Case: Dharam Chand Jain Vs. The State Of Bihar

dated February 17, 1968 against which the present appeal by special leave has been preferred before us.The facts mentioned above are proved from the various annexures filed by the appellant along with the special leave and printed in the Paper Book and consist of various orders passed by the Central and State Governments, the correspondence between the State Government and the Central Government, the note-sheets and summary of facts made by the concerned Ministry etc. The learned counsel for the respondent has not at all disputed the correctness of the contents of these documents.5. It seems to us that the Central Government has not disposed of the revision application in accordance with law. To begin with, the Central Government had expressly directed the State Government to dispose of the application of the appellant by its order dated March 24, 1962, on the first re vision application filed by the appellant. Due to the continued inaction of the State Government, the second revision application was filed before the Central Government which was also allowed on November 21, 1964 and the State Government was given clear directions to grant the lease to the appellant. In view of this order it was not open to the State Government to reject the application of the appellant on any ground whatsoever. If the State Government found itself unable to implement the order of the Central Government a reference could have been made to the Central Government for obtaining necessary directions. Ultimately the order of the Central Government culminated into the grant of a licence in favour of the appellant after he had selected a compact block. Thereafter the State Government instead of implementing this order took the stand that they had devised a policy to grant leases only to those persons who were prepared to set up a cement plant. Subsequently this policy was also given a go by and the State Government rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that the land was the subject-matter of a litigation. This led to the last revision filed by the appellant before the Central Government. The Central Government, after calling for the comments of the State Government, appears to have upheld the order of the State Government rejecting the application. In doing so, the Central Government overlooked the fact that it had already directed by its order dated November 21, 1964 that the State Government should grant the mining lease to the appellant in respect of a compact block selected by the appellant. The State Government, being a sub ordinate authority in the matter of grant of mining lease, was obligated under the law to carry out the orders of the Central Government as indicated above. But the State Government declined to do so on the ground that it had laid down a policy that the mining leases in respect of the area should be given only to those who were prepared to set up a cement factory. It was clearly not open to the State Government to decline to carry out the orders of the Central Government on this ground, particularly because the Central Government was a tribunal superior to the State Government. If a ground came into existence subsequent to the making of the order of the Central Government which warranted a reconsideration of the order of the Central Government as indicated above, the State Government could have brought this ground to the notice of the Central Government. However, one thing is manifestly clear that the State Government could not have refused to implement the order of the Central Government unless the Central Government itself chose to revise it either on a reference by the State Government or suo motu. In fact to take the view that the State Government could decline to carry out the order of the Central Government on some ground which it thinks proper would be subversive of judicial discipline. Therefore, when the appellant preferred a revision application to the Central Government against the refusal of the State Government to carry out the order of the Central Government by rejecting his application, the Central Government should have proceeded to set aside the order of the State Government and directed the State Government to grant the application of the appellant. Instead of doing this, the Central Government again appears to have entered into the merits of the question as if its earlier order was not in existence at all and sustained the rejection of the application of the appellant on the ground that t he area in question was the subject-matter of the title suit in the Court of Hazaribagh, even though the appellant had pointed out to the Central Government that the injunction issued by the Court regarding the premises in dispute had been vacated. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Central Government could revise its earlier order, and putting the case of the Central Government at its highest, this could be done only if some fresh ground came into existence which warranted reconsideration of the earlier order. The fact that there was a litigation pending in the Hazaribagh Court in respect of the area in question was neither a new or a fresh fact which came into existence for the first time after the order was made by the Central Government directing the State Government to grant the licence to the appellant. The litigation was pending since 1954 and the Central Government was aware of this fact even when it passed its order dated November 21, 1964. In these circumstances, therefore, there was absolutely no legal justification at all for the Central Government to go back upon its earlier order. The earlier order of the Central Government stood unvaried and unvacated and the State Government was bound to implement it and, therefore, the Central Government was in error in upholding the action of the State Government rejecting the revision application filed by the appellant and thus silently condoned the lapse committed by the State Government.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]It seems to us that the Central Government has not disposed of the revision application in accordance with law. To begin with, the Central Government had expressly directed the State Government to dispose of the application of the appellant by its order dated March 24, 1962, on the first re vision application filed by the appellant. Due to the continued inaction of the State Government, the second revision application was filed before the Central Government which was also allowed on November 21, 1964 and the State Government was given clear directions to grant the lease to the appellant. In view of this order it was not open to the State Government to reject the application of the appellant on any ground whatsoever. If the State Government found itself unable to implement the order of the Central Government a reference could have been made to the Central Government for obtaining necessary directions. Ultimately the order of the Central Government culminated into the grant of a licence in favour of the appellant after he had selected a compact block. Thereafter the State Government instead of implementing this order took the stand that they had devised a policy to grant leases only to those persons who were prepared to set up a cement plant. Subsequently this policy was also given a go by and the State Government rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that the land was the subject-matter of a litigation. This led to the last revision filed by the appellant before the Central Government. The Central Government, after calling for the comments of the State Government, appears to have upheld the order of the State Government rejecting the application. In doing so, the Central Government overlooked the fact that it had already directed by its order dated November 21, 1964 that the State Government should grant the mining lease to the appellant in respect of a compact block selected by the appellant. The State Government, being a sub ordinate authority in the matter of grant of mining lease, was obligated under the law to carry out the orders of the Central Government as indicated above. But the State Government declined to do so on the ground that it had laid down a policy that the mining leases in respect of the area should be given only to those who were prepared to set up a cement factory. It was clearly not open to the State Government to decline to carry out the orders of the Central Government on this ground, particularly because the Central Government was a tribunal superior to the State Government. If a ground came into existence subsequent to the making of the order of the Central Government which warranted a reconsideration of the order of the Central Government as indicated above, the State Government could have brought this ground to the notice of the Central Government. However, one thing is manifestly clear that the State Government could not have refused to implement the order of the Central Government unless the Central Government itself chose to revise it either on a reference by the State Government or suo motu. In fact to take the view that the State Government could decline to carry out the order of the Central Government on some ground which it thinks proper would be subversive of judicial discipline. Therefore, when the appellant preferred a revision application to the Central Government against the refusal of the State Government to carry out the order of the Central Government by rejecting his application, the Central Government should have proceeded to set aside the order of the State Government and directed the State Government to grant the application of the appellant. Instead of doing this, the Central Government again appears to have entered into the merits of the question as if its earlier order was not in existence at all and sustained the rejection of the application of the appellant on the ground that t he area in question was the subject-matter of the title suit in the Court of Hazaribagh, even though the appellant had pointed out to the Central Government that the injunction issued by the Court regarding the premises in dispute had been vacated. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Central Government could revise its earlier order, and putting the case of the Central Government at its highest, this could be done only if some fresh ground came into existence which warranted reconsideration of the earlier order. The fact that there was a litigation pending in the Hazaribagh Court in respect of the area in question was neither a new or a fresh fact which came into existence for the first time after the order was made by the Central Government directing the State Government to grant the licence to the appellant. The litigation was pending since 1954 and the Central Government was aware of this fact even when it passed its order dated November 21, 1964. In these circumstances, therefore, there was absolutely no legal justification at all for the Central Government to go back upon its earlier order. The earlier order of the Central Government stood unvaried and unvacated and the State Government was bound to implement it and, therefore, the Central Government was in error in upholding the action of the State Government rejecting the revision application filed by the appellant and thus silently condoned the lapse committed by the State Government.