Learned companynsel for the respondent sought to distinguish Madan Gopal Runglas case 1 on the ground that it was based mainly on an interpretation of r. 60 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1949, though he did number pursue this further when s. 188 of the Sea Customs Act was pointed out to him.
When the petition came up before a learned Single Judge a question was raised as to the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the petition in view of the decision of this Court in Election Commission India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao.
Thereupon the respondent filed a petition under Art.
53 of 1948 and it was held that when the Central Government rejected the review.
The question of the original order with the appellate order was also companysidered in that case though it was pointed out in view of r.60 of the Mineral Concession Rules that it is the Central Governments order in review which is the effective and final order.
We are in the present appeal number companycerned with the merits of the case put forward by the respondent, for the matter has number yet been heard on the merits.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 21 1959, of the Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Matter No.
His revision against the order in the appeal was dismissed on April 22, 1950, when the Constitution had companye into force, and the question that arose in that case was whether the dismissed public servant companyld take advantage of the provisions of the Constitution because the revisional order had been passed after the Constitution came into force.
He also imposed a personal penalty of Rs.61,000/on the respondent under the Sea Customs Act, No.
His appeal from the order of dismissal was dismissed in May 1949 which was also before the Constitution came into force.
that the High Court, had numberjurisdiction to issue a writ against the Central Board of Revenue in view of the Precision in the case of Sake Venkata Subba Rao.
Thereupon there was an application for a certificate to appeal to this Court, which was granted and that in how the matter has companye up before us.
The respondent appealed to the Central Board of Revenue under s. 188 of the Act, and this appeal was dismissed in April 1952.
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1 As the learned Single Judge companysidered the point important, he referred the matter to a larger bench and eventually the question was companysidered by a Full Bench if the High Court.
That was a case where a public servant was dismissed on April 20, 1948 before the Constitu tion had companye into force.
The Full Bench further directed that the petition would be placed before the learned Single Judge for disposal in the light of its decision or, the question of jurisdiction.
The Full Bench addressed itself two questions in that companynection, namely, i whether any writ companyld issue against the Central Board of Revenue which was a party to the writ petition and which was permanently located outside the jurisdiction of the High Court, and ii whether if numberwrit companyld issue, against the Central Board of Revenue any writ companyld be issued against the appellant, which was the original authority to pass the order under challenge, when the appellate 1 1953 S.C.R. 1144, authority namely, the Central Board of Revenue had merely dismissed the appeal.
8 of 1878, hereinafter referred to as the Act .
76 of 1952.
April 30.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, T. This ii an appeal on a certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court.
The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
2 and 3.
383 of 1961.
R. Prem and R. L. Dhebar, for the appellant and respondents NOS.
Central Government in revision under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, framed under the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, No.
The Full Bench held on the first question.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court.
The main reliance however of the respondent both in the High Court and before us is on the decision in the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohmmed Nooh 2 .
petition against the order of the State Government under the Mineral Concession Rules it was in effect rejecting the application of the appellant of that case for grant of the mining lease to him.
Out of this quantity, the appellant, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, companyfiscated 50 drums by order dated September 20, 1950.
1 1962.
The respondent had imported 2,000 drums of mineral oil.
P. Desai and B. P. Maheshwari, for respondent No.
