K RAGHUNADHA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to entertain the revision preferred by the petitioner and consider the same on merits according to law. It arises in the following circumstances: The petitioner applied for a mining lease on 12th August, 1976, over an extent of Ac. 35-60 cents in Talupur village, Nellore District. Some time thereafter the 4th respondent and then the 3rd respondent applied for the same mining lease in respect of a portion of the area applied for by the petitioner. All the applications were in respect of mica. In the ordinary course, the petitioner was entitled to preference by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", which says that "'subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), where two or more persons have applied for a prospecting lience or a mining lease in respect of the same land, the applicant whose application was received earlier shall have a preferential right for the grant of the licence or lease, over an applicant whose application was received later". The State Government however thought of preferring the 3rd respondent over the petitioner in respect of the area applied for by the former and wrote to the Central Government for its previous approval as contemplated by sub-section (4) of section 11 of the Act. Section 11 (4) of the Act is to the following effect:

(2.) Coming to know of the letter addressed by the State Government to the Central Government for its prior approval as contemplated by section 11(4) of Act, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 2778 of 1977 in this Court on 16 August, 1977. His contention was that the Central Government should hear him before granting the previous approval asked by the State Government. The writ petition was however dismissed on 7th December, 1977, as premature. By its letter, dated 27th February, 1978 the Central Government granted the prior sanction asked for by the State Government to grant a lease in favour of the 3rd respondent for the area applied for by him in preference to the petitioner. Meanwhile twelve months period expired and the petitioner's application, dated 12th August, 1976, stood rejected by force of rule 24 (1) of the Rules framed under the Act. The petition then preferred a revision to the Central Government which by its order, dated 7th November, 1977, set aside ' the deemed rejection and directed the State Government to pass orders on merits within a period of six months. The State Government however does not appear to have passed final orders in the petitioner's application within the time specified by the Central Government and again wote to the Central Government for preferring the 3rd respondent over the petitioner. Be that as it may, the State Government passed its final orders contained in G. O. Ms. No. 740, dated 22nd September, 1978 granting mining leases in favour of the petitioner as well as the 3rd and 4th respon- dents for different and distinct areas. The petitioner was granted a mining lease over Ac-18.35 cents while the 3rd respondent was granted Ac-10-92 cents and the 4th respondent over an extent of Ac. 14-66 cents. Against the aforesaid order of the State Government in so far as it rejected his appli- cation, the petitioner preferred a revision under section 30 of the Act read with rule 54 to the Central Government. This revision has been dismissed by the Central Government under the impugned order stating that inasmuch as it has already granted its prior approval under section 11 (4) of the Act, it cinnot, in exercise of its revisional powers is in Judgment over the earlier proceedings and hence it cannot go into the merits -of the revision petition. In other words the revision petition was dismissed virtually holding that it is not maintainable,

(3.) The contention of Sri P. Krishna Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the grant of prior approval under section 11 (4) of the Act is administrative act. At that stage the petitioner was not heard and when he wanted to be heard, his writ petition, was dismissed as premature. Now when be filed a revision against the final orders passed be the State Government, in pursuance of th, prior approval of the Central Government he cannot be denied a hearing on merits on the ground that the Central Government has already accorded its approval under section 11 (4) of the Act. The revisional power, it is argued, is a quasi-judicial power and the same cannot be defeated or foreclosed by any administrative action proceeding or order under section 11 (4) of the Act. On the other hand it is contended by the learned Government Pleader and Sarvasri P. Venkatarama Reddy and M. Y. K. Rayudu that the Central Government having already applied his mind and granted prior approval for preferring the 3rd respondent over the petitioner, cannot again review or revise itf decision. It is pointed out that in exercise of revisional powers the Central Government is not competent to revise its own earlier orders since the said power can be exercised only to revise the orders of the Subordinate authorities. Mr. P.Venkatarama Reddy further pointed out that according to the order of the Central Government, the only points raised by the petitioner in his revision petition related to the very validity of the applications filed by respondents 3 and 4 and not to the reasons or grounds upon which the respondents were preferred over the petitioner. He therefore submitted that even if this Court directs the Central Government to entertain the revision on merits, it must be directed to go into only those questions and not into the reasons or grounds for preferring the respondents over the petitioner.