Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1983 DIGILAW 325 (CAL)

Bankura China Clay Industries v. UNION OF INDIA

1983-12-20

B.C.RAY

body1983
JUDGMENT 1. THIS application is directed against an order passed in revision by the Central Govt. under Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 3rd August, 1982 by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India under No. 1/191/82 MIV annexed as Annexure F to the petition on the ground that the order is patently bad as the revisional application was dismissed on the ground of barred by limitation though, in fact, the same was filed within the period of limitation prescribed by rule 54 of the Mineral Concession rules. The short fact of the case are as follows : 2. THE petitioner which is a partnership firm applied for grant of mining lease of plastic white clay and china clay on 28th March, 1980 in accordance with the provisions of the Rule 22 of the mining Concession Rule in the prescribed form and also paid the prescribed fees. This application was submitted to the Secretary, Commerce and Industries Deptt, mines Branch through the mining Omcer-in-Charge, Purulia and duly obtained a receipt therefor. The said application was enquired into by the J.L.R.O., Taldanga who submitted the report in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, a considerable period of time passed by, but nothing was intimated to the petitioner as to whether their application for the licence was considered and any order was made in favour or against them. Thereafter the petitioner made an application to the authorities concerned for intimating them as to what happened to their application whereon 25.1.82 the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal, Commerce and Industries Dept. (Mines Branch) intimated the petitioner by letter No. 406-Mines/2l-30/80 dated 22.1.32 that as the petitioner's application could not be disposed of within twelve months from the date of receipt of the same, it would be deemed to have been refused in terms of Rule 24 (3) of the Mineral Concession rules, 1960. That has been annexed as annexure C to the Writ petition. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application in revision to the Government of India on 6.3.82. This has been annexed as annexure D to the writ application. On 27.5.82 the Deputy, Secretary to the govt. of India Dept. of Mines by Memo no. 1/191/82-MIV intimated to the petitioner that the Central Govt. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application in revision to the Government of India on 6.3.82. This has been annexed as annexure D to the writ application. On 27.5.82 the Deputy, Secretary to the govt. of India Dept. of Mines by Memo no. 1/191/82-MIV intimated to the petitioner that the Central Govt. in exercise of their revisional powers under section 30 of the Mines Mineral (R and D)Act, 1957 and Rule 55 of the Mineral concession Rules, 1960 dismissed the revisional application as time-barred. This order has been annexed as Annexure E to the petition. Hence the instant Writ application has been made claiming the reliefs mentioned therein. This application was moved before this Court on 17.1.83 whereon after hearing the petitioner this court directed the petitioner to serve copies on the respondents appearing (Nos. 3 to 5) for whom Mr. Das Gupta is appearing for maintaining status quo so far as the leasing out if china clay is concerned in the meantime. In the meantime an application for variation of the order has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 6, Sri Sadananda Das. This application which was kept heard in part has come up for hearing today. 3. MR. Dutta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 6, has submitted before this Court that the application filed by the petitioner sometime in March, 1980, when also the respondent no. 6 filed a similar application, was deemed to have been disposed of by virtue of the provision of Rule 24 (3) as no consideration was made by the authorities concerned in respect of the application of the petitioner. It has "been further' submitted by Mr. Dutt that he filed subsequently another application in 1983 which has been considered by the authorities concerned and a licence has been granted in his favour for quarrying mines and minerals. It has, therefore, been submitted by mr. Dutta that a revisional application being filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 54 read with rule 24 under Rule 55 of the Mineral concessions Rules, 1960, the instant application is not maintainable and the interim order that has been made should be vacated. 4. MR. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition has submitted on the other hand that the revisional application was filed within three months from the date of communication of the order of the Central Govt. 4. MR. