Case: State of Assam &amp; Others Vs. Om Prakash Mehta &amp; Others

of any provision of the Constitution. Nor is there any question of the principles of natural justice having been violated. Indeed there may be some purpose in such a provision. It is well known that in almost all statutes regarding local bodies it is provided that applications for building licences that are not disposed of within a specified period should be deemed to have been granted. It has never been argued in those cases that it is unfair to the local bodies concerned. That is the provision of law. Let us assume that in a case like the present rule 24 (2) did not exist. Let us assume that the officer or authority dealing with the application for renewal simply sleeps over if for years. The applicant will then be in a worse position. Apparently the idea was that the officer or authority dealing with an application for renewal must dispose of it quickly and if he did not it should be deemed to have been refused thus giving an opportunity to the aggrieved party to approach the Central Government to exercise its powers of revision under Rule 54. Under Rule 55 the Central Government can call for the records from the State Government and after considering any comments made on the petition by the State Government or other authority, may confirm, modify or set aside the order or pass such other order in relation thereto as the Central Government may deem just and proper. It also provides for an opportunity to the applicant to make his representation against the comments, if any, received from the State Government or other authority. Thus the fact that the application for renewal is deemed to have been refused as a result of Rule 24 (2) does not prohibit the Central Government from passing any order it may deem just and proper including an order granting renewal. In this case the respondents did not file an application for renewal within two months of the Deputy Commissioners informing them that their application should be deemed to have been rejected, though that letter of the Deputy Commissioner itself was issued nearly nine months after their date of application. Indeed they could have filed an application for revision when they failed to get a reply within 90 days of their application for renewal. It means that it is the respondents that were not alert.11. We can see nothing unreasonable in the order passed by the Central Government. It has been mentioned in that order that after careful consideration of the facts stated in their review application it was rejected as being time barred. The application to the Central Government preferred by the respondents contained all the facts.The applications for revision have to be in form (L) appended to the Rules. It has to specify the minerals for which the revision application is filed, the details of the area in respect of which the revision application is filed and a map or plan for the area has also to be attached. There is no reason to assume that the Central Government did not apply their minds to these facts.12. We are unable to see how Rule 24 (3) and explanation to Rule 54 can be said to contravene the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. They are within the rule making powers of the Government. Clause (g) of Section 13 too enables the Government to make rules regarding the terms on which and conditions subject to which any prospecting licence or mining lease may be granted or renewed. It includes the power to make rules regarding conditions subject to which they may be refused. We do not see how the provisions of Rule 26 which lays down that where the State Government passes any order refusing to grant or renew a mining lease, it shall communicate in writing the reasons for such order militates against this conclusion. In view of the provisions of Rules 24 and 54 the only reason which the State Government can give under Rule 26 is that because 90 days are over the application should be deemed to have been refused.13. The High Courts view that Rule 24 (3) and the explanation to Rule 54 are in contravention of S. 8 is vitiated by its assumption that every order to be passed on an application for renewal should be approved by the Central Government. This is not correct. Only renewal cannot be granted without the Central Governments approval and not rejection.14. The only relevant decisions of this Court are reported in (1960) 2 SCR 775 = (AIR 1960 SC 606 ), Shivji Nathubhai v. Union of India and the decision in C. A. No. 657 of 1967, D/- 17-8-1967 (SC). In both of them it was held that the power of the Central Government under Rule 54 is a quasi-judicial power. They do not deal with the nature of the power exercised by the State Government in granting or refusing mining leases or renewals thereof. The decisions in Seeta Ramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1963 Andh Pra 54 and Shivji Nathubhai v. Union of India, AIR 1959 Punj 510 more or less take the same view of the matter as we have.15. We do not feel called upon to deal with the question whether as a result of the order passed by the Central Government there has been a merger and the application by the respondents before the High Court which did not ask for setting aside the order of the Central Government, cannot succeed as that point was not taken before the High Court; nor it is necessary to deal with the question in the view that we have taken of this case in its other aspects. In the result we hold that the High Court was in error in holding that Rule 24 (3) and the explanation to Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 are contrary to the provisions of the Act and should be struck down.16

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

Explanation:
1[ds]12. We are unable to see how Rule 24 (3) and explanation to Rule 54 can be said to contravene the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. They are within the rule making powers of the Government. Clause (g) of Section 13 too enables the Government to make rules regarding the terms on which and conditions subject to which any prospecting licence or mining lease may be granted or renewed. It includes the power to make rules regarding conditions subject to which they may be refused. We do not see how the provisions of Rule 26 which lays down that where the State Government passes any order refusing to grant or renew a mining lease, it shall communicate in writing the reasons for such order militates against this conclusion. In view of the provisions of Rules 24 and 54 the only reason which the State Government can give under Rule 26 is that because 90 days are over the application should be deemed to have been refused.13. The High Courts view that Rule 24 (3) and the explanation to Rule 54 are in contravention of S. 8 is vitiated by its assumption that every order to be passed on an application for renewal should be approved by the Central Government. This is not correct. Only renewal cannot be granted without the Central Governments approval and not rejection.14. The only relevant decisions of this Court are reported in (1960) 2 SCR 775   = (AIR 1960 SC 606  ), Shivji Nathubhai v. Union of India and the decision in C. A. No. 657 of 1967, D/- 17-8-1967 (SC). In both of them it was held that the power of the Central Government under Rule 54 is a quasi-judicial power. They do not deal with the nature of the power exercised by the State Government in granting or refusing mining leases or renewals thereof. The decisions in Seeta Ramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1963 Andh Pra 54 and Shivji Nathubhai v. Union of India, AIR 1959 Punj 510 more or less take the same view of the matter as we have.15. We do not feel called upon to deal with the question whether as a result of the order passed by the Central Government there has been a merger and the application by the respondents before the High Court which did not ask for setting aside the order of the Central Government, cannot succeed as that point was not taken before the High Court; nor it is necessary to deal with the question in the view that we have taken of this case in its other aspects. In the result we hold that the High Court was in error in holding that Rule 24 (3) and the explanation to Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 are contrary to the provisions of the Act and should be struck down.