H. R. Khanna, J. ( 1 ) MESSRS Serajuddin and Company petitioner No. 1, a partnership firm carrying on business at Calcutta, and its partner Mohammad Serajuddin petitioner No. 2, have bymeans of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailed the validity of the order dated 25th August 1962 which the Central Government rejected the application for revision filed by the petitioner-firm under rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (here- inafter REFERRED TO as the 1960 Rules ). The respondents to the petition are the Union of India, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Mines and Fuel, and the State of Orissa. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-firm as the holder of a certificate of approval presented application dated 1st February 1951 before the Collector of Keonjhar, Orissa State, under rule 14 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the 1949 Rules) for prospecting licence over an area of seven square miles in Champua Subdivision of Keonjhar district Orissa ). Deposits ofrs. 90. 00andrs. lo. 00 were also made by the petitioners in this connection and after some correspondence the petitioner-firm intimated on 22nd December 1957 that the application for prospecting licence should be treated in respect of Manganese and Iron Ore minerals. According to 1949 Rules, if the State Government failed to dispose of an application for grant or renewal of prospecting licence within nine months the application was to be deemed to have been rejected. As the Government of Orissa failed to dispose of the application of the petitioner-firm for prospecting licence, the petitionerfirm filed in April 1958 an application for review to the Central Government under rule 57 of the 1949 Rules on the basis that the petitioner-firm s application for licence should be deemed to have been refused by the State Government. On 23rd January 1962 the petitioner-firm was informed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Steel, Mines and Fuel, that the petitioner-firm s review application had been allowed to the extent that the State Government had been directed to dispose of the petitioner-firms application dated 1st February 1951 for grant of prospecting licence before 31st March 1962. On 13th Mach 1962, it is stated, copy of the following order was sent to the petitioner-firm :- "whereas M/s. Serajuddin and Co. , have applied to the State Government for grant of Prospecting Licence by their- application read above. : WHEREAS the Government of India in their letter No. Mil 162 (8)/60 dated 6-1-1962 have directed that since the area is likely to be suitable for State exploitation no mineral concession be granted to any private party. WHEREAS the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 have directed the State to take into consideration this application and pass orders thereon not later than 21-3-62. Now, therefore, the State Government are pleased to reject the said application. "according to the petitioner-firm, they did not receive the copy of the above order in March 1962 and came to know of it when its copy was sent to them along with letter dated 8/9th of June 1962 by the Deputy Secretary to Government of Orissa. In the meantime 1960 Rules had come into force. According to rule 68 of 1960 Rules, on the commencement of these rules, the 1949 Rules shall cease to be in force, except as regards. things done or omitted to be done before such commencement. Further ac. c. ording to 1960 Rules an application for prospecting licence pending. the commencement of these rules shall be disposed of in - dancewiththe provisions of thhse rules. On 29th June 1962 the petitionerfirm applied under rule 54 of 1960 Rules to the Central Government for Revision of the above order of the Orissa Government. The petitioner received the following letter dated 25th August 1962 from Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Mines and Fuel. "i am directed to refer to your application No. A-III (Misc) 2/62- 63/ds. 810 dated 29-6-1962 on the above subject and to say that after careful consideration of the grounds stated therein, the Central Government have come to the conclusion that there is no valid ground for interfering with the decision of the Government of Orissa rejecting your application for grant of prospecting licenae (for all major. minerals excepting those specified in Schedule IV of the Mineral Concession. Rules, 1949, and Petroleum and Natural Gas, subsequently specified for Manganese and Iron Ores) over 9. minerals excepting those specified in Schedule IV of the Mineral Concession. Rules, 1949, and Petroleum and Natural Gas, subsequently specified for Manganese and Iron Ores) over 9. 94 square miles in village Khandbon etc. . of Chamakpur, P. S. Champua sub-division of Keonjhar district. "your application for revision is, therefore, rejected. "it is the order contained in the above letter, which has been challenged by the petitioners by means of this petition. ( 3 ) MR. Chatterjee on behalf of the petitioners has, at the outset, argued that it was for the Government of Orissa to decide whether the application of the petitioners for grant of a prospecting licence should be accepted or not and the Central Government was not justified in issuing a directive to the State Government that no mineral concession be granted to any private paity. . It is pointed out that the State Government had practically decided to grant the licence to the patitioner firm in an area of five square miles. An intimation to that effect was sent by the Secretary to the State Government