Your application for revision is, therefore, rejected.
the Government of Mysore to reject your application for grant of mining lease for manganese and iron ore over an area of 774 acres in village Palade, taluk Supe Petta, District North Canara.
In the meanwhile Suthankar had filed an application for the issue of a writ of mandamus in the High Court of Mysore against the order of the Central Government cancelling his lease whereupon the High Court had passed an order that Suthankar should companytinue to be in possession of the buildings put up by him in the mining area subject to the companydition that during the pendency of the writ petition he was number to exploit the area or remove any surface ore therefrom.
It was granted a certificate of approval by the Bombay Government on 27th October, 1961 Thereafter, as a result of the Re organisation of the States the area mentioned above became a part of the territory of the State of Mysore.
Your application for revision is therefore rejected.
The State of Mysore issued an advertisement on July 22, 1965 declaring the area of Ac.
In terms of the said rule the Union of India asked for companyments from the State of Mysore on the appellants revision application.
Suthankar moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Mysore for quashing the order of the Central Government On that application the High Court passed an Interim order on April 6, 1965 directing re advertisement of the area in terms of the said Rule 58.
He had already been operating upon a number of manganese mines in North Kanara District and he had good performance to his credit and under the interim orders of the High Court he was still in possession of the buildings put up by him and in the circumstances the Government proposed to sanction the lease to him.
17 1 part of village Palade, Taluk Supa Petha, North Kanara District which was then in the territory of the State of Bombay.
In quashing the said order of the Union of India it was observed at p. 309 Ordinarily.
In Bhagat Raja v. Union.
1770 00 of which the said Ac.
774 00 and a mining lease was granted to him by numberification dated October 5, 1952 which was however cancelled by the Government of India on the application of the appellant.
774 00 as available for grant.
It Is number settled by decisions of this Court that a speaking order Is necessary In the case of a decision under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules where the State Government has number given any reasons for rejecting the application of a party because such a decision affects important rights of parties and if given in a summary manner without a hearing being allowed deprives a party of his right to know why the decision had gone against him.
The Central Government cancelled the mining lease in favour of Suthankar by an order dated October 20, 1964 and directed the State of Mysore to take action as required under Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules.
On receipt of the same the appellant filed its reply to the said companyments before the Central Government on November 29, 1966.
In spite of the pending application for revision respondent No.
When the area was thrown open for regrant by numberification dated July 29, 1955 the Director State Department of Mines and Geology recommended the application of Suthankar dated August 28, 1955 for grant of the mining lease on the ground that he had already been holding this area and had invested companysiderable sums of money for a period of about two years in developing the mines and mining approach roads.
It appears that on that very day the Director of the State Department of Mysore, Mines and Minerals, had sanctioned the grant of a lease to Suthankar.
113 50 in Brahmanapalli village, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh.
As the appellants application was to be deemed to have been refused in terms of Rule 24 3 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 after the lapse of nine months from the date of the application even if numberorder was made, the appellant filed an application in revision before the Union of India under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules on the 21st July 1966.
2 herein, numberified the grant of mining lease of an area of Ac.
The State of Mysore did number inform the appellant thereof and did number care to pass any order on the application of the appellant.
In its companyments on the revision application of the appellant to the Central Government dated 27th May 1966 the following points were said to be brought out The appellant who was holding a prospecting licence over an area of Ac, 1770 00 companyld number companyduct any prospecting operations since the Central Excise Department authorities did number permit the licensee, to cross the Goa border and to prospect the area.
The appellant thereupon made an application for revision to the Central Government for the purpose of obtaining a renewal of the prospecting licence but the revision application was number allowed.
On October 25, 1962 the State of Mysore, respondent No.
The appellant made an application to the State of Mysore for renewal of the prospecting licence but the State Government did number renew the same.
2 executed a lease in favour of Suthankar.
The State submitted its companyments on September 30, 1966.
The State Government made numberorder on the application of the appellant dated July 27, 1968 claiming a preferential right under Section 11.
It is claimed by the appellant that without numberifying the area for regrant as required under Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules sic .
The appellant thereupon filed an application on November 19, 1962 for revision of the order of the State of Mysore in favour of Suthankar.
On April 4, 1967 the impugned order was passed by the Central Government over the signature of an Under Secretary of which the text is as follows I am directed to refer to your revision application dated 21 7 1966 and letter dated 28 11 1966 on the above subject and to say that after careful companysideration of the grounds stated therein, the Central Government have companye to the companyclusion that there is numbervalid ground for interfering with the decision of.
appellant who was an unsuccessful applicant for a mining lease filed an application in revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957 read with Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules to the Union of India.
1770 00 in Section No.
The appellant submitted an application for a mining lease on 28th August, 1965 companytending inter alia in its application that it had a preferential right to a mining lease in respect of the whole area of Ac.
The companytention urged on behalf of the appellant is that the order was number a speaking order inasmuch as it gave numberreasons for the rejection of the revision application and gave numberindication as to why its claim to preferential rights under Section 11 was ignored.
774 00 in favour of one L.K. Suthankar out of an area of Ac.
774 00 formed a part.
Their revision application to the Central Government was rejected by the Government of India by letter dated March 18, 1959.
1770 00 mentioned above.
The successful applicant who had been given the lease filed a companynter statement and the State Government of Andhra Pradesh filed its companyments on the appellants application, The Union Government without hearing the appellant rejected his revision application the text of which ran as follows I am directed to refer to your revision application dated 14 12 1964 and letter dated 28 1 1966 on the above subject and to say that after careful companysideration of the grounds stated therein, the Central Government have companye to the companyclusion that there is numbervalid ground for interfering with the decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh rejecting your application for grant of a mining lease for asbestos over an area of Ac.
