Research › Browse › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

1969 DIGILAW 248 (ORI)

Deo Kuar Bai Pandya v. Union of India

1969-10-28

G.K.MISRA, R.N.MISRA

body1969
Judgement G. K. MISRA, C. J. :- The point arising in this writ application lies within a narrow compass. Facts relevant thereto may only be referred to. There was a lease in favour of the petitioner granted by the ex-Ruler of Bonai on 30-9-1943 in respect of 438.47 acres for extracting manganese ore. On 16-3-1963 the petitioner exercised his option for renewal for a further period of twenty years. On 30-3-1965 the Government of Orissa in the Mining and Geology Department rejected the application for renewal by their order, the relevant portion of which runs thus : "Whereas no I. T. C. C. (Income Tax Clearance Certificate) which is statutory requirement has been furnished by the party along with the application, Now therefore the State Government are pleased to reject the said application." On 1-4-1965 the petitioner submitted to the Government of Orissa an attested copy of the I. T. C. C. stating, in the accompanying letter, that it was in continuation of their renewal application in respect of the disputed area as per clause (VII) of the application Form J, and prayed for reconsideration of their previous order. The prayer was not accepted and on 25-5-1965 the petitioner was intimated that she might file a revision before the Government of India, under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960. The petitioner filed a revision application before the Central Government. On 30-10-1965 the Government of India rejected the revision application, as intimated to her by the Under-Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Steel and Mines (Department of Mines and Metals). The letter runs thus : "I am directed to refer to your revision application dated 26-5-1965 and letter dated 1-10-1965 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 renewal of mining lease for manganese ore over an area of 438-47 acres in district Sundergarh. Your application for revision is, therefore, rejected." Against this order the writ application has been filed. 2. The only contention raised by Mr. Mohanty is that the revisional order assigns no reason for rejecting the revision application and as it is a quasi-judicial proceeding the revisional order of the Central Government should be quashed. Your application for revision is, therefore, rejected." Against this order the writ application has been filed. 2. The only contention raised by Mr. Mohanty is that the revisional order assigns no reason for rejecting the revision application and as it is a quasi-judicial proceeding the revisional order of the Central Government should be quashed. Reliance is placed on (1969) 1 SCA 601 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. S. N. J. Mehta) and AIR 1967 SC 1606 , (Bhagat Raja v. Union of India). 3. Legal position is now settled that in exercising its revisional powers under Rule 54, the Central Government discharges its functions which are quasi-judicial and as the decisions of Tribunals are subject to the supervisory power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, it is incumbent on the revisional authority to assign reasons in support of its order. It has, however, been laid down that if the State Government itself gives reasons and the Central Government's order confirms the same the revisional order should not be interfered with merely because it is not a speaking order. In this case the State Government gave a clear reasoning that the application for renewal was not in order inasmuch as the I. T. C. C. was not attached thereto. It is the common case of both parties that Form 'J' prescribes a column to be filled up showing whether income-tax has been cleared or not and that the certificate must accompany the application. On the admitted position that I. T. C. C. had not been filed along with the renewal application, it was open to the State Government to reject the renewal application. The subsequent filing of the certificate about two years later cannot cure the defect and it was open to the State Government, in exercise of its discretion, not to condone the laches. This being the only ground on which the renewal application was rejected and the reasoning being very clear on the face of the order of the State Government, the laconic character of the revisional order of the Central Government does not affect the situation. This being the only ground on which the renewal application was rejected and the reasoning being very clear on the face of the order of the State Government, the laconic character of the revisional order of the Central Government does not affect the situation. In the context of the facts and circumstances of the case, though the revisional order does not clearly specify the reasons for dismissing the revision application, there is no error apparent on the face of the record as the revisional order merely confirms the reasoning given by the State Government. This is not a fit case for interference on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The writ application is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. 4. R. N. MISRA, J. :- I agree.