Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1964 DIGILAW 53 (MP)

G. H. Cook v. State

1964-04-06

K.L Pandey, P.V.Dixit

body1964
ORDER DIXIT C. J .- 1. The petitioners, who are partners of a firm doing business under the name and style of 'Messrs G. H. Cook & Sons, Katni' held a lease for mining bauxite in Mauza Tikariya. Some time before the expiry of the lease on 29th January 1955 they applied to the State Government for a renewal of the lease. This application was rejected by the State Government but it was granted by the Central Government in a revision petition preferred by the petitioners. The Central Government, setting aside the order of rejection of renewal r assed by the State Government, directed it to renew the petitioners' lease for a period of eight years from the next day following the termination of the previous lease. Accordingly, a renewed lease was granted to the petitioners for a period of eight years commencing from 30th January 1955. After the renewal of the lease in terms of the order passed by the Central Government, the petitioners moved the State Government for making the lease effective for a period of eight years beginning from 16th May 1960, the date on which the renewed lease was actually granted to them. This prayer of the petitioners was rejected by the State Government by an order passed in 1963 and communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 21st February 1963 addressed by the Under-Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Natural Resources Department. 2. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a revision petition under rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, to the Central Government against the order of the State Government communicated to them on 21 st February 1963 about the rejection of their application for treating the mining lease as effective for a period of eight years from 16th May 1960. On 8th October 1963 the petitioners were informed by a letter addressed by the Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Mines and Fuel, that their revision petition was time barred and had been rejected; and that they should have filed a revision application within two months of the order of the State Government passed on 16th May 1960 granting them a renewal of the mining lease for a period of eight years with retrospective effect from 30lh January 1955. 3. 3. The petitioners now contend that the Older passed by the Central Government rejecting their revision petition was illegal inasmuch as it was passed without giving them any notice of the hearing of the revision petition or any opportunity to represent their case. They pray that the order of the Central Government rejecting the revision petition be quashed and the Central Government be directed to rehear the revision petition after notice to them of the hearing of the petition and after giving them an opportunity of hearing. 4. The sole question that arises for determination in this case is when the petitioners were entitled to a hearing before the Central Government when the revision petition filed by them was taken up for consideration by that 2Government. It is not disputed that no notice of the hearing of the revision petition was given to the petitioners and that they were not heard before the order rejecting the revision petition on the ground that it was barred by time was passed. In our opinion, the present case falls within the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Shivji Nathubhai Vs. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 606 , where it has been held that while deciding an application under rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, the Central Government acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and that it is the duty of the authority which has to review the matter to act judicially and it is incumbent upon it before coming to a decision to give a reasonable opportunity to the party in the review application, whose rights were being affected, to represent his case. This principle applies equally in the case of the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 5. Shri Bhave, learned Government Advocate, sought to argue on the authority of F. N. Roy Vs. Collector of Customs, AIR 1957 SC 648 , that as the revision petition filed by the petitioners was filed beyond limitation, they were not entitled to a personal hearing at the time their revision application was rejected by the Central Government on the ground that it was barred by time. We are unable to accept this contention. Collector of Customs, AIR 1957 SC 648 , that as the revision petition filed by the petitioners was filed beyond limitation, they were not entitled to a personal hearing at the time their revision application was rejected by the Central Government on the ground that it was barred by time. We are unable to accept this contention. It has no doubt been held in the case or F. N. Roy (supra) that there is no22 rule of natural justice that at every stage a person is entitled to a personal hearing and that when an appeal against an order of the Customs-Authorities filed beyond limitation was dismissed on the ground of limitation without hearing the appellant, there was no violation of the rule of natural justice. We are unable to read these observations as modifying or qualifying in such a way the proposition laid down in Shivji Nathubhai Vs. Union of India (supra) so as to exclude the requirement of notice and hearing when the revision or review petition itself is barred by time. The decision rejecting a review or revision petition on the ground of limitation is as much a decision affecting the rights of the party concerned as an adverse decision on the merits of the application itself which the Central Government is required to give acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. If that be so, the unclearly the aggrieved party is, according to the Supreme Court decision in Shivji Nathu Bhai Vs. Union of India (supra), entitled to a notice of the hearing of the revision petition and an opportunity to represent his case. 6. For these reasons, the order communicated to the petitioners by the letter dated 8th October 1963 of the Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Mines & Fuel, rejecting the revision application on the ground of limitation is quashed. The Central Government is directed to decide the revision application afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to represent their case. The petitioners shall get their costs from the third respondent, the Government of India. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 100/-. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioners.