SHIVJI NATHUBHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises out of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in which an order made by the Central Government under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, was unsuccessfully challenged before a learned Single Judge of this Court.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to these proceedings are briefly as follows; Upon an application for a mining lease the ruler of Gangpur granted a lease for 15 years to the appellant before us on 30-12-1947. He had a few days previously (14-12-1947) signed the merger agreement and the merger actually took place on 1-1-1948. The Orissa Government examined the various leases which had been issued by the ruler of Gangpur and on 29-6-1949 issued a notification annulling some of the leases on the ground that they were "not reasonable and bona fide". Thereafter the Mineral Concession Rules were issued by the Ministry of Steel, Mines and Fuel of the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948. These Rules provided that a certificate of approval had to be issued by the Government of the State in which the mining concessions were sought, before a mining lease or prospecting licence could be issued. On 15-12-1949 a notification was issued asking the public to apply for approval certificates required by these Rules. The appellant obtained an approval certificate and made applications for a lease in respect of five mining areas. After some technical irregularities had been set right the applications were accepted on 6-91950 at 12-10 p.m.. The State Government of Orissa granted the leases in respect of these five areas to the appellant on 22-12-1952. The appellant was provisionally put into possession of these areas in pursuance of the proceedings of the Orissa Government on 21-4-1953. The proceedings which are Annexure 'B' to the writ petition indicate that the possession of the said land was being given "subject to the result of any appeal or revision that may be preferred and subject" to certain conditions which are set out in An-nexure 'B'.

(3.) Respondent No. 3 had, in the meantime, made an application for a mining lease in respect of two out of these five areas on 10-7-1950. Rule 28 required the deposit of a fee of Rs. 200/- with every application and Rule 29 required the deposit of a sum to be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding Rs. 500/. The appellant had with each of his applications made the necessary deposit of Rs. 200/- under Rule 28 and Rs. 500/-under Rule 29, although the amount to be levied under Rule 29 had not been fixed by the State Government. The respondents paid the fee of Rs. 200/-under Rule 28 with their application but did not make any deposit under Rule 29 on the ground that the amount to he deposited had not been determined by the Government. The respondents, however, undertook to pay whatever amount was fixed by the State as soon as they were ordered to do so. On 24-7-1950 the Deputy" Collector ordered the respondents to make a deposit of Rs. 500/-under Rule 29. The deposit was made on 3-8-1950. Some minor defects in the respondents' applications were pointed out and on 6-9-1950 fresh applications were submitted by them.