C BUGHIVENKATA RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, from a Judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the appellant's Writ Petition, comes up before us by a Certificate under Art. 133 (1) (a) of Constitution, in the following circumstances:

(2.) One Buchivenkata Rao had filed applications on 1-9-1959 and 1-8-1960 under Mineral Concession Rules, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') before the Collector of Nellore, for the grant of a mining lease to him of an area mentioned in his applications. He alleged that his applications complied with the rules framed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act of 1957:The State Government rejected the application of 1-8-1960 on 7-12-1960, but granted the application made on 4th October, 1960, by the Respondent Kumara Rajah of Venkatagiri (hereinafter referred to as Venkatagiri). The ground on which the application of the appellant Rao was rejected was that Venkatagiri had a prior claim. The appellant Rao had then preferred a Revision application to the Central Government under the Mineral Concession Rules which came into force on 11th November, 1960. The Central Government had rejected the revision application on the ground that it was not filed within the prescribed time. Upon a Writ Petition filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the order of rejection of the revision application by the Central Government was quashed. The Central Government was directed to consider Rao's application on merits. The Central Government had, after giving due opportunity to be heard to the appellant Rao, dismissed his application on 18th October, 1967, holding that Venkatagiri had priority over his claim. Rao then filed a second Writ Petition which was dismissed on 26th September, 1969. The Judgment and order of dismissal are now under appeal before us.

(3.) The Judgment of the High Court shows that the appellant Rao had relied on the following three grounds only at the time of arguments on his Writ Petition:- firstly, that the application of Venkatagiri was not made in accordance with Rules 27 and 32 of the said Rules of 1949; secondly, that the application on Vankatagiri was not for a fresh lease but for the continuation of a previous lease so that it did not fall within the purview of the rules; and thirdly, that the Central Government had not considered in detail the various comments offered by the State Government with regard to each ground of revision.