BHAGAT RAJA versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 302 · Decided: 29-03-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BHAGAT RAJA 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
March 29, 1967 
[K. SUBBA RAO, C.J., J. C. SHAH, J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA 
AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J 
Mines & Minerals (Regulation and Dev.elapme11t) Act, 1957, s. 30 
and Rules 54 & 55 1nade under the Act--State Governnient's 
order 
refusing mining lease to one party and granting it 'to another-Central 
Governnient whether in deciding revision under r. 55 should pass 'speak-
ing order. 
The appellant was one of several applicants for a mmmg lease 
in 
Andhra Pradesh. 
The State Government however granted it to respon-
dent No. 3. 
The appellant then filed an application in revision, under 
s. 30 of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, 
read with r. 54, to the Union of India. 
Respondent No. 3 filed 
a 
counter statement and the State Government filed its comments. 
The 
appellant filed a rejoinder. · The Union Government without hearing the 
appellant rejected his revision application, 
An appeal was filed before 
this Court. The question that fell for consideration was whether it was 
necessary for the Government of India to give reasons for its decision 
in view of the provisions of the Act and the Rules or aliunde because 
the decision was liable to be questioned in appeal to this Court. 
HELD: (i) In exercising its powers ·of revision under r. SS 
the 
Central Government discharges fuiictioas which are quasi-judicial, 
The 
decisions of tribunals in India are subject to the supervisory powers of 
the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution and 
of appellate 
powers of this court under Art. 136. 
Both the High Court and this 
Court are placed under a great disadvantage if no reasons are given and 
the revision is dismissed curtly by the use of the single word 'rejected' 
or 'dismissed'. In such a case this Court can probably only exercise its 
appellate jurisdiction ..,,atisfactorily by examining the entire records of the 
case and after giving a hearing come to its conclusion on the merits of 
the case. This would certainly be a very unsatisfactory method of dealing 
with the appCal. 
[308E-F; 309B-C] 
If the State Government gives sufficient reasons for 
accepting the 
application of one party and rejecting that of others, as it must, and the 
Central Government adopts the ·reasoning of the State Government, this 
Court may proceed to examine whether the reasons given are sufficient 
for the purpose of upholding the decision. 
But when the reasons given 
in the order of the State Government are scrappy or nebulous and the 
Central Government 
makes 
no attempt 
to clarify 
the 
same, 
this 
Court. in appeal 
may 
have 
to examine the case de novo, without 
anybody 
being 
the 
wiser 
for the review by 
the Central Govern-
ment. 
The same difficulty would arise where the 
State 
Government 
gives a number of reasons some of which are good and some are not and 
the 
Central Government 
gives its decision 
without specifying 
those 
reasons which according to it are sufficient to uphold the ord~r of the 
State Govemn1ent. 
That is why in such circumstances, what 1s known 
as a 'speaking order' is called for. 
[309C-FJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
BHAGAT RAJA v. UNION (Mitter, J.) 
303 
A 'speaking order' is all the more necessary in the case of a decision 
under r. 55 because there is provision for new material being placed 
before the Central Government which was not there before the State 
Government, and further, because the decision, affecting important rights 
of parties, is given in a sui:imary manner without a hearing. ~eing allowed 
to the parties. 
A party IS entitled to know why the dec1S1on has gone 
against him. 
[320G-321B] 
The absence in r. 55 of any provision for giving such reasons is not 
decisive of the matter in view of the above considerations. 
[315H] 
Shivji Nathub/Jai v. The Union of India, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 775, M.P. 
Industries v. Union, [1966] 1 S.C.R. 466, Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. 
Shyam Sundar lhunjhunwala, (1962] 2 S.C.R. 339 and Sardar Govindrao 
v. State, [1965] I S.C.R. 678, followed. 
Nandram Hunatram, Calcutta v. Union of India, A.i.R. 1966 S.C. 
1922 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. K. V. Pi//iah, 43 I.T.R. 411, 
distinguished. 
Rex v. Northumberland Compensation 
Appeal 
Tribunal 
Ex flprte 
Shaw, [1951] 1 K.B. 711, Vedachala Mudaliar v. State of Madras, AO.R. 
1952 Madras 276, Ramayya v. State of Andhra, I.L.R. 1956 Andhra 712, 
Annamalai v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1957 Andhra Prad

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.