MISRILAL DHARAMCHAND PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition calls in question the order of the State Government dated January 9, 1986, whereby the application of the petitioner for a prospecting licence for Lime Stone and Dolomite in village Gosguda Sunder Garh, District (Orissa) was refused, and the order of the Central Government dated February 7, 1989 rejecting the revision filed against the order of the Stale Government.

(2.) . The facts leading to this petition are as under:-

(3.) . Ms. Gitanjali Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are violative of the principles of natural justice in as much as at no stage the petitioner has been granted oral hearing by the authorities. She has drawn my attention to the order of the State Government dated January 9, 1986 and points out that this order was based on the grounds that number of mining leases had been granted in favour of the petitioner and its sister concerns and the petitioner has also not taken any step to set up any industry in the State. Learned counsel urges that these were new grounds on which the application of the petitioner was rejected. She submits that the earlier rejection of the application of the petitioner by the State of Orissa on June 18, 1982 was grounded on the fact that area was reserved for State exploitation. Elaborating her submission, learned counsel points out that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of oral hearing by the State Government before passing the impugned order as the petitioner had no notice of the fact that its application would be rejected on a different ground. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has been greatly prejudiced by the lack of opportunity in explaining its case to the State Government. With regard to the order passed by the Central Government in revision, her submission is that even at that stage the Central Government did not provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity of an oral hearing despite the fact that a specific request was made to the Central Government to adjourn the matter as on January 31, 1989 the counsel for the petitioner was not available. She submits that in any case the defect in the order of the State Government cannot be cured by the order passed by the Central Government, which itself stands vitiated for not granting proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.