to Dr. (Mrs.) Sarojini Pradhan in letter dated 5thjanuary 1962 (Annexure B ). The State Government, however, declined to grant the licence because of the directive. The effect of the aforesaid, directive, it is contended, was to debar the State Government from independently applying its mind in deciding the application of the petitioner for grant of a prospecting licence. Reliance in this connection is placed upon Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanj. In this connection I find that section 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957) contains the restrictions on the grant of a prospecting licence. According to sub-section (2) of that section except with the previous approval of the Central Government no prospecting - licence or mining lease shall be granted as respects any mineral specified in the First Schedule. Iron ore and manganese ore are some of the minerals which have been specified in the First Schedule. As the application of the petitionersfor grant of prospecting licence was in respect of manganese and iron ores, it is obvious that the Government of Orissa could not grant that application without the approval of the Central Government. Iron ore and manganese ore are some of the minerals which have been specified in the First Schedule. As the application of the petitionersfor grant of prospecting licence was in respect of manganese and iron ores, it is obvious that the Government of Orissa could not grant that application without the approval of the Central Government. The Central Government was well within its rights to accord or with hold its approval, and the order contained in letter dated 13th March 1962 shows- that the Central Government withheld its approval because it was of the view that the area was likely to be suitable for State exploitation. As thequestion of according or withholding approval for grant of prospecting licence for manganese and iron ores was essentially for the Centralgovernment to decide, it cannot be said that the Central Government. unduly fettered or encroached upon the discretion of the State Government by issuing the directive that no mineral concession be granted to any private party. The said minerals, it may be stated, belong to the ( 4 ) IN the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay (supra), relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, the respondent wanted to build a cinema house in a part of greater Bombay. The Commissioner of Police in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 22 of the City of Bombay Police Act granted the permission to the respondent. Subsequently, the Commissioner sent to the respondent letter informing him that permission to erect cinema was being cancelled. At the hearing it came to light that the order of cancellation was not an order of the Commissioner but merely an intimation by him of an order passed by the Government of Bombay. As the only person, who could effect the cancellation, was the Commissioner of Police, it was held that t here was no valid order of cancellation. The above authority can be of no assistance to the petitioners because in the present case I find that there was no absolute discretion vested in the Government of Orissa. On the contrary as has been made clear above, the State Government could grant prospecting licence only with the approval of the Central Government, but as that approval was withheld the question of granting prospecting licence by the State Government did not arise. On the contrary as has been made clear above, the State Government could grant prospecting licence only with the approval of the Central Government, but as that approval was withheld the question of granting prospecting licence by the State Government did not arise. ( 5 ) IT is then argued that the Central Government in deciding the application for revision under rule 54 of 1960 Rules has to pass an order which is of quasi-judicial nature and, as the petitioner was not given oral hearing before the rejection of the application for revision, the order made by the Central Government on 25th August 1962 was not in accordance with law. In this connection I find that rules 54 and 55 of 1960 Rules read as under :- "54. Application for revision.- (1) Any person aggreived by any order made by the State Government or other authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Act or these rules may, within two months of the date of communication of the order to him, apply to the Central Government in duplicate in Form N for revision of the order. The application should be accompanied by a treasury receipt showing that a sum of Rs. 100 has been paid into a Government treasury or in any branch of the State Bank of India doing thetrea. sury business to the credit of the Central Government under the Head of account-"xxxvi-Miscellaneous Department-Miscellaneous- Central-Mineral Concession Fees. "provided that any such application may be entertained after the said period of two months, if the applicant satisfies the Central Government that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within time. (2) In every application under sub-rule (1) against the order of a State Government refusing to grant a prospecting licence or a mining lease, any person to whom a prospecting licence or mining lease was granted in respect of the same area or for a part thereof, shall be impleaded as a party. (3) Along with the application under sub-rule (1), the applicant. shall submit as many copies thereof, as there are parties impleaded under sub-rule (2 ). (3) Along with the application under sub-rule (1), the applicant. shall submit as many copies thereof, as there are parties impleaded under sub-rule (2 ). (4) On receipt of the application and the copies thereof, the Central Government shall send a copy of the application to each of the parties impleaded under sub-rule (2) specifying a date on or before which he may make his representations, if any, against the revision application. Explanation.