BACHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the revision petition against the order dated June 14, 1991 the appellant pleaded before the Central Government that the order of State Government was passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The Central Government rejected the revision vide order dated 5 Aug. 27, 1993. Writ petition against the order of Central Government was dismissed by learned Single Judge on Nov. 24, 1995. Hence this appeal.

(2.) At the outset we deem it appropriate to incorporate the provisions contained in Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short '1960 10 Rules'), which reads thus :

(3.) Before us it is canvassed that it was incumbent on respondents to consider the requirement of sub-rule (1) of Rule 26, which provides that the State Government may after giving opportunity of hearing and for reasons to 1 be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant refuse to grant or renew a mining lease over the whole or part of the area applied for. Since impugned orders are passed without following the mandate of Rule 26, they are bad in law.