the learned judge relying upon the decision in harinagar sugar mills limited a.i.r.
gupte for the companypany raised three companytentions 1 that the order of the central government number being a speaking order was invalid 2 that r. 28 of the said rules does number prescribe any time limit within which an application for renewal has to be made and even if it does it is only directory and number mandatory and 3 that the rules do number require that a certificate of approval should accompany the application for renewal.
jhunjhunwala 1 held that the order of the central government number being a speaking order was invalid.
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 companysidered sufficient by the central government to uphold the rejection in view of its order number companytaining any reasons whatsoever.
1961 s.c.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated august 27 1965 of the punjab high companyrt in letters patent appeal number 233 of 1963.
5 of the act and though it did number accompany the said application it was obtained before the director passed his said order and therefore the certificate was within the knumberledge of the state government.
niren de attorney general and r. n. sachthey for respon dent number.
the companypany is a public limited companypany having its regis tered office in new delhi and is engaged in quarrying slate and marketing the same.
as to the order of the central government number being a speaking order the division bench distinguished harinagars case 2 on the around that the impugned order was an appellate order and number a revision order.
1 relied on by the learned single judge was number relevant as by reason of some irrelevant evidence having been companysidered by the authority in that case it became impossible to appreciate which evidence relevant or irrelevant.
v. gupte b. r. l. iyengar s. k. mehta and k. l. mehta for the appellant.
the learned single judge of the high companyrt 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 companypany had obtained the certificate of approval under sec.
since in this case there were two grounds which were distinct in themselves and were the basis of rejection if the ground of number possession of certificate was number tenable the other ground of limitation was sufficient for upholding the order of rejection.
the appellant companypany challenges in this appeal by special leave the order of the division bench which allowed the appeal and dismissed its writ petition.
the companypany thereupon filed a revision applica tion under r. 54 of the said rules to the central government.
in the affidavit in reply by the government the allegation that the application was sent on september 20 1961 was number admitted.
ci/69 12 tion was verified by the companypanys secretary who ought to have personal knumberledge whether the application was sent on september 20 1961 or number he did number swear to this fact as being within his personal knumberledge.
gupte relied on harinagar sugar mills limited v. jhunjhunwala 2 shivji nathubhai v. the a.i.r.
the learned single judge there fore was number companyrect in allowing the writ petition on the ground that it was number possible to ascertain on which of the two grounds the revision application was rejected.
16 of the mines minerals regulations development act 67 of 1957 hereinafter called the act read with r. 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.
5 of the act.
a letters patent appeal against the said order was heard by a division bench of the high companyrt.
the division bench then held that numberchallenge 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.
in the petition the companypany challenged the said orders on the grounds that there was numbervalid ground to hold the said application to be time barred that there was numberprovision 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 companypany had obtained that certificate and that fact was knumbern to the director and lastly that the order of the central government number being a speaking order was invalid.
in its rejoinder the companypany repeated that the application was sent on september 20 1961.
the companypany thereafter applied for and obtained on numberember 10 1961 a certificate of approval under sec.
on the first companytention mr.
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 number available the other ground of limitation was available and therefore the central government was entitled to hold that that being sufficient it would number interfere with the order of the state government.
the companytroller of mining leases under powers reserved under sec.
companysequently it was said that the companypany made an application bearing the date september 20 1961 which was received by the director of industries on october 9 1961.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1034 of 1966.
p. sinha and m. i. khowaja for the intervener.
relying on syed yakoob v. radha krishnan 3 the division bench held that the order need number be a speaking order where it is a revisional order and one of affirmance.
in the petition the companypany 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 verification on the companytrary was companyched in ambiguous language namely true to the best of deponents knumberledge and belief.
1 and 2.
5 1 of the act.
was found sufficient by it.
the division bench held that the decision in dhirajlal v. c.i.t.
1955 s.c.
the central government by its order 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.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shelat j. 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 number a valid application.
the petition also averred that the companypany had obtained the certificate of approval as required by sec.
the director of industries however rejected the said application on two grounds 1 that it was beyond the time prescribed under r. 28 of the mining companycession rules 1960 and 2 that it was number a valid application under form j as it was number accompanied by a companyy of the certificate of approval.
p. nayar for respondent number 3.
in companysequence of certain companyrespondence which took place between the companypany and the director of industries punjab the companypanys secretary met that official on september 12 1961 1 67 when he was advised that the companypany should apply for renewal of lease in form j if it so desired.
the companypany had secured a perpetual lease dated march 22 1879 of certain lands in villages majra and manhatti in district gurgaon.
aggrieved by the said orders the company filed a writ petition in the high companyrt of punjab challenging the validity of the said two orders.
