(1.) IN these matters --the writ petition filed by the petitioner Messrs. Nandram hunatram and the suit filed by the State of Orissa against the petitioner which on transfer was heard along with the writ petition the point involved is whether under rules 54 and 55 of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 made under Section 28 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 the State of orissa is bound to carry out the order dated July 20, 1963 passed by the Central government on the applications for revision filed by the petitioner under the said rules directing the State Government to execute a mining lease with the petitioner for iron ore over an area of 1245 acres in Tomka area in the district of Cuttack incorporating the various conditions which the State Government had stipulated and were accepted by the petitioner after getting the area demarcated by the Official Surveyor.
(2.) THE impugned order of the State Government dated January 20, 1964 as communicated to the petitioner so far as material reads as follows:
(3.) IN the course of hearing, the learned Adovcate General appearing for the State government conceded that by virtue of Articles 256 and 257 of the Constitution the State Government was bound to carry out the direction of the Central government. While making this concession, it was however, contended on behalf of the State Government that they are not in a position to comply with the direction of the Central Government contained in their communication, because the contract made in exercise of the executive power of the State is to be executed on behalf of the Governor in the prescribed manner as required by article 299 of the Constitution. The point of the State Government is that in the absence of such a contract on behalf of the Governor or by a person in such manner as the Government may direct or authorise, the State Government is not in a position to comply with the direction of the Central Government to execute a mining lease with the petitioner. In support of this contention the State government relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. P. Chowdhury v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 203 where it was held that if the contract between Government and another person is not in full compliance with Article 299 (1) of the Constitution, it will be no contract at all and could not be enforced either by Government or by the other person to the contract; that in view of the mandatory terms of Article 299 (1) no implied contract could bp spelled out between the Government and the other party (the appellant) in that case.