Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 190 (PAT)

Seksaria Trading Company Ltd. v. State of Bihar

1986-05-21

S.ROY

body1986
JUDGMENT S. Roy, J. By this application the petitioner, a limited company, has prayed for quashing Annexure10, the order of the Central Government rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner under rule 54 of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 (in short, the Rules). Prayer has also been made for quashing the order of the State Government as contained in Annexure-12 by which the petitioner was informed that the application for renewal of the lease has been rejected. 2. The petitioner obtained lease for mining mica sometimes in June, 1959 from the then landlord or the village. After coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the lease of the petitioner was renewed for twenty years for the period from 1.7.1959 to 30.6.1979 and an indenture was registered on 20.10.1962, on 29.6.1978 in terms of rule 22 of the said Rules, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of the lease. No written order rejecting the application for renewal was passed by the State Government. As the renewal application was not disposed of within one year, the petitioner took it that its application has been deemed to have been refused and it filed the revision application under rule 54 before the Central Government on 22.9.1975. The Central Government rejected the revision application bolding that it was barred by limitation as the application for revision was filed after five months three days, i.e. long after the period fixed under rule 54. It also held that the application for renewal was filed by the petitioner beyond time. 3. However, during the pendency of this writ application by order contained in Annexure 12 the State Government rejected the prayer for renewal. The grounds on which the application for renewal was rejected were that there was huge arrear of royalty with the petitioner and that inspite of the demand it has failed to produce the certificate of fitness. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf or the State Government. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf or the Union or India, respondent no. 3. The facts which have been noticed above have not been denied in the counter affidavit. 5. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf or the State Government. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf or the Union or India, respondent no. 3. The facts which have been noticed above have not been denied in the counter affidavit. 5. So far the second finding is concerned according to the Central Government, as appears from Annexure 10, the application for renewal filed by the petitioner to the State Government wall not one year before the expiry of the period of lease, This finding was recorded by the Central Government because it committed an error with regard to the dates. The lease of the petitioner was renewed for the period from 1.7.1959 to 30.60.1979. It was, therefore required to file the application for renewal on or before 29.6.1978. The Central Government was of the opinion that the application for renewal ought to have been filed on or before 27.6.1978. This does cot appear to be correct. This finding of the Central Government cannot be sustained. 6. So far as the delay in filing the revision application is concerned, the application for renewal was filed on 29.6.1998. Rule 24(2) provides that an application for renewal of mining lesse shall be disposed of within six months from the date of its receipt. According to the Central Government, since no order was passed by the State Government, within six months from the date of the receipt of the application for renewal, the prayer for renewal of the application of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been refused. Under rule 24(2), application for renewal is required to be disposed of within six month, from the date of its receipt. Rule 24(3) provides that the application for renewal shall be deemed to have been refused if it is not disposed of within the period specified in sub-rule (1), that is within twelve months, from the date of its receipt Under the two sub-rules, that is, (2) and (3), two periods have been fixed. For filing revision application when does limitation start ? There cannot be two periods of limitation for the same situation, Two different situations are, therefore, envisaged. When rule 24(2) fixes the period of six months for disposal of application for renewal, it envisages disposal by a written order. For filing revision application when does limitation start ? There cannot be two periods of limitation for the same situation, Two different situations are, therefore, envisaged. When rule 24(2) fixes the period of six months for disposal of application for renewal, it envisages disposal by a written order. If it is not disposed of by a written order within six months, under rule 24(3) the application shall be deemed to have been refused on the expiry of twelve months. If the renewal application is disposed of within six months by a written order, limitation for filing revision application shall have to be counted from the date of disposal, if not so disposed of, it shall be a case of deemed refusal after the expiry of one year and the limitation shall have to be computed from that date. Since the application was tiled by the petitioner on 29.6.1978 and no written order was paned by the State Government within six months, it shall be deemed to have been refused on the expiry of twelve months, i.e. on 29.6.1979. The revision application was dated 22.8.1979 and the same was received by the Central Government on 30.8.1979. Even if the date of the receipt of the application is included it was surely within three months from the date of deemed refusal. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, the order of the Central Government as contained in Annexure 10 cannot be sustained. 8. So far as Annexure 12 is concerned, against that order the petitioner has right to file revision application before the Central Government under rule 54. Therefore no relief can be granted to the petitioner against annexure 12 in this writ application. If revision is filed by the petitioner against the order contained in Annexure 12, the same shall be disposed of by the revisional authority in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the application is allowed in part and Annexure 10 is quashed. The Central Government shall after giving notice to the petitioner pass a fresh order on the revision application filed by the petitioner. 10. After I dictated the judgment it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Bank guarantee of the value of Rs. 20,000/- was furnished by the petitioner in terms of the order of this Court passed on 15.1.1980 and the same wag kept enforceable by renewing the same from time to time. 10. After I dictated the judgment it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Bank guarantee of the value of Rs. 20,000/- was furnished by the petitioner in terms of the order of this Court passed on 15.1.1980 and the same wag kept enforceable by renewing the same from time to time. In Annexure 12, it has been stated that huge amount in the form of royalty is due from the petitioner, that has been disputed by the petitioner. Without going into correctness of the demand of the State Government or the denial of its liability by the petitioner, whether the petitioner has any liability or not will depend on the decision of the Central Government, if a revision application is filed by the petitioner challenging the order contained in Annexure 12, since the petitioner hits succeeded with regard to annexure 10 and as the bank guarantee was furnished in pursuance of an order passed by this Court with regard to that order, the bank guarantee shall be returned to petitioner. Application dismissed.