TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside Final Order No. 206/88, dated March 21, 1988 in Revision Case No. 2/6/18/87/MV of the Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines, Department of Mines, New Delhi, by which revision application filed by the petitioner is rejected as being time barred. The petitioner has also prayed to command the Central Government to dispose of revision application filed by the petitioner on June 19, 1987 in accordance with law.

(2.) The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It manufactures Soda-ash and other heavy chemicals from lime-stones. The petitioner was granted mining lease over an area admeasuring 21.04 Hectares of village Aniali of Ranavav Taluka, District : Junagadh with effect from December 23, 1966. The lease was to expire on December 23, 1986. In the lease deed, it is provided that the lease can be renewed for the period specified therein at the petitioner's option. The petitioner submitted an application dated September 2, 1985 to the Government of Gujarat for renewal of lease under Rule 28(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 ("the Rules" for short). The application submitted by the petitioner was received by the State Government on September 9, 1985. Under Rule 24(2) of the Rules, which was then in force, the State Government was required to dispose of the application within a period of six months from the date of its receipt. The explanation appended to Rule 54 of the Rules provides that if an application for renewal of lease is not disposed of within the period specified in respect thereof in the relevant rule, the State Government shall be deemed to have made an order refusing renewal of lease on the date on which such period expires. On May 21, 1987, the petitioner received a communication dated May 14, 1987 from the State Government mentioning, inter-alia, that as it had not been possible for the State Government to dispose of the petitioner's application dated September 9, 1985 within the period of twelve months as prescribed in Rule 24(1) of the Rules, an order refusing renewal of lease was deemed to have been made and that if the petitioner was interested in getting renewal of lease applied for,the petitioner should file revision application before the Central Government according to the Rules. The communication received by the petitioner from the State Government is produced at Annexure-B to the petition. On receipt of the communication, the petitioner applied on June 19, 1987 to the Central Government for revision of deemed order of refusal to renew the lease passed by the State Government as provided by sub-rule (1) of Rule 54 of the Rules. From the order which is impugned in the petition, it is evident that the Central Government was of the opinion that revision application filed by the petitioner was time barred and, therefore, asked the petitioner to explain the delay by filing an affidavit vide letter dated September 23, 1987. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an affidavit on October 14, 1987, but maintained that the revision application dated June 19, 1987 was within the time limit of three months prescribed by Rule 54(1) of the Rules, as communication dated May 14, 1987 was received on May 21, 1987.

(3.) The Central Government did not accept the contention that the revision application was filed within the time prescribed by Rule 54(1) of the Rules. According to the Central Government, as per the provisions of Rule 24(1), which was in force at the relevant time, renewal application was required to be disposed of by the State Government within a period of six months which expired on March 9, 1986. The Central Government decided that since the State Government did not pass any order on the renewal application on the date on which the period expired, it was deemed to have passed an order on March 9, 1986 refusing renewal in terms of explanation appended to Rule 54 of the Rules and, therefore, the period of limitation would begin from March 9, 1986 i.e. the date on which the State Government refused renewal and not from the date of communication of the said order. The Central Government further held that the petitioner had failed to explain the delay caused in filing the revision application. In view of the above-referred to conclusions, the Central Government by the impugned order rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner as time barred, giving rise to present petition.