Case: Nookala Setharamaiah Vs. Kotaiah Naidu &amp; Ors

of receipt of the application, the State Government ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter so as not to pass any order on any application after the lapse of nine months from the date of its receipt. The expression "deemed to be a refusal" in Rule 57 (2) is only for the purpose of a review application to be filed before the Central Government, and it is not a part of R. 28 tabindex = 1>28 (1-A). In this view of the matter the legality of the order passed by the State Government granting a mining lease to respondent No.2 cannot be challenged on the above ground." 22. We think that these observations are not correct. If it is otherwise, even when a review petition is pending before the Central Government under Rule 57, the State Government can make an order on the application made and thus compel the parties to file another review petition. Further, if the Central Government gives one direction in the review petition and the State Government passes an inconsistent order in the original petition, there is bound to be confusion.If we read Rule 28 tabindex = 1>28 (1-A) and Rule57 (2) together, there is hardly any doubt that after the period prescribed, the State Government is incompetent to deal with the applications pending before it. According to rule 57 (2), where a State Government has failed to dispose of an application for the grant of a mining lease within the period prescribed therefor in the rules, such failure shall for the purpose of the rules be deemed to be refusal to grant the lease. The rules referred therein include Rule 28 tabindex = 1>28 as well. This deemed refusal, if read with the mandate given to the State Government under Rule 28 tabindex = 1>28 (1-A) requiring it to dispose of the applications within 9 months of the receipt of those applications, there can be hardly any doubt that if the State Government does not dispose of the applications with in the time prescribed, it is deemed to have refused those applications for the purpose of Rule 28 tabindex = 1>28 as well as Rule 57. The High Court was wrong in thinking that in the absence of a provision providing for deemed rejection in Rule 28 tabindex = 1>28 (1-A) the contravention of that rule does not take away the jurisdiction of the State Government. That conclusion ignores the words in Rule 57 (2) that deemed rejection is for the purpose of these rules. In view of those words in Rule 57 (2), it was unnecessary for the rule-making authority to prescribe in Rule 28 tabindex = 1>28 (1-A) the consequences of the failure on the part of the State Government to implement the mandate of Rule 28 tabindex = 1>28 (1-A).Hence, in our opinion, the Central Governments decision that the application made by the appellant, the 1st respondent and others for mining lease should be deemed to have been refused on March 1, 1958 is correct. Therefore the High Court was wrong in quashing the order of the Central Government on that ground. 23. The High Court was also wrong in opining that in view of the representations made by the learned Government Pleader before Bhimasankaran, J., on August 25, 1959, in Writ Petition No. 1237 of 1957, the State Government is estopped from contending that the application made by the 1st respondent on September 15, 1953, must be deemed to have been refused.There can be no estoppel against a statute. Rule 28 tabindex = 1>28 (1-A) and Rule 57 (2) are statutory rules. They bind the Government as much as they bind others. The requirement of those rules cannot be waived by the State Governments. Therefore the fact that the learned Government Pleader represented to the Court that the petition filed by the 1st respondent on September 15, 1953 was still pending disposal cannot change the legal position nor could it confer on the State Government any power to act in contravention of those rules. 24. Yet another ground relied on by the High Court is that in view of the writ issued by Basi Reddy, J., in Writ Petition No. 888 of 1957, the State Government was bound to consider the application of the 1st respondent and therefore the decision of the State Government taken him obedience to the order of the High Court could not have been set aside by the Central Government. It is true that as far as the State Government is concerned the writ issued was binding whether the decision rendered by the Court was correct in law or not; but then that decision will not bind either the appellant herein or the Central Government who were not parties to that writ petition. It is not a judgment in rem. In obedience to the writ issued by the Court, the State Government did consider the application of the 1st respondent. It granted him the lease asked for by him. Therefore the State Government has complied with the direction issued to it by the High Court.The Central Government had been constituted as the revisional authority under Rule 57. That authority is a quasi-judicial body created by statutory rules. It is bound by law to discharge the duties imposed on it by Rule 57. Therefore it had to obey the mandate of Rule 57. In so doing, it cannot be said that it had infringed the mandamus issued by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 888 of 1957 to which, as pointed out before, the appellant was not a party and the order made in which could not be binding either on the Central Government or the appellant. 25. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow Civil Appeal no. 2121 of 1969 and set aside the order of the High Court and dismiss the Writ petition No. 464 of 1965 but in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs in these appeals. ORDER

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]19. So far as Civil Appeal No. 2122 of 1969 is concerned there is no merit in the same. No ground in support of that appeal was urged before us. Hence it fails and it is dismissedWe shall now proceed to consider the correctness of the reasons given by the High Court in support of its order21. The High Court was of the opinion that Rule 57 (2) was enacted only for the benefit of the applicants for lease, license etc., so that they may have an early opportunity to move the Central Government for appropriate orders. In the view of the High Court that rule does not take away the power of the State Government to dispose of the applications made for mining lease etc., even after the period prescribed expires. In support of this conclusion, it relied on the decision of the Patna High Court in Dey Gupta and Co. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 Pat 487   as well as on the decision of Basi Reddy, J., in Writ Petition No. 888 of 1957 to which reference has already been made. Neither the Patna decision nor the judgment of Basi Reddy, J., nor the decision under appeal gives any cogent reason in support of the conclusion that the deemed dismissal under Rule 57 (2) does not take away the right of the State Government to grant the lease asked for. The Patna High Court in support of its conclusion observed:"No doubt, readingRule28 tabindex = 1>28) withRule57 (2) of the, it is clear that, if the State Government fails to dispose of an application for the grant of a mining lease within nine months, it must be deemed to have been refused by itBut this provision is made, in my opinion, only for the purpose of filing a review application before the Central Government, so that an applicant desirous to have a mining lease may not have to wait unnecessarily for a long period without any order being passed on his application. That however, does not mean that after the lapse of nine months from the date of receipt of the application, the State Government ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter so as not to pass any order on any application after the lapse of nine months from the date of its receiptThe expression "deemed to be a refusal" inRule57 (2) is only for the purpose of a review application to be filed before the Central Government, and it is not a part of R.28 tabindex = 1>28. In this view of the matter the legality of the order passed by the State Government granting a mining lease to respondent No.2 cannot be challenged on the above ground."22. We think that these observations are not correct. If it is otherwise, even when a review petition is pending before the Central Government underRule57, the State Government can make an order on the application made and thus compel the parties to file another review petition. Further, if the Central Government gives one direction in the review petition and the State Government passes an inconsistent order in the original petition, there is bound to be confusion.If we readRule28 tabindex = 1>28) and7 (2) together, there is hardly any doubt that after the period prescribed, the State Government is incompetent to deal with the applications pending before it. According to rule 57 (2), where a State Government has failed to dispose of an application for the grant of a mining lease within the period prescribed therefor in the rules, such failure shall for the purpose of the rules be deemed to be refusal to grant the lease. The rules referred therein includeRule28 tabindex = 1>28as well. This deemed refusal, if read with the mandate given to the State Government underRule