Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (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 August 27, 1993. Writ petition against the order of Central Government was dismissed by learned Single Judge on November 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 : "26. Refusal of application for grant and renewal of mining lease (1) The State Government may after giving an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to 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. (2) An application for the grant of renewal of a mining lease made under rule 22 or rule 24A, as the case may be, shall not be refused by the State Government only on the ground that Form I or J, as the case may be, is not complete in all material particulars, or is not accompanied by the documents referred to in sub-clauses (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of clause (i) of sub- rule (3) of rule 22. (3) Where it appears that the application is not complete in all material particulars or is not accompanied by the requirement documents, the State Government shall by notice, require the applicant to supply the omission or, as the case may be, furnish 1 the document, without delay and in any case not later than sixty days from the date of receipt of the said notice by the applicant.''
(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.;