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition has submitted on the other hand that the revisional application was filed within three months from the date of communication of the order of the Central Govt. and that the said order by the central Govt. was wholly wrong and unwarranted. It has been submitted by Mr. Banerjee by referring to the provisions of rule 54 (1) of the Rules that the said Rule specifically provides that an aggrieved person may prefer a revisional application within three months of the date of communication of the order of rejection of his application to him and it has been submitted that in this case the order of rejection of his application was communicated to him on 25.1.82 and the revisional application was filed on 5.3.82, that is, well within three months, as provided in Rule 54 (1)and as such the order made by the Central Govt. rejecting the application on the ground of barred by limitation is wholly wrong. Mr. Banerjee submitted in this connection that the explanation to Rule 54 applies only in a case where-the State Govt. fails to dispose of an application within 12 (twelve) months from the date of the application for grant or renewal of a prospective licence for a mining lease, but no communication of such order is made to the applicant. In such case, the period of three months' limitation is to be counted, immediately from the date of expiry of 12 months. Mr. Banerjee submitted that though the application has not been disposed of within the prescribed period, yet as there has been a communication made to the petitioner, the time to file a revisional application will be counted from the date of communication of the order to the petitioner till the expiry of three months. He further submitted that the decision cited at the bar on behalf of the respondent No. 6 reported in A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 678 (State of Assam and Others vs. Om Prakash and Others does not help the respdt. No. 6, but supports the case of the petitioner. Mr. Banerjee therefore submitted that the order impugned in the instant writ application is bad. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to accept the contentions made by Mr. No. 6, but supports the case of the petitioner. Mr. Banerjee therefore submitted that the order impugned in the instant writ application is bad. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to accept the contentions made by Mr. Banerjee on behalf of the petitioner. 5. RULE 24 of the Mineral Concessions rules 1960 clearly provides that any application either for renewal or for grant of permit or licence has to be disposed of within a period of 12 months from the date of its receipt. Rule 54 provides for the procedure for filing an application in revision. Sub Rule (1) of rule 54 states that any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Govt. or other authority may within three months of the date of communication of the order to him apply to the Central govt. for revision of the order. Explanation to said Rule 54 further provides that for purposes of this Rule where the Slate Govt. fails to dispose of the application for grant of renewal of prospecting licence or mining lease within the period specified in the said. Rule, the State Govt. shall be deemed to have made an order refusing the grant or renewal of such licence or lease on the date on which the period expires. Therefore, this explanation read along with the provisions of Rule 54 clearly provides that the time to be counted for purposes' of filing an application for revision against the deemed disposal of an application for grant or renewal of a prospective licence or a mining lease has to be computed from the date of expiry of 12 months from the date of receipt of the application by the authority concerned. This position has - been made clear in the decision cited above in A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 678. 6. IN this case, as I have already stated, the application for renewal of. the permit or licence was filed some time in March, 1980 by the petitioner, so after the expiry of 12 months in accordance with the provisions of Rule 54 of the Rule with explanation and also read with Rule 54, the application has been deemed to have been disposed of since no order has been made by the state Govt. the permit or licence was filed some time in March, 1980 by the petitioner, so after the expiry of 12 months in accordance with the provisions of Rule 54 of the Rule with explanation and also read with Rule 54, the application has been deemed to have been disposed of since no order has been made by the state Govt. on the said application after expiry of the period of 12 months. Therefore, the period of three months which has been provided for filing the review application is to be computed from the date of expiry of 12 months. Therefore, the impigned order, Annexture E made by the Central Govt. in my opinion, is quite in accordance with the provisions of Rule 24 read with Rule 54 of the above Rules, 1960, and it has been rightly held that the revisional application is barred by limitation. In the premises aforesaid, the contention raised on behalf of the Writ petitioner having failed and the contention raised on behalf of the respdt. no. 6 at whose instance the application for variation of the interim order has been made having succeeded, the application for variation of the interim order is allowed. The interim order made by this Court is vacated. Let there be a stay of operation of the order till one week after the Christmas holidays. Interim order modified.