apatite over the area to Dr. Satya Narain Sinha without following the procedure laid down in sub-rule (1) of the said Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Further in exercise of the powers conferred by section 31 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the Central Government hereby authorise the State Government to grant mining lease to Dr. Sinha over the area in question which does not form a compact block. The Central Government also, in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to section 6(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistered notices were sent nor the acknowledgment cards had been returned to the Court, he did not have an opportunity to be heard. No doubt the State of Bihar and the Central Government had opposed the petition but the High Court came to the conclusion that the conditions required for relaxation of the Rules in special cases under s. 31 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter termed the Act) read with rr. 58 59 of the Rules, were not complied with while according its approval for the grant of the mining lease to the appellant. in this view it allowed the petition and quashed the lease in favour of the appellant. Before us it is contended by the appellant's learned advocate that the appellant did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called for the applications and recommended the lease in favour of the appellant, and after having placed him in a position where he had to incur huge expense, it now wants to contend that the grant of the lease is invalid. Even the first respondent, once he found, that the area for which he applied for a lease was not included in the appel- lant's lease, seems to have perferred to remain absent in the case, but the State Government wants to challenge the validity of the lease which it did not do before the High Court. There is no doubt, as the High Court has pointed out, that where by relaxing the Rules the Central Government intends to authorise in any case the grant, renewal or transfer of any prospecting licence or mining lease, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that can be enforced under Art. 32 must ordinarily be the right of the petitioner himself who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief. In respect of the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution it was laid down in The State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta(3) that the existence of the right is the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The right to which this Court had adverted as being the foundation for exercising the jurisdiction under Art. 32 or Art. 226 of the Constitution, according to The Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal and Others(4) is ordinarily the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se its jurisdiction. (1) [1952] S. C. R. 696. (2) [1950] S. C. R. 869. (3) [1952] S. C. R. 28. (4) [1962] Supp. 3 S. C. R. 1. (5) [1966] 2 S. C. R. 172. In England also the Courts have taken the view that when the, application is made by a party or by a person aggrieved the Court will intervene ex debito justitias, in justice to the applicant, and when it is made by a stranger the Court considers whether the public interest demands its intervention. In either case it is a matter which rests ultimately in the discretion of the Court : (see R. v. Thames Magistrates' Court, ex. p. Greenbaum(1). In this case, however, the first respondent has not challenged the grant of the lease on the ground of ex debito justitiae but has done so on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
