Appeal No 2580 of 1969
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 6 1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No 3124 of 1967
ASubba Rao for the appellants
SP Nayar for respondent No 1
PRam Reddy and A V V Nair for respondents Nos 2 and 3
P P Rao and T V section Narasimhachari for respondent No 4
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Beg J
This appeal from a Judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeallant s Writ Petition comes up before us by Certificate under Article 1331a of the Constitution in the following circumstances One Buchivenkata Rao had filed application on 1 9 1959 and 1 8 1960 under Mineral Concession Rules There in after referred to as the Rules  before the Collector of Nellore for the grant of a mining lease to him of an area mentioned in his applications
He alleged that his applications complied with the rules framed under the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act of 1957
The State Government rejected the application of 11 8 1960 on 7 12 1960 but granted the application made on 4th October 1950 by the Respondent Kumara Rajah of Venkatagiri hereinafter referred to as Venkatagiri
The ground on which the application of the appellant Rao was rejected was that Venkatagin  had a prior claim
The appellant Rao had then preferred a Revision application to the Central Government under the Mineral Concession Rules which came into force on 11th November 1960
667 The Central Government had rejected the revision application on the ground that it was not filed within the prescribed time
Upon a Writ Petition filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh the order of rejection of the revision application by the Central Government was quashed
The Central Government was directed to consider Rao s application on merits
The Central Government had after giving due opportunity to be heard to the appellant Rao dismissed his application on 18th October 1967 holding that Venkatagiri had priority over his claim
Rao then filed a second Writ Petition which was dismissed on 26th September 1969
The judgment and order of dismissal are now under appeal before us
The judgment of the High Court shows that the appellant Rao had relied on the following three grounds only at the time of agruments on his Writ Petition  firstly that the application of Venkatagiri was not made in accordance with Rule 27 and 32 of the said Rules of 1949 secondly that the application of Venkatagiri was not for a fresh lease but for the continuation of a previous lease so that it did not fall within the purview of the rules and thirdly that the Central Government had not considered in detail the various comments offered by the State Govt
with regard to each ground of revision
A contention noticed by the High Court as a separate ground of attack was that the Central Govt
had relied upon a ruling of a Single Judge of the Punjab High Court in J A Trivadi Brothers vs Union of India1 holding that Rules 27 to 29 did not make defective applications void but this view had been reversed by a Division Bench of that Court
This was no really a separate ground but a contention relating to the effect of failure to comply strictly with Rules 27 to 29 of the Rules of 1949
The main contention of Rao was that the application of Venkatagiri had to be disregarded as it failed to comply with the rules and therefore was not an application in the eye of law so that out of several competing applications Rao s application
ought to have been granted
The High Court made it clear that other grounds were taken in Rao petition but were not argued there
In this Court a fresh ground neither taken nor argued before the High Court is sought to be urged in addition to the other grounds before the High Court which were repeated before us
We will take up the grounds advanced in the High Court and again in this Court before considering the entertain ability of the fresh ground
At this stage before dealing with the first ground we may set out the relevant rules 27 and 32 of 1949 which run as follows 27
Application for mining lease An application for a mining lease shall in case of land in which the mine 1 AIR 1959 Punjab 589
668 rals belong to Government be made to the State Government concerned through such officer or authority as it may appoint in this behalf and shall contain the following particulars  ai If the applicant is an individual his name nationality profession and residence and ii if the applicant is a partnership firm a company or an association or body of individuals whether in corporated or not its name nature and place of business place of registration of incorporation and except in the case of a company which is not a private company as defined in the Indian Companies Act 1913 VII of 1913 the names and addresses of the individuals constituting such partnership firm company association or body
b The number and date of the notification of the grant or renewal of certificate of approval of the applicant c A description illustrated by a map or plan showing as accurately as possible the situation boundaries and area of the land in respect of which the lease is required d The mineral or minerals which the applicant intends to mine e The areas and minerals within the jurisdiction of the State Government for which the applicant or any person joint in interest with him already holds a mining lease f If the applicant holds a prospecting license for the area applied for the number and date of such license g The period for which the lease
is required and h The industry if any which the applicant proposes to develop and the location of such industry
Explanation  The map or plan referred to in item c should give sufficient information to enable identification of the area in respect of which the lease is required
Priority 1 If more than one application regarding the same land is received preference shall be given to the application received first
unless the State Govern 669 ment for any special reason and with the prior approval of the Central Government decides to the contrary
Provided that where more than one application in respect of the same land is received on the same day the State Government after taking into consideration the matters specified in sub rule 2 and after obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government may grant the mining lease to such one of the applicants whom it considers to be the most suitable
