888 of 1957, ,the 1st respondent filed another writ petition on December 16, 1957 seeking the very relief that he had sought in his earlier writ ,petition.
of granting or refusing the licence, and in case of refusal of recording in writing the reasons for the refusal and of refunding the application fee.
The High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent and dismissed that of the appellant.
MII 152 26 /57 dated the 21 8 57 companyy enclosed amending the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949.
Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant moved the Central Government under rule 57 on July 7, 1961 for review ing the said order.
226 of the Constitution on June 13, 1961 to issue a writ of mandamus to the State Government .to companysider his application for mining lease in preference to that of the 1st respondent as according to him the 1st respondents application should be deemed to have been rejected under rule 57 2 .
Thereafter the respondent was pressing the State Government to , rant him on lease the remaining areas included in his application.
2121 of 1967 must also fail.
1962 A.P. 127 F.B. the Central Government under rule 57 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 to be hereinafter referred to as rules on December 8, 1955, seeking a directicon to the State Government to grant to him the lease asked for by him by his application of September 15, 1953.
3 and 4 in C.A. No.
Meanwhile on December 27, 1955, the State Government granted on mining lease 1 acre and 20 cents of land to the appellant from out of the area included in the 1st respondents application.
During the pendency of the writ petition No.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated July 18, 1969 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W. P. Nos.
2 in both the appeals .
A. seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No.
464 of 1965 praying that the High Court may be pleased to call for the relevant records from the Central Government by issuing a writ of certiorari and quash the order of the Central Government and issue a further writ to the Central Government and to the State Government to grant the lease asked for by him.
The relevant portion of that order reads With reference to your application dated 16th April, 1957, on the above subject, I am directed to invite your attention to this Ministrys numberification No.,
In this case, it will be companyvenient to formulate the issues arising for decision after setting out the relevant facts.
After rule 28 1 anewsub rule 28 1 A was inserted.
226 of the Constitution in Writ Petition No.
After production of agreement with the pattedars lease in respect of lands companyprising 57 acres 25 Gunthas was granted to him as per the order of the Director of Mines and Geology dated January 9, 1954.
Amrutham Kotaiah Naidu, the 1st respondent in these appeals applied for the grant of a mining lease in respect of 915 acres and 18 cents of lands in Appalanarasinmhapuram hamlet of Cheruvumadhavaram in Khammameth Teluqa of Warangal District of the then Hyderbad State, on September 15, 1953.
Evidently the Central, Government proceeded on the basis that the order of the State Government dated January 9, 1954 granting 57 acres and 20 cents of land to the 1/st respondent, by implication amounted to a rejection of his claim in respect of the other areas.
Aggrieved by that order the 1st respondent filed Writ Petition No.
464 and 602 of 1965.
1 Where a State Government passes as under.
2 I.L.R. 1953 Mad.
602 of 1965 and the 5th respondent in Writ Petition No.
Hence these appeals.
2 1 21 and 2122 of 1969.
On July 18, 1956, the Central Government dismissed the review petition made by the 1st respondent on December 8, 1955 with these observations Sir, I am directed to refer to your application dated the 8th December, 1955, on the subject and to say that after careful companysideration of the facts stated therein, the Central Government have companye to the companyclusion that there is numbervalid ground for interfering with the decision of the Government of Hyderabad, rejecting your application for grant of mining lease for iron ore in Appanarasimhapuram and Raigudam villages, Khammameth district.
The State Government granted on mining lease to various persons some of the areas in respect of which the respondent had asked for a mining lease.
The High Court rejected that application observing that the appropriate companyrse for him was to move the Central Government under rule 57 against the order of the State Government.
Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for respondents Nos.
He accepted the petition and issued the mandamus prayed for.
It came to the companyclusion that the applications made by the appellant, the 1st respondent as well as others which were pending before the Andhra Pradesh Government should be deemed to have been rejected on the 1st March 1958, in view of rule 57 2 .
Meanwhile on September 15, 1956, some of the rules were amended.
Thereafter on 15 2 1965, the Central Government allowed the review petition filed by the appellant and set aside the grant made in favour of the 1st respondent on May 27, 1961.
Granting that the High Court erroneously issued a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to perform its func tions it was, in my judgment, number open to the Central Government in effect to exercise appellate authority over the judgment of the High Court.
While making this order, evidently the Central Government had overlooked its earlier order dated July 18, 1956.
On April 16, 1957, the 1st respondent filed another review petition before the Central Government.
1 in both the appeals .
A further amendment to that rule 57 2 was made on August 31, 1957.