-For the purposes of this rule where a State Government has failed to dispose of an application for the grant or renewal of a prospecting licence or as mining lease within the period specified in respect thereof in these rules, the State Government shall bedeemed to have made an order refusing the grant or renewal of such licence or lease on the date on which such period expires. 55. Orders on revision application.-Where a petition for revision is made to the Central "government under rule 54, it may call for the record of the case from the State Government, and after considering any comments made on the petition by the State Government or other authority, as the case may be, may confirm, modify or set aside the order or pass such other order in relation thereto as the Central Government may deem just and proper. Provided that no order shall be passed against an applicant unless he has been given an opportunity to make his representations against the comments, if any, received from the State Government or other authority. (2) Pending the final disposal of an application for revision, the Central Government may, for sufficient cause, state to execution of the order against which revision application has been made. " Application for revision under the 1960 Rules corresponds to application for review in the 1949 Rules and it can now be taken as settled that the Central Government in disposing of such an application acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. In Shivji Nathubhai v. Union of India the appellant was granted mining lease. The third respondent applied for review to the Central Government under the 1949 Rules. This review application was allowed by the Central Government and the mining lease was ordered to be given to the third respondent. In Shivji Nathubhai v. Union of India the appellant was granted mining lease. The third respondent applied for review to the Central Government under the 1949 Rules. This review application was allowed by the Central Government and the mining lease was ordered to be given to the third respondent. The "appellant thereupon filed a writ petition and the contention raised on his behalf was that he had not been given a hearing before the review application filed by the third respondent had been allowed by the Central Government. The High Court held that the order of the Central Government was not a quasi-judicial order but merely an. administerative order. On appeal to the Supreme Court the Court held that the Central Government while deciding the review application was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. This view was reiterated in Brijlal Manilaland Company v. Union of India {ministry of Steel, Mines and Fuel, New Delhi), and it was held that the Central Government while disposing, of a review application under Rule 57 of 1949 Rules was exercising quasi-judicial jurisdiction. In the aforesaid case the order made by the Central Government in rejecting an application for review was quashed on the ground that the Central Government had acted on the basis of material in respect of which the party applying for review had no opportunity to make representation. In view of the dictum laid down in the above two authorities Mr. Shanker, on behalf of the respondents, has not disputed that the Central Government acts in a quasi-judicial manner whiledisposing of an application for revision under rule 54 of 1960 Rules. It is, however, contended that it was not essential for the Central Government to give an oral hearing to the petitioners. In my opinion, this contention is well-founded. ( 6 ) RULES 54 and 55 of 1960 Rules indicate the nature and extent of opportunity for making representation which should begranted to the party affected by the order before the order is made against that party. In case prospecting licence or mining lease has been granted in respect of land or part of land to which application for revision relates, it is essential that the person to whom licence or lease has been granted should be impleaded as party under sub-rule (2) of rule 54. In case prospecting licence or mining lease has been granted in respect of land or part of land to which application for revision relates, it is essential that the person to whom licence or lease has been granted should be impleaded as party under sub-rule (2) of rule 54. A copy of the revision application must then be supplied under sub-rule (4) of that rule to such aperson and he should be called upon to make representation against the revision application before a date to be specified for the purpose. Further in case the Central Government calls for the comments of the State Government or any other authority with respect to the revision application, the petitioner filing the revision must be given an opportunity to make representation against those comments. Neither of the above two contingencies necessitating representation arose in the present case. It does not appear that any person was impleaded as a party to the revision filed by the petitioners on the ground that prospecting licence had been granted to such a person, apparently because no prospecting licence had been granted to any