STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia, the State of Rajasthan, petitioner here in, seeks to challenge the order dated 17th December, 1971, whereby the Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Rules 54 and 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the 1960 Rules), set aside the order of the State Government dated 2nd July, 1970 and directed the State Government to re-examine the matter in the light of the finding of the Central Government contained in the impugned order dated 17th December, 1971.

(2.) ON 1st November, 1937 a mining lease for mica over an area measuring about 300 Sq. miles was granted to Shri Govind Ram Saksoria for a period of 5 years by the then State of Mewar. Before the expiry of the term of said lease, the rights of the lessee were transferred in favour of Shri Pusa Lal Man-singhka, respondent No. 2 herein. The term of the lease was extended for a further period of 10 years upto 31st October, 1952 by the then State of Mewar. During the pendency of the aforesaid lease, the Central legislature enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as '1948 Act') and in excercise of the powers conferred by the said Act, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as '1949 Rules') were framed. After the expiry of the term of the lease on 31st October, 1952, respondent No 2 was allowed to work in 23 mines subject to grant of final lease under the 1949 Rules and by letter of the Mining Engineer, Udaipur, dated 10th March, 1954, he was asked to select an area of 10 Sq. Miles comprising about 40 plots and to submit formal application for the grant of mining lease for the same in accordance with the provisions of the 1949 Rules. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, respondent No 2 submitted an application and lease for a total area of 4223 Acres comprising of 40 plots was granted in favour of the respondent No 2 The said lease was for a period of 20 years to be counted from 1st November, 1952 As a question had arisen whether respondent No. 2 was liable to pay dead rent for the first year i. e. from 1st November, 1952 to 3ist October, 1953, a reference was made to the Central Government and the Central Government by its order dated 2nd February, 1959, observed that as the latter lease was in continuance of the former one, the State Government were entitled to realise dead rent from respondent No. 2 from the very first year. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the State Government and respondent No. 2 with regard to the liability of respondent No. 2 for payment of dead rent for first year. Another dispute arose between respondent No. 2 and State Government with regard to the payment of royalty on the mineral which had been excavated by respondent No 2 prior to the expiry of the old lease, i. e. prior to 31st October, 1952, but which was removed from the site after the expiry of the said lease. The State Government was claiming royalty at the rates prescribed under the old lease which were higher, whereas respondent No. 2 was claiming that he was liable to pay royalty on the basis of the rates prescribed under the new lease. Respondent No. 2, therefore, Bled a civil suit (Suit No. 2 of 1959) against the State Government in the court of District Judge, Bhilwara, wherein he claimed that the State Government was not entitled to charge Head rent for the first year of the new lease i. e. for the period from 1st November, 1952 to 31st October, 1953 and that the State Government was entitled to recover royalty only on the bans of the rates prescribed under the new lease and not the basis of rates prescribed under the old lease. The District Judge Bhilwara by his judgment dated 29th August, 1960, dismissed the said suit of respondent No. 2 Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal (D B. Regular First Appeal No. 140/1969) in this Court The said appeal was withdrawn by respondent No 2 and was, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn by the order of this Court dated 14fh December, 1968. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, respondent No. 2 had also filed a suit for accounts (Suit No. 327 of 1965) in the Court of Civil Judge, Bhilwara and the said suit was also dismissed as withdrawn by the Civil Judge, Bhilwara, by his order dated 22nd November, 1968. It appears that after the dismissal of the appeal as well as suit for accounts, respondent No. 2 submitted a representation to the State Government against the demand raised by the Mining Engineer in connection with the charging of royalty on the mineral which had been excavated by respondeat No. 2 prior to the expiry of the old lease but which was removed by him from the site after the expiry of the said lease. The said representation of respondent No. 2 was rejected by the State Government by its order dated 2nd July, 1970. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the State Government dated 2nd July, 1970 respondent No. 2 filed a revision petition before the Central Government under Rules 54 and 55 of the 1960 Rules. The State Government was required by the Central Government to send its comments on the said revision petition and in the comments sent by it the State Government raised an objection that revision petition filed by respondent No 2 was not maintainable. The Central Government thereafter passed the impugned order dated 17th December, 1971, wherein it has held that royalty was payable by respondent No. 2 on the basis of the removal by him of the mineral from the lease area in accordance with the rule 41 (1) (i) of the 1949 Rules,the State Government could nor recover bath royalty and dead rent for a particular year and that respondent No. 2 was not liable to pay dead rent for the first year i. e. for the period from 1st November, 1952 to 31st October, 1953 as the lease granted to respondent No 2 was not a renewal of the old lease but was a new lease granted under the 1948 Act read with the 1949 Rules. The Central Government, by its order aforesaid, set aside the order of the State Government dated 2nd July, 1970 and d rected the Sate Government to re-examine the matter in the light of the findings of the Central Government contained in its order dated 17th December, 1971. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Central Government, the State Government has filed this writ petition.

(3.) IN support of his submissions with regard to the preliminary objection, the learned counsel for respondent No 2 has placed reliance on certain obsarvations of the Supreme Court in Dharam Chand Jain vs. State of Bihar (3) to the effect that: under Rule 54 of the 1960 Rules, the Central Government acts as a revisional tribunal against any order passed by the State Government and when the Central Government had allowed the revision application and directed the State Government to grant the licence to a particular person, no direction was left in the State Government to refuse the grant the mining lease to the said person. It may be noticed that in that case the Court was not concerned with the question as to whether it was open to the State Government to challenge the order of the Central Government passed in the revision petition and all that the court was concerned was whether in a case where the order of the Central Government has become final, it was open to the State Government to act in defiance of the said order. The observations in the said case have, therefore, no application to the facts of the present case. Another decision on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is the decision of the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa vs. Union of INdia (4), where in the State Government had filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order of the Central Government, directing the State Government to grant mining cease to a particular person and the High Court has observed: - "the State Government being subordinate statutory authority cannot question the legality and correctness of the impugned order by maintaining a writ application. Though the contention is not supported by any authority, we are inclined to give full effect to it. A subordinate statutory authority unless the statute so expressly prescribes, cannot question the correctness and legality of the higher judicial or quasi-judicial authority if exercised whithin the jurisdiction. "