DEO KUAR BAI PANDYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point arising in this writ application lies within a narrow compass. Facts relevant thereto may only be referred to. THEre was a lease in favour of the petitioner granted by the ex-Ruler of Bonai on 30/9/1943 in respect of 438.47 acres for extracting manganese ore. On 16-3-1963 the petitioner exercised his option for renewal for a further period of twenty years. On 30-3-1965 the Government of Orissa in the Mining and Geology Department rejected the application for renewal by their order, the relevant portion of which runs thus : "Whereas no I. T. C. C. (Income Tax Clearance Certificate) which is statutory requirement has been furnished by the party along with the application, Now therefore the State Government are pleased to reject the said application." On 1-4-1965 the petitioner submitted to the Government of Orissa an attested copy of the I. T. C. C. stating, in the accompanying letter, that it was in continuation of their renewal application in respect of the disputed area as per clause (VII) of the application Form J, and prayed for reconsideration of their previous order. THE prayer was not accepted and on 25-5-1965 the petitioner was intimated that she might file a revision before the Government of India, under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960. THE petitioner filed a revision application before the Central Government. On 30-10-1965 the Government of India rejected the revision application, as intimated to her by the Under-Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Steel and Mines (Department of Mines and Metals). THE letter runs thus :

(2.) THE only contention raised by Mr. Mohanty is that the revisional order assigns no reason for rejecting the revision application and as it is a quasi-judicial proceeding the revisional order of the Central Government should be quashed. Reliance is placed on (1969) 1 SCA 601 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. S. N. J. Mehta) and AIR 1967 SC 1606, (Bhagat Raja v. Union of India).