SHIVJI NATHUBHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal upon a certificate granted by the Punjab High Court raises the question whether an order of the Central Government under R. 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, (hereinafter called the Rules) framed under S. 6 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, No. 53 of 1948, (hereinafter called the Act) is quasi judicial or administrative. The brief facts necessary for this purpose are these. The appellant was granted a mining lease by the then Ruler of Gangapur State on 30-12-1947, shortly before the merger of that State with the State of Orissa on 1-1-1948. This leave was annulled on 29-6-1949. Thereafter the appellant was granted certificates of approval in respect of prospecting licences and mining leases. Eventually, the appellant applied on 19-12-1949, for mining leases for manganese in respect of five areas in the district of Sundergarh (Orissa). He was asked on 4-7-1950, to submit a separate application for each area which he did on July 27, 1950. Some defects were pointed out in these applications and therefore the appellant submitted fresh applications on 6-9-1950, after removing the defects. In the meantime, the third respondent also made applications for mining leases for manganese for the same area on 10-7-1950. These applications were not accompanied by the deposit required under R. 29 of the Rules. Consequently, the third respondent was asked on 24-7-1950, to deposit a sum of Rs. 500, which he did on 3-8-1950. It was then found that the third respondent's applications were defective. It was therefore asked on 5-9-1950, to send a separate application in the prescribed form for each block and thereupon it submitted fresh applications on 6-9-1950. Eventually. On 22-12-1952, the State of Orissa granted the mining leases of the five areas to the appellant taking into account R. 32 of the Rules, which prescribed priority. It was held that the appellant's applications were prior and therefore the leases were granted to him. Thereafter on 21-4-1953, possession of the areas leased was delivered to the appellant. It seems however, that the third respondent had applied for review to the Central Government under R. 52 of the Rules. This review application was allowed by the Central Government on 28-1-1954, and the Government of Orissa was directed to grant a mining lease to the third respondent with respect to two out of the five areas.

(2.) The appellant's complaint is that he came to know in February, 1954, that the third respondent had applied to the Central Government under R. 52 for review. He thereupon addressed a letter to the Central Government praying that he might be given a hearing before any order was passed on the review application. He was, however, informed on 5-7-1955, by Government of Orissa of the order passed by the Central Government on 28-1-1954, by which the lease granted to him by the State of Orissa with respect to two areas was cancelled. Consequently, he made an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution to the Punjab High Court praying for quashing the order of January 28, 1954, on the ground that it was a quasi-judicial order and the rules of natural justice had not been followed inasmuch as he had not bee given a hearing before the review application was allowed by the Central Government, thus affecting his rights to the least granted by the State of Orissa. The writ petition was heard by a learned Single Judge of the High Court and it was held that the order was not a quasi-judicial order but merely an administrative one and that there being no lis, the appellant was not entitled to a hearing. In the result, the writ petition failed. The appellant went up in Letters Patent Appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court, which upheld the order of the learned Single Judge. The appellant then applied for a certificate to permit him to appeal to this Court which was granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us.

(3.) Shri N. C. Chatterji appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that the Central Government was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when it passed the order under R. 54 of the Rules and therefore it was incumbent upon it to hear the appellant before deciding the review application, and inasmuch as it did not do so it contravened the principles of natural justice which apply in such a case and the order is liable to be quashed. In support of this, learned counsel relies on Nagendra Nath Bora. V. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam (1958) SCR 1240 , and submits that Rr. 52 to 55 of the Rules which are relevant for the purpose clearly show that the proceeding before the Central Government is a quasi-judicial proceeding in view of the following circumstances appearing from these rules:(1) Rule 52 gives a statutory right to any person aggrieved by an order of the State Government to apply for review in case of refusal of a mining lease; (2) It also prescribed a period of limitation, namely, two months; (3) Rule 53 prescribes a fee for an application under R. 52. These circumstances taken with the circumstance that a lis is created as soon as a person aggrieved by an order is given the right to go up in review against another person in whose favour the order has been passed by the State Government show that the proceeding before the Central Government at any rate at the stage of review is quasi-judicial to which rules of natural justice apply.