CHHATTURAM HORILRAM PVT LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The true import of the stringent period of limitation prescribed for the preferring of a revision petition under R.54(1) of the Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1960, is the significant and some what intricate common question in this set of five connected Letters Patent Appeals and two Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases.

(2.) The representative matrix of facts may be noticed from Chhatturam Horilram Private Limited v. The Union of India and another Letters Patent Appeal No. 128 of 1985.

(3.) The appellant company had been granted certain mining leases for mica mines. Before the expiry of the period of the leases, the appellant applied for renewal of the mining leases to the State of Bihar under R.28 of the Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), in the prescribed form on different dates. Barring one case, the State Government did not pass any order whatsoever on the applications aforesaid. However, in the matter covered by Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1109 of 1981 the Government passed orders on the 25th of July, 1981, vide Annexure-'1' thereto, after the expiry of the period of 11 months and 29 days of the making of the renewal application. Aggrieved thereby the appellant company filed revision applications in all the cases before the Central Government. Barring Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1109 of 1981, the revision applications were directed against the deemed refusal of the renewal applications, as provided by the relevant rules, to which reference would follow hereinafter. In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1109 of 1981, obviously, the revision application was directed against the express order of refusal dt. the 25th July, 1981 (Annexure-'1').