DHARAMCHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 15th of July, 1969, petitioner in O. J. C. No. 1240 of 1976 applied to the State Government for grant of a mining lease of iron ore over an area of 251 acres in village Dalpahara in Champua sub-division of the district of Keonjhar. As the said application was not disposed of within twelve months from the date of its receipt, petitioner invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Central Government under the Mineral Concession Rules against the deemed rejection. On 5th Jan., 1971, the State Government forwarded its comments on the revision application and it was pointed out that the area for which the petitioner applied lay within the leasehold area of M/s. M. A. Tulloch & Co. for manganese ore. On 15th Feb., 1971, petitioner sent his counter-comments and stated that M/s. M. A. Tulloch & Company had confirmed that they had taken lease for manganese ore only and had no objection if the area applied for by the petitioner for iron ore was given to the petitioner. On 5th June, 1971, the Central Government in exercise of powers vested under Rules 54 and 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules directed the State Government to grant the mining lease for iron ore in favour of the petitioner and specified in their order that M/s. M. A. Tulloch & Co. had declared that they had no interest for taking the lease of iron ore and had no objection to the grant of lease in favour of the petitioner. In the absence of any further challenge to the direction of the Central Government, it became final. On 12th June, 1971, on the basis of the Central Government's direction, petitioner moved the State Government for expediting grant of the mining lease. On 14th Oct., 1971, the State Government without complying with the order of the Central Government moved for reconsideration of the matter. On 27th Dec., 1971, the Central Government wrote to the petitioner to offer his comments on the basis of the subsequent letter of the State Government. Petitioner sent his comments on the 24th Jan., 1972 and pointed out that the revisional order was final and could not be reopened. Emphasis was laid by the petitioner on the feature that M/s. M. A. Tulloch & Co. had no objection and, therefore, the request of the State Government for reconsideration was without any foundation. Petitioner also prayed for a further direction to the State Government to implement the revisional direction. On 12th of Feb., 1974, the Central Government indicated that it had become functus officio after making the revisional order of 5th June, 1971. A copy of the letter (Annexure 10) reads thus:--

(2.) We shall first deal with the writ application filed by the State (O.J.C. No. 460 of 1977). Serious objection has been raised by opposite party No. 2 to the maintainability of the writ application on the ground that the application has been made more than six years after the impugned order and as such a belated application should not be entertained. With a view to explaining away the delay, in para. 18 of the writ application it has been pleaded that the State Government pointed out to the Central Government by its letter No. 9182 dated 14-10-71 for reconsideration of the matter. The Central Government asked for the comments of opposite party No. 2 and the comments given by the latter were communicated to the State Government on 1-5-1972. The State Government furnished further comments on 16-2-73 but no further communication was received by the State Government. It has been further pleaded on behalf of the State that in these circumstances the order dated 5-61971 was not taken as the final order. In the same paragraph it was further pleaded that the communication sent by the Central Government to opposite party No. 2 was not known to the State as a copy thereof had not been received. On 18-12-76 notice in O.J.C. No. 1240 of 1976 filed by opposite party No. 2 was received by the State and therefrom the order of the Central Government was known. The Central Government has filed a counter-affidavit. With reference to paragraph 18 of the writ application, in para. 14 of the counter-affidavit it has been pleaded :--

(3.) Coming to the other writ application (O. J. C, No. 1240 of 1976) where the applicant for the mining lease is the petitioner, the relief claimed is enforcement of the Central Government's order. We have already extracted what the Supreme Court said in Dharamchand's case (AIR 1976 SC 1433), that is, the Central Government had the same power as the State Government in the matter of grant of the mining lease. The direction of the Central Government was to grant the lease and that direction has become final. Under the scheme of the Act and the Rules, the direction of the Central Government has got to be given effect to and it is for the State Government now to implement the direction by making the grant. Judicial discipline, therefore, warrants that the State Government must come forward to execute the lease deed in terms of the direction of the Central Government. We accordingly allow the prayer of the applicant for the mining lease, allow O. J. C. No. 1240 of 1976 and direct that a writ of mandamus shall issue to the State Government for giving effect to the order of the Central Government dated 5-6-1971 within two monlhs from the date of service of the writ.