Kays Concern Vs. Union of India &
Ors [1976] INSC 103 (6 April 1976)
BHAGWATI, P.N.
BHAGWATI, P.N.
GUPTA, A.C.
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
CITATION: 1976 AIR 1525 1976 SCR (3)1042 1976
SCC (4) 706
ACT:
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, Rule Disposal
of revision application Obligation of Central Government to consider the entire
material before it.
HEADNOTE:
On the expiry of his sub-lease for extracting
phosphate form an area of 400 hectares situate in Singbhum district, Bihar, the
appellant applied to the State Government for a grant of fresh lease. For nine
months the State Government failed to dispose of his application, and under s.
24(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, it was deemed to have been
refused. Under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the appellant
applied for revision and the Central Government directed the State Government
to consider his application on merits. The State Government rejected the
application on the ground that it had decided not to grant lease for phosphate
to individuals or private parties, but to work this mineral in the public
sector. The appellant again applied for revision during the pendency of which
an advertisement of the State Government appeared in the 'Statesman' indicating
the abandonment of its proposal to mine phosphate and apatite in the public
sector. The appellant brought the advertisement to the notice of the Central
Government, but it rejected his revision application, completely disregarding
the advertisement.
The appellant preferred an appeal to this
Court by special leave.
Allowing the appeal and remanding the case to
the Central Government, the Court,
HELD: The Central Government failed to take
into consideration this advertisement which appeared to indicate a change in
the stand of the State Government, and made its order in complete disregard of
it. This was clear non- application of mind on the part of the Central
Government to a very material circumstance which was brought to its notice
before its disposal of the under revision application. The order of the Central
Government, therefore. suffers from a patent error. [1044G-H, 1045A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 1633 of 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated the 2nd December, 1967 of the Government of India, Ministry of
Steel, Mines and Metals (Department of Mines and Metals) at New Delhi in No.
M.V. 1 (141)/67.
S. K. Mehta and K. R. Nagaraia, for the
appellant.
S. P. Nayar and Girish Chandra, for
respondent No. 1.
U. P. Singh and Shambhu Nath Jha, for
respondent No. 2.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAGWATI, J. This appeal can be disposed of on a very narrow point and we will,
therefore, set out only so much of the facts giving rise t(s the appeal as bear
on this point and omit what is unnecessary.
Since 23rd December, 1959 the appellants had
a sub- lease from the Receiver in Suit No. 203 of 1905 for extracting phosphate
from 1043 an area of 400 hectares situate in Singhbhum District in the State of
Bihar. This sub-lease, according to the State of Bihar, came to an end from 1st
September, 1964 and the appellants, therefore, made an application to the State
of Bihar on 22nd/24th March, 1965 for a grant of fresh mining lease for
extraction of apatite and phosphate from the same area under Rule 22 of the
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 made by the Central Government under s. 13 of
the Mines Minerals (Regulation Development) Act, 1957. The State Government
failed to dispose of the application within a period of nine months from the
date of its receipt and hence under Rule 24(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules,
1960 the application was deemed to have been refused by the State Government.
The appellants preferred a revision application to the Central Government on
16th February, 1966 against the deemed refusal of their application under Rule
54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The Central Government disposed of
the revision application by an order dated 31st December, 1966 directing the
State Government to consider the application of the appellants and to decide it
on merits. The State Government thereafter by an order dated 9th February, 1967
rejected the application of the appellants on the ground that the State
Government had already taken a decision not to grant lease for phosphate ore to
any individual or private party as it had decided "to work this mineral in
the public sector". The appellants again filed a revision application to
the Central Government against the order of the State Government rejecting
their application. The Central Government invited comments of the State
Government on the revision application and on the comments submitted by the
State Government, the appellants were given an opportunity to submit their
cross-comments which they did on 8th August, 1967. Whilst the revision
application was pending, the appellants read an advertisement in the issue of
Statesman dated 13th September, 1967 to the following effect:
"Government of Bihar Department of Mines
& Geology, Patna.
