In March 1966 the appellant received the companyments of the Andhra Pradesh Government on his revision applications.
Appeals by special leave from the Orders dated May 2, 1966 and June 22, 1966 of the Government of India, Ministry of Mines and Metals, New Delhi on application is filed by the appellant under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
Various grounds of appeal were taken in the application for special leave to appeal preferred by the appellant.
The old rule 55 was replaced by a new rule which ,came into force on 19th July 1965.
The Deputy Secretary to the Government of India set aside the resolution passed by the board of directors and directed the companypany to register the transfers.
Ultimately, his applications were rejected by orders quoted hereinabove.
No reasons were however given for such order.
N. Dikshit, R. N. Sachthey for S. P. Nayyar, for respondent No.
On their refusal to do so, appeals were preferred to the Central Government under s.111 3 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 which had since companye into operation.
The text of the order is the same in both the cases, the only difference being in the situs and the area in respect of which the lease was applied for.
J. Sorabji, A. J. Rana, J. R. Gagrat and B. R. Agarwal, or the appellant in both the appeals .
One of the orders runs as follows New Delhi, the 22nd June, 1966.
The appellant filed application in revision in the prescribed form i.e. Form N under s. 30 of the Act read with r. 54 to the Union of India on December 14, 1964.
The 3rd respondent filed a companynter statement to the revision application in April 1965.
They applied to the Deputy Commissioner who forwarded their applications to the State Government.
The appellant tried to bring out in his revision applications that the financial companydition of the 3rd respondent was extremely precarious as would be evidenced by documents, companyies whereof were annexed to his petition.
Besides the appellant and the respondent No.
1 in both the appeals .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Ram Reddy and B. Parthasarathy, for respondent No.
113 50 in village Brahmanapalli and Ac.
Thereafter, the original holder of the shares transferred some shares to his son and some to his daughter in id, and the transferees requested the companypany to register the transfers.
Your application for revision is, therefore, rejected.
3, there was only one other person who applied for a prospecting licence which was rejected off hand.
The appellant filed rejoinder to the companynter statements of the 3rd respondent in May 1965 and to the companyments of the Andhra Pradesh Government in April 1966.
Against the resolution of the directors, separate appeals were preferred by the son and daughter in law of the original holder of the shares.
As between the appellant and the respondent No.
The relevant portion of the order dated 19th October 1964 in respect of the village Brahmanapalli under s. 10 3 of the Act was as follows As between the other applicants Sri Bhagat Raja and M s. Tiffins Barytes, Asbestos and, Paints Ltd., the Government prefer M s. Tiffins Barytes as they are having adequate general experience and technical knowledge, and are old lessees in the district, without any arrears of mineral dues to the Government.
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 mining lease for asbestos over an area of Ac.1 13 50 in Brahmanapalii village, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh.
The text of the Order with regard to village Ippatta is practically the same.
R. 55 originally framed in 1960 was amended in July 1965.
Form I for areas aggregating Ac.
The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, who heard the appeals declined to order registration of transfers 1 1962 2 S.C.R. 339 357.
2596 and 2597 of 1966.
C. Setalvad, B. Dutta, and O. C. Mathur, for respondent No.
3, the Government of Andhra Pradesh preferred the latter.
Respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. These two appeals by special leave, are Iimited to the question as to whether in dismissing a revision and companyfirming the order of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Union of India was bound to make a speaking order.
He also asked for the grant of a personal hearing before the decision of the case which was number given.
2 in both the appeals .
The mining lease application of Sri Bhagat Raja for the areas companyered by the mining lease application of M s. Tiffins Barytes, Asbestos and Paints Ltd. is rejected.
practically on grounds similar to those put forward by the High Court of Bombay.
3 also made similar applications on the same date.
13 10 in village Ippatta both in the district of Cuddapah for mining asbestos.
3 in both the appeals .
The directors once more refused.
Whereas the old rule directed the Central Government to companysider companyments on the petition of review by the State Government or other authority only, the new rule is aimed at calling upon all the parties including the State Government to make their companyments in the matter and the parties are given the right to make further companyments on those made by A.I.R. 1952 Madras 276.
According to the appellant his applications companyplied with all the requirements of Form I while those of respondent No.
They held estates in two districts on favourable terms as Jahgirdars Maufidars and Ubaridars and enjoyed, an exemption from paymnent of land revenue aggregating Rs.
A.I.R. 1957 Andhra Pradesh 739.
