Presumably others also filed similar applications.
136 of the Constitution, b the appellant was number entitled to a personal hearing, c s. 17 of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957 Act No.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated October 17, 1964, of the Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines, Department of Mines and Metals on an application under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960.
On April 9, 1959, the State of Bombay issued a numberification calling for applications from the public in respect of the least of the said mines.
On June 22, 1961, the Central Government informed the appellant that instructions had been issued to the Government of Maharashtra, Industries and Labour Department, Bombay, for reconsidering its application and, therefore, it might pursue the matter with the said Government.
On May 15, 1959, the appellant filed an application for the grant of a lease for a period of 20 years in respect of the said mines.
The appellant filed the present appeal against the order of the Central Government dated October 17, 1964, dismissing its revision petition against the order of the Government of Maharashtra.
A reference to the order annexure R shows that the State Government gave full reasons.
Likewise, an order of an a administrative tribunal rejecting a revision application cannot be pronounced to be invalid on the sole ground that it does number give reasons for the rejection.
To that appeal, the Central Government is made the first respondent the Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Steel and Mines, who made the said order, the second respondent , and the State of Maharashtra, the third respondent.
Thereafter on January 16, 1961, the Collector of Nagpur informed the appellant that its application for the ,ease of the mines was rejected as the mines in question fell in a block reserved for State exploitation.
By letter dated December 19, 1961, the Government of Maharashtra informed the appellant that its application for the mining lease had been rejected.
On March 11, 1961, the appellant filed a revision to the Central Government against the said order.
Thereafter, the appellant on or about February 17, 1962, filed a revision application before the Central Government against the said order of the Government of Maharashtra.
The revision application was rejected, because the Central Government agreed with the reasons given by the State Government in its order dated December 19, 1961, and the application did number disclose any valid ground for interference with the order of the State Government.
464 of 1965.
Your application for revision is, therefore, rejected.
On July 8, 1959, the Government of Bombay made an order ranting the entire area of the said mines to the appellant and by letter dated July 14, 1959, informed him of the same.
After a protracted companyrespondence companyering a period of about 3 years, the offer on special duty, Industries and Co operation Department, State of Bombay, informed the appellant by letter dated September 2, 1958, that the said renewal companyld number be granted.
Accordingly, the appellant took up the matter with the Maharashtra Government.
The Judgment of Mudholkar and Bachawat, JJ.
was delivered by Bachawat, J. Subba Rao, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Government of India rejecting the revision filed by the appellant against the order of the Government of Maharashtra.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant, the Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd., is a public limited companypany engaged in mining manganese ore.
S. Pathak, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant.
The reason for rejecting the revision application appears on the face of the impugned order.
The said lease was to expire on September 9, 1955.
By its order dated October 17, 1964, the Central Government rejected the revision application stating I am directed to refer to your application No.
On February 17, 1962, the appellant filed a revision application before the Central Government against the order of the State Government under r. 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
On October 17, 1964, the Central Government rejected the revision application.
On the expiry of the said lease the appellant applied for the renewal of the lease for a further period of 20 years to the appropriate authority, namely, the Secretary to Government, Commerce and Industries Department, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, R. N. Sachthey and R.G.K. Achar, for the respondents.
On August 25, 1960, the Maharashtra Government issued a numberification for the information of the public that the said mines were reserved for the exploitation of minerals in the public sector.
Under an indenture dated March 4, 1952, the appellant obtained a transfer of the said leasehold interest from the successors in interest of the said Bansilal Abirchand.
During the year 1960 the territories forming part of the State of Bombay were divided and the State of Maharashtra and the State of Gujarat came into being and the said mines fell in the Maharashtra State.
Subba Rao, J. delivered a separate Opinion.
On February 5, 1941, one Rai Bahadur Bansilal Abirchand took a lease of a land of extent 216 acres and 92 cents in the Government Forest, East Pench Range, in the Tahsil of Ramtek in the District of Nagpur, from the Governor of Central Provinces and Berar for a term of 15 years companymencing from September 10, 1940.
After the transfer, the appellant entered into possession of the said extent of land and is alleged to have spent about Rs.
10,00,000 for the purpose of developing the area to carry out the mining operation.
A 32/8163 dated 17 2 1962 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 Maharashtra rejecting your application for grant of mining lease for man manganese over an area of 216.92 acres in Government Forest East Panch Range, W. C. June wand, Tahsil Ramtek, District Nagpur.
The appellant filed a revision against that order to the Central Government, but that was dismissed on December 14, 1958.
