Case: D. N. Roy And S. K. Bannerjee And Ors Vs. State Of Bihar And Ors

Mining lease to M/s D. N. Roy and S. K. Bannerjee and further direct them to throw open the area again under Rule 58 (1) of Mineral Concession Rules 1960 for regrant. The notification should clearly indicate the date from which the area could be available for re-grant and the date by which the petitioners should submit their applications for mineral concession.4. M/s D. N. Roy and S. K. Bannerjee are being informed.Yours faithfullySd/- H. S. SahniUnder Secretary to the Government of IndiaCopy forwarded to M/s. D. N. Roy and S. K. Bannerjee village and P. O. Churulia, Distt Burdwan (West Bengal) with reference to their letter dated 12-6-1963.Sd/- H. S. SahniUnder Secretary to the Government of India"3. Aggrieved by this order the appellant moved the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Central Government dated November 5, 1964 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the impugned order,). The High Court dismissed its petition. As against the order of the High Court the appellant has brought this appeal after obtaining certificate of fitness from the High Court.4. It was urged before the High Court that the Government having passed the final order on September 30, 1964, it had no power to review its own order and make any further order. Admittedly there is no provision under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 or under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 empowering the Central Government to review its order. The High Court did not hold that the Central Government had any power to review its own order either under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 or under the Mineral Concession Rules. It upheld the Central Governments order on two grounds namely that the order dated September 30, 1964 is not a complete order as it did not dispose of the application made by the 5th respondent completely and secondly the Central Government had suo motu power to review the order of the State Government under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. These conclusions of the High Court were assailed before us.5. In his application under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the 5th respondent prayed for (i) setting aside the grant made in favour of the appellant and (ii) grant the area in question on lease to him. The High Court thought that these are two independent prayers. In its view the Central Government by its order dated September 30, 1964 had disposed of only the prayer of the 5th respondent to grant the area on lease to him but it had not disposed of his first prayer? namely to cancel the grant in favour of the appellant. In our opinion this is an incorrect approach. The two reliefs asked for by the 5th respondent were interconnected reliefs. In the context in which they were made, they cannot be considered as independent prayers. No grant in his favour could have been made without first setting aside the grant made in favour of the appellant. Therefore the first relief asked for by the 5th respondent is a necessary condition precedent for a grant in his favour. Further by its order dated September 30, 1964, the Central Government dismissed the entire application of the 5th respondent on the ground that the same was time-barred. If his application in respect of one part of his prayer was time-barred, it was equally time-barred in respect of the other part.6. The impugned order of the Central Government does not show that it was made in the exercise of its suo moto power. It is purported to have been made on the basis of the application made by the 5th respondent under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. In paragraph 3 of that order it says "in view of the position explained above the Central Government in exercise of their revisionary power conferred by Rule 55 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and all other powers enabling in this behalf hereby set aside the order of the State Government contained in their letter No. A/MM/4031/62-1789M dated 31-3-1962".7. It is true that the order in question also refers to "all other powers enabling in this behalf". But in its return to the writ petition the Central Government did not plead that the impugned order was passed in exercise of its suo moto powers. We agree that if the exercise of a power can be traced to an existing power even though that power was not purported to have been exercised under certain circumstances, the exercise of the power can be upheld on the strength of an undisclosed but undoubted power. But in this case the difficulty is that at no stage the Central Government intimated to the appellant that it was exercising its suo moto power. At all stages it purported to act under Rules 54 and 56 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. If the Central Government wanted to exercise its suo motu power it should have intimated that fact as well as the grounds on which it proposed to exercise that power to the appellant and given him an opportunity to show cause against the exercise of suo motu power as well as against the grounds on which it wanted to exercise its power. Quite clearly the Central Government had not given him that opportunity. The High Court thought that as the Central Government had not only intimated to the appellant the grounds mentioned in the application made by the 5th respondent but also the comments of the State Government, the appellant had adequate opportunity to put forward his case. This conclusion in our judgment is untenable. At no stage the appellant was informed that the Central Government proposed to exercise its suo motu power and asked him to show cause against the exercise of such a power. Failure of the Central Government to do so, in our opinion, vitiates the impugned order.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]4. It was urged before the High Court that the Government having passed the final order on September 30, 1964, it had no power to review its own order and make any further order. Admittedly there is no provision under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 or under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 empowering the Central Government to review its order. The High Court did not hold that the Central Government had any power to review its own order either under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 or under the Mineral Concession Rules. It upheld the Central Governments order on two grounds namely that the order dated September 30, 1964 is not a complete order as it did not dispose of the application made by the 5th respondent completely and secondly the Central Government had suo motu power to review the order of the State Government under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. These conclusions of the High Court were assailed before us.The impugned order of the Central Government does not show that it was made in the exercise of its suo moto power. It is purported to have been made on the basis of the application made by the 5th respondent under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. In paragraph 3 of that order it says "in view of the position explained above the Central Government in exercise of their revisionary power conferred by Rule 55 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and all other powers enabling in this behalf hereby set aside the order of the State Government contained in their letter No.7. It is true that the order in question also refers to "all other powers enabling in this behalf". But in its return to the writ petition the Central Government did not plead that the impugned order was passed in exercise of its suo moto powers. We agree that if the exercise of a power can be traced to an existing power even though that power was not purported to have been exercised under certain circumstances, the exercise of the power can be upheld on the strength of an undisclosed but undoubted power. But in this case the difficulty is that at no stage the Central Government intimated to the appellant that it was exercising its suo moto power. At all stages it purported to act under Rules 54 and 56 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. If the Central Government wanted to exercise its suo motu power it should have intimated that fact as well as the grounds on which it proposed to exercise that power to the appellant and given him an opportunity to show cause against the exercise of suo motu power as well as against the grounds on which it wanted to exercise its power. Quite clearly the Central Government had not given him that opportunity. The High Court thought that as the Central Government had not only intimated to the appellant the grounds mentioned in the application made by the 5th respondent but also the comments of the State Government, the appellant had adequate opportunity to put forward his case. This conclusion in our judgment is untenable. At no stage the appellant was informed that the Central Government proposed to exercise its suo motu power and asked him to show cause against the exercise of such a power. Failure of the Central Government to do so, in our opinion, vitiates the impugned order.