3 The appellant companyld undoubtedly have been made a party to a petition before the High Court.
prior to the 4th September, 1956 and remaining undisposed of on the 31st August 1957 shall be disposed of by them within six months from the latter date.
of granting or refusing the licence.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Your application fo r review is therefore premature at this stage and in case your application for Mining Lease is number disposed of by the State Government within the prescribed period you may apply to the Central Government at the appropriate time.
3 in C.A. No.
The State Government by its order dated May 27, 1961, granted on mining lease to the respondent all the areas for which he had applied an September 15, 1953 less those areas which had been earlier leased out to others.
The rule has been accepted by the High Courts in India see The Province of Bombay v. Western India Automobile Associa tion 1 Ponnalagu v. State of Madras 2 and Pullayya v. Nagbhushanam.
2121 of 1969 and respondent No.
During ,the pendency of that petition the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
in the circumstances the petitioner does number want to press his petition.
S.R.O. 2753 reads In exercise of the powers companyferred by section 5 of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1948, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, namely Provided that any such application pending with the State Government on the 14th September, 1956, and remaining undisposed of on the 24th August, 1957, shall be disposed of by the State Government within six months from the latter date.
In my judgment, therefore, Appeal No.
That petition was disposed of by Bhimasankaram J. ,on August 20, 1959, with these observations It is stated by the learned 3rd Government Pleader that the Government is prepared to dispose of the application of the petitioner on the merits without relying upon rule 57 2 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949.
2122 of 1969 .
That sub rule reads Every application under rule 27 shall be disposed of by the State Government within 9 months from the date of receipt of the application.
Your application for revision is, therefore, rejected.
The first respondent then moved Petition No.
The Judgment of HEGDE and GROVER, JJ.
The Central Government by order dated February 15, 1965, allowed the review petition and set aside the grant in favour of the first respondent.
888 of 1957.
The Central Government made an order on September 25, 1957, in the review application filed by the first respondent holding that his application was premature and that it was for the State Government to dispose of the application within six months of August 31, 1957.
On September 26, 1957, that petition was dismissed by the Central Government as being premature.
464 of 1965.
Even before that he had moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Art.
To that petition he made only the State of Andhra Pradesh as the respondent.
Obviously aggrieved by those grants the respondent moved I.L.R. 1949 Bom.
It will be numbericed therefrom that the application for companycessions received by the State Govt.
By order dated November 4, 1958, Basi Reddy, J., observed that r. 57 2 as amended by S.R.O. No.
888 of 1957 seeking a writ of mandamus to the State Government of Andhra Pradesh to dispose of his application for lease made on September 15, 1953, expeditiously.
888 of 1957, to set aside the order so as in effect to overrule the, judgment of the High Court.
The companycerned numberification No.
He further requested the Central Government to direct the State Government to stop granting further areas to other appli cants in Appalanarasimhapuram village pending investigation of the matter and pending decision of the Central Goverrunent.
But I am unable to agree that the Central Government was companypetent in exercise of its power of review, against the order of the State Government made in companypliance with the order of Basi Reddy, J. in Writ Petition No.
The appellant herein was the petitioner in Writ Petition No.
Meanwhile on November 21, 1955, the appellant applied for the grant of a mining lease of a portion of the area for which the respondent had earlier submitted his application.
At the same time rule 57 was also amended.
The relevant facts may be recalled.
After the aforementioned order of the Central Government, the 1st respondent moved the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Art.
The State Government then heard the application and granted the mining lease for which the first respondent had applied on September 15, 1953.
Against that order the appellant moved a review petition.
There will be numberorder as to companyts.
888 of 1957 for a mandamus directing the State Government to dispose of his application.
2753 is intended for the benefit of the applicant, and does number relieve the State from per forming the statutory functions imposed on it under rule 17 1 and 17 2 viz.
Neither the Central Government number the appellant herein were parties to that petition.
lie companyld, therefore, challenge the companyrectness of the order made by Basi Reddy, No objection companyld be raised against the grant of leave to him to appeal ,on the ground that he was number a party to the Writ Petition No.
Amended rule 57 reads thus Application for review.
Narasaraju, A. Subba Rao and K. R. Sharma, for the appel lant in both the appeals C. Setalvad P. Parameswara Rao, V. Rajagopal Reddy, S, L. Setia and K. C. Dua, for respondent No.
If the order was erroneous it companyld be set aside by an appropriate proceeding before a Division Bench of the High Court or before this Court.
Hegde, J. These appeals by certificate arise from the companymon judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petitions Nos.
464 and 602 of 1965.
That petition came tip for hearing before Basi Reddy J. on November 4, 1958.
Yours faithfully, Sd G. C. Jerath, Under Secretary to the Government of India.
That order is silent as regards the other areas included in his application.
602 of 1965 seeking a writ of mandamus against the Central Government and the State Government to grant him the mining lease for which he had applied.
