KRISHNA KUMAR MEDIRATTA Vs. PHULCHAND AGARWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us applied on 14th October, 1961, for a prospecting licence for an area of 833.53 acres in the requisite form 'B', under Rule 9 (1) of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960, made under Section 13 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The application was filled in correctly. But, a sum of Rs. 24/- only, instead of Rs. 32/-, accompanied the application. It appears that the appellant realised the mistake in calculating later and paid the deficit of Rs. 8/- on 28th December, 1961. By way of abundant caution, he made a fresh application also on 26th February, 1962. In the meantime, the respondent No. 1 had applied on 2nd November, 1961, for a prospecting licence for 748.16 acres out of which 272.40 acres were common with those for which the appellant had already applied. No orders were passed disposing of the application of the appellant within 90 days of the making of it. The appellant treated this omission to be tantamount to refusal of his application, as provided by Rule 24 (2), and preferred a revision application before the Central Government under Section 30 of the Act. On 20th October, 1964, the Central Government asked the State Government to consider the application of the appellant dated 14th October, 1961 within the next nine months. On 13th January, 1965, the State Government offered the appellant a prospecting licence for an area of 363 acres. On 12th February 1965, the appellant moved the Central Government for revision of the order making the offer. On 19th March, 1965, the Central Government informed the appellant that his application was premature since neither nine months had elapsed nor final orders had been passed by the State Government. On 9th May, 1965 the Central Government actually rejected the revision application of the appellant presumably for reasons found in the abovementioned communication. On 22nd June, 1965, the State Government directed the grant of a prospecting licence to respondent No. 1 for an area including 272 acres in dispute. On 7th July, 1965, the State Government again offered the appellant the grant of a licence for 365 acres. On 2nd January, 1967, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition of the appellant filed against the above-mentioned order of the Central Government dated 9th May, 1965, rejecting his revision application. On 2nd April, 1970, the State Government again offered the appellant a prospecting licence for an area of 365 acres. On 30th April, 1970 a prospecting licence was actually executed in favour of respondent No. 1 for an area which included the disputed 272 acres. The appellant's objections before the Collector were rejected. On 27th May 1970 the appellant again filed a revision application before the Central Government against the offer dated 2nd April, 1970, for the third time, by the State Government of the smaller area of 365 acres. On 23rd November 1970, the respondent No. 1, actually applied for a mining lease, but, on 12th April, 1972, the Central Government accepted the appellant's objection relating to 272 acres. Hence, the respondent No. 1 went to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court quashed the order of the Central Government by its order dated 12th March, 1974*, on the ground that the original application of the appellant, dated 14th October, 1961, not having been accompanied by the correct fee, was no application at all in the eye of law. Hence, on the view taken by the High Court, the appellant, not having complied with mandatory provisions, had not filed any application which could be accepted by the State Government. The High Court took the view that the Central Government's order dated 12th April, 1973, suffers from a patent error. The appellant having obtained special leave to appeal, the case is now before us.

(2.) It has to be remembered that the special jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 had been invoked by the respondent. The High Court had before it a very detailed statement of reasons for the order of the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 30 of the Act. We have also been taken through these reasons contained in the letter dated 12th April, 1973, sent to the appellant. It shows that both the parties between whom the dispute relating to 272 acres of land for grant of a prospecting licence had gone before the Central Government several times, and the matter was not finally decided by the State Government. Even though the State Government may have, according to its own erroneous view disabled itself from granting a prospecting licence to the respondent in respect of disputed 272 acres, due to its decision to grant this area to the respondent, yet, as the letter from the Central Government points out, the prospecting licence of the respondent who was impleaded in the revision proceedings before the Central Government and duly heard on all questions, was due to expire on 30th April, 1972. After considering the legal position and all the facts and equities of the case, the Central Government correctly held, on the question of law before it, that the appellant's application before the State Government was a valid one as it had been entertained without objection even if it was not accompanied, when filed, by the correct amount of fee. In a communication sent, the Central Government stated its reasons to the appellant as follows :

(3.) The only question which arises before us is whether the order of the Central Government suffers from an error apparent upon the face of the record so as to furnish a ground for interference by the High Court on the purest of pure technicalities, which, as had been pointed out in the letter sent from the Central Government to the appellant, had ceased to matter. The deficiency in the fees having been duly accepted on behalf of the State Government, it was bound to proceed on the assumption that there was a proper application before it valid from the date of filing it. It was precluded, by its own dealings, from denying the validity of the application. It is not very becoming for governmental authorities, when duties laid down by statutory rules have not been performed by them, to take shelter behind such technicality for denying a citizen's rights to have his application considered and decided. Rule 24 (2) of the Rules framed was a recognition of that right so that an applicant for a licence under the rules could approach the Central Government in case the State Government did not pass the required orders within the reasonable time. The Central Government had passed a very fair order after considering the matters before it.