G. H. COOK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are partners of a firm doing business under the name and style of 'Messrs G. H. Cook and Sons, Katni' held a lease for mining bauxite in Mauza Tikariya. Some time before the expiry of the lease on 29th January 1955 they applied to the State Government for a renewal of the lease. This application was rejected by the State Government but it was granted by the Central Government in a revision petition preferred by the petitioners. The Central Government, setting aside the order of rejection of renewal r assed by the State Government, directed it to renew the petitioners' lease for a period of eight years from the next day following the termination of the previous lease. Accordingly, a renewed lease was granted to the petitioners for a period of eight years commencing from 30th January 1955. After the renewal of the lease in terms of the order passed by the Central Government, the petitioners moved the State Government for making the lease effective for a period of eight years beginning from 16th May 1960, the date on which the renewed lease was actually granted to them. This prayer of the petitioners was rejected by the State Government by an order passed in 1963 and communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 21st February 1963 addressed by the Under -Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Natural Resources Department.

(2.) THEREAFTER , the petitioners preferred a revision petition under rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, to the Central Government against the order of the State Government communicated to them on 21 st February 1963 about the rejection of their application for treating the mining lease as effective for a period of eight years from 16th May 1960. On 8th October 1963 the petitioners were informed by a letter addressed by the Under -Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Mines and Fuel, that their revision petition was time barred and had been rejected; and that they should have filed a revision application within two months of the order of the State Government passed on 16th May 1960 granting them a renewal of the mining lease for a period of eight years with retrospective effect from 30lh January 1955.

(3.) THE sole question that arises for determination in this case is when the petitioners were entitled to a hearing before the Central Government when the revision petition filed by them was taken up for consideration by that 2Government. It is not disputed that no notice of the hearing of the revision petition was given to the petitioners and that they were not heard before the order rejecting the revision petition on the ground that it was barred by time was passed. In our opinion, the present case falls within the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Shivji Nathubhai Vs. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 606, where it has been held that while deciding an application under rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, the Central Government acts in a quasi -judicial capacity and that it is the duty of the authority which has to review the matter to act judicially and it is incumbent upon it before coming to a decision to give a reasonable opportunity to the party in the review application, whose rights were being affected, to represent his case. This principle applies equally in the case of the revision petition filed by the petitioner.