Mining and beatification of low grade apatite
of Singhbhum.
A reserve of a little over 1 million tonnes
of low grade Apatite Mineral with average 16% P.O. has been proved in a belt
consisting of several mouzas in the Singhbhum District of Bihar. The
representative bulk samples of the minerals have laboratory Jamshedpur, and it
has been found that the mineral can be suitably upgraded by benefication, to
yield Apatite concentrate with 36% to 40% P.O., suitable for use as raw
material for the manufacture of Phosphetic fertiliser. Report of economic
feasibility studies available. The State Government may consider giving tax
holidays for a filed period and also may guarantee the safety of the investment
invested parties capable of making investment to the tuner of 40 to 50 lakhs in
undertaking to above project may obtain further particulars from the 1044 Mines
Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar. Patna.
Sd/- K. ABRAHAM, Commissioner of Mines &
Geology." The appellant immediately addressed a communication dated 26th September,
1967 to the Central Government enclosing a copy of the advertisement and
pointing out that it was clear from the advertisement that the State Government
had abandoned the idea of working apatite and phosphate in the public sector
and that the ground for rejecting the application of the appellants for mining
lease no longer existed. The Central Government, however by an order dated 2nd
December, 1967 rejected the revision application stating that:
".... the Central Government have come
to conclusion that as the State` Government are anxious to do phosphate mining
for their own fertilizer factory in public sector, there is no valid ground for
interfering with the decision of the State Government rejecting your
application for grant of mining lease for apatite and phosphate in Singhbhum
district." The appellants thereupon preferred the present appeal against
the order of the Central Government with special leave obtained from this
Court.
It is apparent from the order of the Central
Government dated 2nd December, 1967 that the Central Government rejected the
revision application of the appellants on the ground that the State Government
was anxious to do phosphate mining for its own fertilizer factory in the public
sector.
This was undoubtedly the original ground put
forward by the State Government for rejecting the application of the appellants
for mining lease. But it does appear prime facie from the advertisement in the
issue of the Statesman dated 13th September, 1967 that the proposal of the
State Government to mine apatite and phosphate for its own fertilizer factory
in the public sector was abandoned and the State Government was prepared to
give mining lease to a party which was prepared to undertake a project of
setting up a plant for beatification of this mineral so as to make it suitable
for use as raw material for the manufacture of phosphatic fertilizer. The
appellants brought this advertisement to the notice of the Central Government
by their representation dated 26th September, 1967 and this was done before the
revision application was disposed of by the Central Government. Even so, the
Central Government failed to take into consideration this advertisement which
appeared to indicate a change in the stand of the State Government and made its
order dated 2nd December, 1967 in complete disregard of it. The order of the
Central Government dated 2nd December, 1967 clearly shows that the Central
Government failed to apply its mind to this advertisement though it was brought
to its notice in time and proceeded to dispose of the revision application as
if no such advertisement had been issued by the State Government. The Central
Government did not even care to invite the comments of the State 1045
Government in regard to the advertisement and ignored it altogether A in making
its order rejecting the revision application. This was clear non-application of
mind on the part of the Central Government to a very material circumstance
which was brought to its notice before it disposed of the revision application.
The order of the Central Government, therefore, suffers from a patent error and
it must be quashed and set aside and the matter must go back to the Central
Government for fresh determination.
We accordingly set aside the order dated 2nd
December, 1967 passed by the Central Government and remand the case to the
Central Government with a direction to dispose of the revision application,
after taking into account the entire material before it, including the
advertisement given by the State Government in the issue of Statesman dated
13th September, 1967 and giving an opportunity to the State Government to offer
its comments in regard to this advertisement and a further opportunity to the
appellants to make their submissions on the comments, if any, offered by the
State Government. The State of Bihar will pay the costs of the appeal to the
appellants.
M.R. Appeal allowed.
Back