Provided further that no application shall be deemed to be incomplete for the purposes of this rule on account of the omission or misdescription of the number and date of the prospecting licence and of the profession or residence or nationality in the case of an individual or of the place of business in the case of a partnership firm a company or an association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not if such omission or misdescription is corrected within a period specified by the State Government or an Officer appointed by that Government in this behalf
2 The matters referred to in the proviso to subrule 1 shall be the following namely i experience of the applicants in mining ii financial soundness and stability of the applicants iii special knowledge of geology or mining and the technical staff already employed or to be employed for the work
It is clear to us that the details mentioned in Rule 27 are intended for the correct identification of the individual to whom the lease is to be granted the minerals which are to be mined the area in respect of which the lease was to be granted and the qualifications of the applicant
Considerable emphasis was placed on the word shall  in Rule 32 with regard to the priority to be given between different applicants
This rule does not directly affect the question whether an application for a lease could be considered a proper application or not by the authorities concerned
The second proviso to this rule however provides for the manner in which certain defects may be cured
Rule 32 sub rule 2 introduced in 1955 before the grant of the application of Venkatagiri shows that the individual qualifications of the applicants including their special knowledge their capacity to engage technically efficient staff their financial soundness and stability had to be taken into account in determining the question of priority
Again Rule 670 26 imposing certain restrictions prohibits the grant of the lease to any person who does not hold a certificate of approval from the State Government or who has not produced an Income tax clearance certificate
It does not prohibit any grant on the ground that the application for it is defective or not accompanied by a map
The form of the application seems to be subordinate to the essential facts to be taken into account before granting a lease
There is no provision in the Act showing that the defects in an application which is accompanied by the fee prescribed in Rule 28 cannot be subsequently removed
The information given in the application is intended for the satisfaction of the authorities granting the lease so that after considering inherits and making a grant proper details are embodied in the lease actually granted
It was not urged anywhere that as a result of any defects in the applica tion of Venkatagiri the lease
itself could not be executed
This indicates that the omission to file a proper map initially was cured
The High Court had relied on a decision of this Court in Banarsi Das vs Cane Commissioner UP1 where conditions similar to those laid down by Rule 27 were held to be directory
It had also held that even assuming that some of the requirements in the rules may be mandatory it could not be held that the mere want of a map or of details describing the area for which the lease was applied for would make the application itself void or of no effect
We are therefore unable to find any error in the view adopted by the High Court that the supply of necessary details was directory and not mandatory
If it did not produce a defect which affected the validity of the lease and the details supplied in the application corresponded with the contents of the lease after the alleged lacuna had been filed up the grant of the lease to Venkatagiri was valid
As regards the second ground that the application of Venkatagiri had to be interpreted as an application for the continuation of an already existing lease and not for the grant of a fresh lease we find that the High Court had rejected this contention by pointing out that the application was on a form which complied with Rule 27 so that it could be treated as a fresh application
We find nothing wrong with the High Court s interpretation of the application made by Venkatagiri
The High Court had also found as a fact that the order of the Central Government disclosed that it was based on relevant considerations and could not be said to have omitted consideration of anything material simply because the details of matters considered were not fully set out
We concur with this view and are 1 AIR 1963 SC 1947
unable to hold that the order of the Central Government was vitiated on the third ground urged on behalf of Rao
We may now refer to the fresh question which was sought to be raised on behalf of the appellant by means of an application before us
This was that this Court had pointed out in Nookala Satharamaiah vs Kotaiah Naidu  Ors1 that on 15th September 1956 the Mineral Concession Rules were amended and
a new sub rule 281 A was introduced which provided that every application under Rule 27 shall be disposed of within nine months from the date of its receipt and had held that the effect of the amended Rule 57 which was further amended on 14 9 1956 was that an application remaining undisposed of within the period prescribed will be deemed to be rejected
It was urged that we should allow this point to be argued for the first time in this Court although it was neither raised nor argued in the High Court
it was submitted that this was a pure question of law on which no investigation of facts afresh was required
On the other hand it has been contended on behalf of the contesting respondent that a new _point should not be allowed to be urged at this stage for which reliance was placed on Bhagwati Saran  Anr
vs State of Uttar Pradesh2 section L Aggarwal v  General Manager Hindustan Steel Ltd3 Chitra Ghosh  Anrv
Union of India  Ors4 Even if we had been disposed to consider this new ground on the plea that exceptional circumstances justified our going into it we must here point out another fact which affects the very maintainability of the appeal before us now
The appellant B Rao died on 18 2 1970
His sons filed an application in this Court on 20 7 1970 for impleading them as the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased
This application was tentatively allowed on 3 11 1970 under the orders of the Registrar of this Court subject to such objections to the rights of the substituted appellants to be heard and to continue this appeal on behalf of the deceased  as may be taken before us at the hearing of the appeal
It has to be remembered that in order to enable a legal re presentative to continue a legal proceeding the right to sue or to pursue a remedy must survive the death of his predecessor
In the instant case we have set out provisions showing that the rights which an applicant may have had for the grant of a mining lease on the strength of an alleged superior claim cannot be separated from his personal qualifications
