Case: Nirode Baran Bannerjee Vs. Union of India and Another Brojendra Nath Tiwari and Three Others

1. Claiming that he had obtained in 1945 a hukumnama from the landlord Brojendra Nath Tiwari for a lease in respect of 1640 acres ofland, the appellant submitted two applications to the State of Bihar for grant of rights to mineand coal. Proceedings were taken under the said two applications and it is claimed by the appellant that mining rights forwere granted to him by the State of Bihar. The record is not clear whether the application for grant ofrights was rejected or otherwise disposed of. On September 18, 1966, the appellant again applied for grant ofrights in the same land. That application stood rejected by the State Government by virtue of Rule 24 of the Mineral Concession Rules because it was not dealt with by the State Government within the prescribed period. The appellant then applied on July 21, 1967, to the Union Government for an order revising the dismissal of his application. On August 26, 1968, the Government of Bihar submitted its comments on the revision application. On June 21, 1969, the Central Government issued a notice to the appellant stating that it was proposed to reject the revision application on three grounds, viz. :(i) Theoccurs at the roof of the top most coal seam and can be mined separately without being exploited;(ii) The area containscoal of grades I & II variety;(iii) It is against our policy to grant mining leases for lower grades of coal and unless the area is contiguous to a working colliery and the production is required for maintaining its (working collierys) existing level and/or for avoiding labour retrenchment,and the appellant was called upon to send his comments on the proposed rejection of the revision application. By order, dated September 15, 1969, communicated under the signature of the Under Secretary to Government of India, the revision petition was dismissed. The order of dismissal was founded on four grounds, the first three being those which were set out in the notice, dated June 21, 1969 and the fourth being "the public sector is also interested in the area". Against the order dismissing the revision petition, this appeal has been filed with special leave.

Reasoning:
2. In our judgment the order of the Central Government is vitiated because the appellant was never called upon to explain whether "the public sector was interested in the area". It appears from the recital in the notice served upon the appellant that the Central Government had tentatively come to the conclusion of the three grounds that the petition filed by the appellant should be dismissed, and the appellant was called upon to submit his comments on the proposed rejection on those three grounds. If thereafter the Central Government dismissed the petition on a ground which was not mentioned in the order served upon the appellant, prima facie the order was illegal, for the appellant was never given an opportunity to make his representation on the fourth ground. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Central Government and direct that the Central Government do proceed according to law.