V. Bhargava, J. - (1.) The question arising in this appeal, is whether the appellant-companys application bearing the date September 20, 1961 for renewal of a mining lease was time barred and therefore not a valid application.
(2.) The company is a public limited company having its registered office in New Delhi and is engaged in quarrying slate and marketing the same. The company had secured a perpetual lease dated March 22, 1879 of certain lands in villages Majra and Manhatti in District Gurgaon. The Controller of Mining Leases under powers reserved under Section 16 of the Mines & Minerals (Regulations & Development) Act, 67 of 1957 (hereinafter called the Act) read with Rule 6 of the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Amendment Rules, 1960 modified the said lease reducing its period so as to expire on March 22, 1962. In consequence of certain correspondence which took place between the company and the Director of Industries, Punjab, the companys secretary met that official on September 12, 1961 when he was advised that the company should apply for renewal of lease in Form J if it so desired. Consequently, it was said that the company made an application bearing the date September 20, 1961 which was received by the Director of Indus-tries on October 9, 1961. The company thereafter applied for and obtained on November 10, 1961 a certificate of approval under Section 5 of the Act. The Director of Industries, however, rejected the said application on, two grounds (1) that it was beyond the time prescribed under Rule 28 of the Mining Concession Rules, 1960, and (2) that it was not a valid application under Form J as it was not accompanied by a copy of the certificate, of approval. The company thereupon filed a revision application under Rule 54 of the said rules to the Central Government. The Central Government by its ordch dated December 14, 1962 rejected it on the ground that it saw no valid ground for interfering with the decision of the, Government of Punjab Ag-grieved by the said orders, the company filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab challenging the validity, of the said two orders. In the petition the company, averred that the said application for renewal, though received by the Director of Industries on October 9, 1961, was "sent by the petitioner on 20-9-1961". The petition also averred that the company had obtained the certificate of approval as required by Section 5 of the Act and though it did not accompany the said , application it was obtained before the Director passed his said order and, therefore, the certificate was within the knowledge of the State Government. In the petition the company challenged the said orders on the grounds that there was no valid ground to hold the said application to be time-barred, that there was no provision in the Act or the rules requiring the company to be in possession of the certificate of approval at the time of the said application, that the company had obtained that certificate and that fact was known to the Director, and lastly, that the order of the Central Government not being a speaking order was invalid.
(3.) The learned Single Judge of the High Court, who heard the writ petition, held that though the said application was rejected on two grounds, one of them was demonstratively untenable the authority having recognised that the company had obtained the certificate of approval under Section 5(1) of the Act. He further held that the Director of Industries having relied upon two grounds for rejection, one of which was untenable, it was difficult to say which of the two grounds was considered sufficient by the Central Government to uphold the rejection in view of its order not containing any reasons whatsoever. The learned Judge relying upon the decision in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Jhunjhunwala, (1962) 2 SCR 339 that the order of the Central Government not being a speaking order was invalid. A Letters Patent appeal against the said order was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench held that as the said application was dismissed on two grounds, namely, of limitation and the failure to obtain the certificate of approval by the time the said application was made, even if the ground as to the certificate was not available, the other ground of limitation was available and therefore the Central Government was entitled to hold that that being sufficient it would not interfere with the order of the State Government. The Division Bench held that the decision in Dhirajlal v. C.I.T. A.L.R.1955 S.C.271 relied on by the learned Single Judge was not relevant as by reason of some irrelevant evidence having been considered by the authority in that case it became impossible to appreciate which evidence, relevant or irrelevant, was found sufficient by it. Since in this case there were two grounds which were distinct in themselves and were the basis of rejection, if the ground of non-possession of certificate was not tenable, the other ground of limitation was sufficient for upholding the order of rejection. The learned Single Judge, therefore, was not correct in allowing the writ petition on the ground that it was not possible to ascertain on which of the two grounds the revision application was rejected. The Division Bench then held that "no challenge appears to have been raised in the writ petition on factual, position regarding limitation", and therefore, the rejection was sustainable on the ground of limitation. As to the order of the Central Government not being a speaking order, the Division Bench distinguished Harinagars case, (1962) 2 SCR 339 : (1962) 2 SCR 339 on the ground that, the impugned order was an appellate order, and not a revision order. Relying on Syed Yakoob v. Radhakrishnan, (1964) 5 SCR 64 the Division Bench held that the order need not be a speaking order where it is a revisional order and one of affirmance. The appellant company challenges in this appeal by special leave the order of the Division Bench which allowed the appeal and dismissed its writ petition.;