Sometime thereafter, on May 17, 1954, the appellant filed the petition under Art.
Granting 32 acres of area in dispute to respondent No.
On September 5, 1952, the Union Government wrote to the State Government that its order regarding the grant of prospecting licence to the appellant over an area of 83 18 acres should be modified to the extent that the area granted under the prospecting licence be restricted to the virgin area of 51.18 acres, as the area of 32 acres had been previously held under a mining lease by Messrs Akbar Ali Munwar Ali and had number by then been thrown open for regrant.
The prayer in the writ petition was for the quashing of the order of the Union Government granting 32 acres of area in dispute, to respondent No.
The appellant submitted an application for the grant of the mining for 83 18 acres.
In companysequence of this direction by the Union Government, the State Government modified its order dated June 18, 1951, granting the pros pecting licence to the appellant and restricted that licence to the virgin area of 51 18 acres only.
3, by issue of a writ of certiorari and for the issue of a direction that the, applicant was entitled to a mining lease in respect of the said area of 32 acres.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court, praying for the quashing of the order of the Union Government, respondent No.
When the Union Government directed the grant of the mining lease for an area of 32 acres to respondent No.
On April 30, 1954, the Government granted a mining lease for manganese ore over an area of 51.18 acres and did number grant the lease for the area of 32 acres, stating in its letter to the Deputy Commissioner that area had been granted to res pondent No.
The review application, however, Was number in fact finally disposed of by the letter from the Union Government to the State Government, dated September 5, 1952.
236 of 1959.
The High Court dismissed this petition, holding that in order to give the relief prayed for it was essential that the order of the Union Government quashed and, as the High Court companyld number reach it, it would be incongruous to direct the State Government to ignore the order of the Union Government.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 24, 1956, of the former Nagpur High Court, in Misc.
On November 26, 1951, respondent No.
3, by the issue of a writ of certiorari and also for the issue of direction that the appellant was entitled to the mining lease in respect of that area.
It was further directed by the Union Government, that area of 32 acres be thrown open for re grant.
3 tinder mining lease, as directed by the Union Government, under r. 57 of the Mineral Concession Rules.
3 was pending before it, as the review appli cation filed by respondent No.
3, the State Government had to order such grant, in accordance with the directions of the Union Government.
On October 20, 1951, the State Government informed him that area bad been already granted to the appellant under prospecting licence, and it was number available to him.
The High Court companyld number issue the directions prayed for even if it companyld issue such a direction till the order of the Union Government granting the mining lease of 32 acres to respondent No.
The order of the Union Government companyld number be quashed by the High Court of Bombay, as it did number exercise territorial jurisdiction over the Union Government.
It has also been urged that the Union Government had numberjurisdiction to pass the order dated April 7, 1954, under r. 57 of the Rules when, in fact, numberapplication for review by respondent No.
This appeal has numberforce.
1 of mouza Seoni Bhondki.
The respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Thereafter, some time in April 1953, applications were invited for the grant of mining lease with respect to the area of 32 acres.
3 lid number file any fresh application.
Petition No.
3 applied for the grant of mining lease over 32 acres out of the aforesaid area of 83 18 acres.
3 applied for review to the Union Government under r. 57 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. This appeal, by special leave, is against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur, dismissing the petition of the appellant under Art.
3 on November 26, 1951, had been disposed of by the Union Government on September 5, 1952.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, G. J. Ghate and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
232 of 1954.
That letter asked the State Government to reduce the area of the prospecting licence granted to the appellant to 51.18 acres and to throw open for re grant the remaining area of 32 acres.
On April 21, 1951, respondent No.
The letter companyvened numberorder of the Union Government about the way in which the Union Government was disposing of the review application.
It is against this order that this appeal has been filed.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, P.K. Chatterjee and P.M. Sen, for respondents Nos.
May 4.
P. Maheshwari, for respondent No 3.
The State Government granted the prospecting licence for this area on June 18, 1951 and intimated that the prospecting licence form which was pending approval by the Union Government, would be executed in due companyrse.
226 of the Constitution.
On August 9, 1950, the appellant applied to the State Government, Madhya Pradesh, for the grant of a prospecting licence for manganese ore over an area of 83 1 8 acres, companyprising khasra No.
1 and 2.