No provision has been pointed out to us in the rules for impleading an heir who could continue
the application for a mining lease
The scheme under the rules 1  3  at 365
2  at 568
4  at 420 672 seems to be that if an applicant dies a fresh application has to be presented by his heirs or legal representatives if they themselves desire to apply for the grant of a lease
It may be that the heir and legal representatives if they are continuing the business or industry of the deceased and have the required qualifications obtain priority over an earlier applicant on account of special reasons for this preference
But in each case they have to apply afresh and set out their own qualifications
It has not been shown to us that any of the legal representatives have applied afresh
The legal representatives only claim to be entitled to succeed the deceased Buchivenkata Rao under a will
The assumption underlying the application is that whatever right the deceased may have had to obtain a lease survived and vested in the heirs after his death
We are unable to accept the correctness of this assumption
In support of the contention on behalf of the heirs of Buchivenkata Rao our attention was drawn to the case of Dhani Devi vs Sant Bihari  Ors1 which related to a right to obtain transfer of a permit for a Motor vehicle under Section 61 sub
section 12 of the Motor Vehicle Act
It was held there that in the case of the death of an applicant for the grant of a permit in respect of his motor vehicle the Regional Transport Authority had the power to substitute the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle in place of the deceased applicant
It was pointed out there that the right to the permit was related to the possession of the vehicle
Moreover there was a rule enabling the Transport Authorities to substitute the heir or legal representatives of the deceased
No such rule applicable to the case of the heirs of the deceased Buchivenkata Rao has been pointed out to us
Therefore we are unable to hold that the heirs who have been heard had any right to continue the appeal before us
This feature of the case is decisive not only on the right to be heard on the fresh ground but also on the right to advance any argument in support of the appeal of the deceased
We may mention that it was also urged that the matter was so old that any reversal of the grant of the mining lease to Venkatagiri as long ago as 1960 would involve considerable dislocation and injury to respondent Venkatagiri without any fault on his part
The respondent Venkatagiri must have invested considerable amount of money in mining operations
The acceptance of the claim of Venkatagiri by the Government on the strength of which Venkatagiri made his investment clothes Venkatagiri s claim with an equity which could not be defeated without clear proof of some legal right or interest of another claimant
We are 1  673 unable to see any such right in the heirs of the deceased Buchivenkata Rao
Consequently this appeal is dismissed but we make no orders as to costs in this Court
VPS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The application of one B for a mining lease was rejected on the ground that another applicant V had a prior claim
B s writ application was dismissed by the High Court and while his appeal in this Court was pending he died and his sons were allowed to be impleaded as legal representatives subject to any objection that may be taken to their right to continue the appeal
it was not in accordance with r 27 of the Mineral Concession Rules and because of want of a map and some details regarding area and therefore whether B section appli cation should have been granted HELD  1 The details mentioned in r 27 are intended for the correct identification of the individual to whom the lease is to be granted the minerals which are to be mined the area in respect of which the lease was to be granted and the qualifications of the applicant
Rules 322 introduced in 1955 before the grant of V s application shows that individual qualifications of the applicants including their special knowledge their capacity to engage technically efficient staff their financial soundness and stability bad to be taken into account in determining the question of priority
There is no prohibition against the grant of an application on the ground that the application is defective or not accompanied by a map
There is also no provision in the Act showing that defects in an application could
not be subsequently removed
The form of the application is subordinate to the essential facts to be taken into account before granting a lease
The information given in the application is intended for the satisfaction of the authorities granting the lease so that after considering the merits and making a grant up Proper details are embodied in the lease actually granted
ply of necessary details is directory and not mandatory
It was not the cage here that as a result of the defects in V s application the lease itself could not be executed
Therefore the mere want of a map or of details describing the area for which the lease was applied for would not make the application itself void or of no effect
If it did not produce a defect which affected the validity of the leak and the details supplied in the application corresponded with the contents of the lease after the alleged lacuna had been removed the grant of the lease to V was valid
669 F H 67OB F 2 In order to enable a legal representative to continue a legal proceeding the right to sue or pursue a remedy must survive the death of his predecessor
Under the rules the right of an applicant on the strength of a superior claim cannot be separated from his personal qualifications
671 G H 666 Moreover there is no provision in the Rules for imploding an heir to continue the application for a mining lease
The scheme under the Rules is that if an applicant dies a fresh application has to be presented by the heirs or legal representatives if they desire to apply far the grant of a lease
It may be that they may obtain priority over an earlier applicant if they are continuing the business or industry of the decreased but it would be on a fresh application setting out their qualifications
Therefore the heirs had no right to continue the appeal in this Court
672A C Dhani Devi vs Sant Bihari  Ors
   distinguished
3 The acceptance of V s claim by the Government on the strength of which he had made his investment clothes his claim with an equity which could not be defeated without clear proof of some overriding legal right or terest of another claimant and there is no such right in the heirs of B 672G H