and the Government of the State as to the merits of the appellants application are number on record but it is companymon ground that the appellants were number informed of these documents prior to the order number impugned rejecting the application for review was passed.
The duration of the certificate is one calendar year and the same has to be renewed every year, if it is to be in force.
The reply that the appellants received was that the Government of India regretted their inability to accede to their request.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated July 9, 1958, September 24, 1958 of the Union of India Ministry of Steel, Mines and Fuel, New Delhi and the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi respectively.
On July 9, 1958 the application of the appellants was rejected by the Union Government, the order stating The Central Government have companye to the companyclusion that there is numbervalid ground for interfering with the decision of the Government of Madhya Pradesh rejecting your application for renewal of a certificate of approval for the year 1956.
11 5 116 of 1963.
The information required by the form of application prescribed by the rules was furnished and the necessary documents were filed and this application was recommended by the District Officer, Bhandara.
To enable them to do the prospecting in lands in which they had obtained mineral companycessions, the appellants applied for and obtained from the Government of Madhya Pradesh a certificate of approval under the Mineral Concession Rules from 1952 onwards.
Under the scheme of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1948 Act No.
L P D 1SCI 4 a Thereafter companyrespondence seems to have ensued between the Central Government and the Government of Madhya Pradesh in regard to the propriety of granting the application for review.
Some portions of this companyrespondence between the Government of India.
It is the validity of this order dated July 9, 1958 that is challenged in appeal No.
116/1963 .
The State Government, however, by an order dated September 21, 1956 rejected the application, the reason given being that the partners companyposing the firm had changed.
The appellants having companye to know from a letter addressed to them by the Government of India that the State Government had been required to send a report of their remarks in companynection with their application for review made enquiries as to what had happened and also requested that they might be informed as to the progress of their application and that they might be given an opportunity of a personal hearing at which they would be able to satisfy the Government about the genuineness of their case.
2 in C.A. No.
appellant in both the appeals .
The original certificate granted to the appellants for the year 1952 was being renewed from year to year and as a result they held a valid certificate of approval up to the period ending on December 31, 1955.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
1 in both the appeals .
S. Pathak, Rameshwar Nath and S. N. Andley, for the.
115 of 1963.
They hold companycessions in regard to prospecting and working minerals in several areas of the State to the details of which it is number necessary to refer.
116 of 1963 is by special leave of this Court against this order of the High Court, Punjab.
The appellants thereafter applied to the Government of India requesting for a companyy of the report of the State Government on the basis of which the application was rejected.
March 10, 1964.
Being desirous of having the same renewed for the following calendar year 1956 they made an application to the Government of Madhya Pradesh on November 22, 1955.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J. Civil Appeal No.
XLIII of 1948 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 framed thereunder, in order that a prospecting licence may be granted to a person he has to hold a certificate of approval from the State Government companycerned and similarly the rules provide that numbermining lease shall be granted to any person unless he held a similar certificate of approval.
This petition was dismissed by the High Court in limine and Civil Appeal No.
G. Patwardhan and B. R. K. G. Achar, for respondent No.
This order was companymunicated to the appellants on October 6, 1956 and thereupon the appellants made an application on November 15, 1956 to the Union Government for a review of the order of the State Government under rule 57 of the Mineral Concession Rules.
115 is by special leave granted by this Court under Art.
226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the above order of the Union of India.
The appellants filed a petition to the High Court Punjab under Art.
136 of the Constitution and is against an order of the Union of India Ministry of Steel, Mines and Fuel dated July 9, 1958 rejecting an application filed by the appellants under rule 57 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 to review an order passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh rejecting their application for the renewal of the Certificate of Approval granted to them.
It would thus be seen that both the appeals are directed to challenge the validity of the same order and we shall therefore deal with them together.
The appellants, who companystitute a partnership, are engaged inter alia in the business of mining and they held a prospecting licence in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
N. Shroff, for respondent No.
