Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 6040 of 1994
PETITIONER:
STATE OF GOA AND ORS.
RESPONDENT:
A. H. JAFFAR AND SONS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/09/1994
BENCH:
R M. SAHAI & N.P. SINGH
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
1994 SUPPL. (3) SCR 259
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Leave granted.
This appeal filed by the State of Goa and others, is directed against the
judgment and order of the Bombay High Court, (Goa Bench). The respondents
made an application for a lease for mining mineral boxite in Mopa, Chandal,
Warkhan, Kasarwame Villagers of Pernem Taluk in Goa. As this application
was not disposed of by the State Government within 12 months as stipulated
in Rule 11 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 the application was deemed
to have been rejected. Against this order of deemed rejection the
respondents filed a revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals
Regulation and Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’)
to the Central Government in which a direction was issued to the State
Government to dispose of the respondents’ application on merits. In
pursuance of the direction issued by the Central Govern-ment the State
Government decided the application of the respondent and rejected it on
18th August 1987. This order was set aside by the High Court and the State
Government was directed to decide the application, afresh, after hearing
the respondents and deciding the applicability of the amend-ment to the Act
which had come into force with effect from 10th February 1987. The
application was heard this time by the Commissioner and Secretary for
industries to the Government of Goa who being a delegate of State
Government by virtue of notification issued under Section 26 of the Act was
empowered to decide the application. The application was rejected in
exercise of power under sub-section (3) of Section 10 the Act. Against this
order the respondents approached the State Government. The order was set
aside by the Minister for Mines and direction was issued to grant the
lease. What happened thereafter is not necessary to be narrated. But the
order of the Minister was set aside by the Government. Validity of this
order was challenged in the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Various issues were raised. They were decided in
favour of the respondents. The order of the Government dated 14.1.1993 was
quashed and that of the Minister dated 31.10.1991 was restored. It is the
correctness of this order that has been challenged by the State.
The appeal has been argued at length. Shri Siraj Sait has attempted to
support the judgment with industry and precision. But it does not appear
necessary to decide whether the finding recorded by the High Court that the
order of Commissioner being administrative in nature it could be reviewed
by the State Government nor it is necessary to decide whether the Minister
could exercise any power where the grant of lease is regulated by the
Statute as in our opinion the remedy of revision having been provided by
Section 30 of the Act, the proper course for the respondent was to approach
the Central Government and not the High Court. Learned counsel for the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
respondent expressed apprehension that the period for limitation provided
in rule 54 of the Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 having expired, the
revision might not be entertained. The proviso to the rule, however,
empowers the revising authority to condone delay if it is satisfied that
the revision could not be presented for sufficient cause within time. Since
the respondent was pursuing its remedy in High Court bona fide, it would be
sufficient cause to condone the delay and we trust that the revision if
preferred within four weeks from today shall not be dismissed as being
barred by time.
In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the High
Court is set aside subject to the observations made above that the
respondent shall be entitled to approach the revising authority, namely,
the Central Government within four weeks from today which shall decide the
same in accordance with law.
Parties shall bear their own costs.