other person at that time. Moreover, this was a matter on the score of which petitioners could have hardly any grievance The other contingency also did not arise because the affidavit of Shri A. Nabar, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mimes shows that On receipt of the revision application under rule 54 of 1960 Rules of the petitioner no comments on the revision were considered necessary in the facts of the case and none were therefore called. The petitioner, it is stated, in his revision application had not brought forward any new facts requiring further clarification from the State Government and had only put forward arguments on legal aspects and had dealt with his submissions fully and exhaustively which were carefully considered. In the circumstances, the question of giving an oral hearing to the petitioner, in my view. did "not arise. ( 7 ) I may also state that oral hearing is not a necessary and indispensable requirement of all judicial proceedings. In the circumstances, the question of giving an oral hearing to the petitioner, in my view. did "not arise. ( 7 ) I may also state that oral hearing is not a necessary and indispensable requirement of all judicial proceedings. It would, hetessarily depend upon the circumstances of each case whether personal hearing is or is not essential, but, if on the facts it is found that a personal hearing was not essential, the order made in such proceedings would not get vitiated and tainoted merely because of the fact that oral hearing was not given in the quasi-judicial proceedings. As observed by the House of Lords in Local Government Boards. Arlidge- "when the duty of deciding an appeal is imposed, those whose duty it is to decide it must act judicially. They must deal with the question REFERRED TO them without bias, and they must give to each of the parties the opportunity of adequately presenting the case made. The decision must be come to in the spirit and with the sence of responsibility of a tribunal whose duty it is to mete out justice. But is does not follow that the procedure of every such tribunal must be the same. In the case of a Court of law tradition in this country has prescribed certain principles to which in the main the procedure must conform. But what that procedure is to be in detail must depend on the nature of the tribunal. "dealing with the question of oral hearing Viscount Haldane L. C. observed- "what appears to me to have been the fallacy of the judgment. of the majority in the Court of Appeal is that it begs the question at the beginning by setting up the test of the procedure of a Court of justice, instead of the other standard which was laid down for such cases in Board of Education v, Rice. I do not think the Board was bound to hear the respondent orally, provided it gave him the opportunities he actually had. "the above case was REFERRED TO with approval by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta". I do not think the Board was bound to hear the respondent orally, provided it gave him the opportunities he actually had. "the above case was REFERRED TO with approval by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta". This was a case relating to an inquiry against an examinee who was alleged to have used unfair means in an examination, and it was observed- "as to the manner in which it should give an opportunity to the examinee concerned to be heard, that is a matter which can be provided by Regulations or Bye-laws if necessary. As was pointed out in Local Government Board v. Arlidge, all that is required is that the other party should have an opportunity of adequately presenting his case. But what the procedure should be in detail will depend on the nature of the tribunal. "it would follow from the above observations that the manner of giving an opportunity to be heard can be regulated by the Rules or bylaws on the subject. In the present case, rules 54 and 55 indicate, as already discussed above, the mannsr and nature of the opportunity which is to be given to the party concernad to be heard. The material on record shows thit there his baan no infraction of the requirements of the above rules. In the circlimstances, the omission to give an oral hearing to the petitioners would not introduce an element of infirmity in the impugned order. ( 8 ) ARGUMENT is then advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the land in question has now been given to Orissa Mining Corporation Limited which is a government undertaking. It is urged that the lease has been granted to the aforesaid Corporation without complying with legal requirements. In this respect I find that there was no mention of the aforesaid Corporation in the main petition or the return and reference was made to the Corporation only in the application for stay. As such no material was placed on the record on the point as to whether there was or was not compliance with legal requirements in giving the land on lease to the above Corparation. As such no material was placed on the record on the point as to whether there was or was not compliance with legal requirements in giving the land on lease to the above Corparation. This Court, in the present proceedings, is not concerned with the question as to whether the lease was granted to the Corporation in a valid manner but with the question whether the petitioner s application for revision was rejected in accordance with law. So far as this last question is concerned, the answer has to be in the affirmative. The pettition consequently fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.