- (1.) The Appellant Prag Das was granted by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh a lease for mining "corrundum" from an area of 2,660 acres in villages Pipra and Karkota, tahsil Singarauli, District Sidhi. Sometime thereafter Respondents 2 and 3 were granted a lease for mining "sillimanite" from an area of 488.21 acres out of the area for which a mining lease was granted to the Appellant. On September 26, 1962, the Appellant applied to the State Government for a lease for mining "kaolinite". The application dated September 26, 1962 was defective in that it was not accompanied by the full deposit of Rs. 700 required by Rule 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The Appellant rectified that defect by depositing on March 21, 1963, the amount of Rs. 100 by which the deposit was short. In meanwhile Respondent 2 had applied on December 22, 1962 for a lease for mining ''refractory clay'' from the area demised to them. It is common ground that "kaolinite" and "refractory clay" are the same mineral known by different names. On April 23, 1963 the State Government granted a mining lease to the Appellant for "kaolinite" over 86.48 acres and rejected the application of the second Respondent dated September 18, 1962. In reply to a letter dated November 26, 1963, the Government of Madhya Pradesh informed the second Respondent on December 5, 1963 that his application "was delayed in the office of the Director of Geology and Mining and could not be proceeded with properly", and since a mining lease for "kaolinite" was already granted to the Appellant, the application for a lease for "refractory clay" stood rejected. The Respondents 2 and 3 moved the Central Government by. an application under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, against the orders of the State Government. On that application the Central Government asked for the "comments" of the Appellant, the Respondents 2 and 3 and of the State Government and on February 3, 1966 set aside the order of the State Government dated December 5, 1963 and directed the State Government to include "refractory clay" as an additional mineral in the existing mining lease for "sillimanite" granted to Respondents 2 and 3 after cancelling the mining lease for "kaolinite" granted to the Appellant.
(2.) The Appellant then moved a petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Central Government, and for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh not to give effect to the impugned order, and to restore to the Appellant the mining lease for "kaolinite" granted to him by the State Government. The High Court dismissed the petition, and against that order the Appellant has approached this Court, with special leave.
(3.) The order passed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 is not a "speaking order". This Court has in a recent judgment, Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India and Ors. C. As. Nos. 2596 and 2597 of 1966 decided on 29-3-1967 held, after a review of the relevant authorities, that the power exercised by the Central Government under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, has to be exercised judicially, and in disposing of the revision application the Central Government must record its reasons and communicate those reasons to the parties affected thereby. Mitter, J., speaking for the Court, observed: xxx it will be amply clear that in exercising its powers of revision under Rule 56 the Central Government must take into consideration not only the material which was before the State Government but comments and counter-comments, if any, which the parties may make regarding the order of the State Government. In other words, it is open to the parties to show how and where the State Government had. gone wrong, or, why the order of the State Government should be confirmed. Mitter J. further observed: after all a tribunal which exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers can certainly indicate its mind as to why it acts in a particular way and when important rights of parties of far-reaching consequence to them are adjudicated upon in a summary fashion, without giving a personal hearing where proposals and counter-proposals are made and examined, the least that can be expected is that the tribunal should tell the party why the decision is going against him in all cases where the law gives a further ' right of appeal. The Court in that case expressly rejected the contention raised on behalf of the Union of India that the Central Government was not obliged to disclose the grounds of its decision.;