C. BUCIDVENKATA RAO versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 665 · Decided: 08-03-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. GROVER · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
665 
C. BUCIDVENKATA RAO 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
March 8, 1972 
IA. N. GROVER AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] 
Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, rr. 27 and 32r-Application not ac-
comp•nied by map and containing defects re : area-If should be rejected. 
Practice-If legal representative can continue application for mining 
lease-Eauities. 
The application of one B for a mining lease was rejected on the ,ground 
th~t another applicant V had a prior claim. B's writ application was dis-
miss¢ by the High Court and while bis appeal in this Court was pend-
ing he died and his sons were allowed to be impleaded as legal r~reoen· 
tatives subject to any objection that may be taken tb th,eir nght to 
continoo the appeal. 
Pn the question whether V's application was defective because it was 
not in accordance with r. 27 of the Mineral Concession Rules and because 
of want of a map and ·some details regarding .r,,., and therefore, whether 
B's application should ha"" been granted, 
HELD : ( 1) The details mentioned in r. 27 are intended for· the 
correct identification of the individual to whom the lease is to be granted, 
the minerals which are to be mined the area in respect of which the lease 
was to be granted and the qualifi~tions of till' applicant 
Rules 32(2), 
introduced in 1955, before the grant of V's application, shows that indivi-
dual qualifications of the applicants including their special kriowledge, 
their capacity to engage technically efficient staff, their financial soundness 
and stability, had to be taken into account in determining the question 
of priority. There is no prohibition against the grant of an application 
on the ground that the application is oofioctive or not ~ccornpanied by 
a map. There is also no provision in the Act showing that defects in 
an application could not be .subsequently removed. The form of the 
application is subordinate to the essential facts to be taken into account 
before grnnting a lease. The information given in the application is 
intended for the satisfaction of the authorities granting the lease, so that, 
after coosidering the merits and making a grant, proper details are em· 
bodied in the ·le""" a<',tually granted. The supply of neces931Y details 
is directory and not mandatory. It was not the case here that as a result 
of the defects in V's application the lease itself could nDI be executed. 
Therefore, the mere want of a map or of details describing the area for 
which the lease was applied for, would not Illllke the application itself 
void or of no effect If it did not produce a defect which afiected the 
validity of the leue, and the details supplied in the application colT~ 
ponded with the contents of the lease af!U the Glle&ed lacuna had bQoll 
removed the grant of the lease to V was valid. t669F-H; 670B·FJ 
( 2) In order to ~ble a le pl repreae.ntative fu conliauo a legal proceej-
ing, the right to sue or pursue a remedy must survive the death of his pre-
decessor, Under the rules, ~ 
right of an applicant on the st=ath of 
a superior claim cannot be separated !from his personal quali&atiOltl. 
r6110-HJ 
666 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 3 S.C.R. 
Moreover, there is no provision in the Rules for impie:lding an heir 
A 
to continue the application for a mining lease. The scb<lme under the 
Rules is that if an applicant dies, a fresh application has to be presented 
by the heirs or legal representatives if they desire to apply for the grant 
of a lease. It may be that they may obtain priority owr an earlier appli· 
cant if they are continuing the busmess or industry of the d.ecj:ased, but 
It would be on a fresh application setting out their qualifications. There-
fore, the heifs had no right to continue the appeal in this Court, [672A-Cl 
B 
Dhani Devi v. Sant Bihari & Ors., [1969] 2 S.C.R. 507, distinguished. 
( 3) The acceptance of V's claim by the Government on the strength 
of which he had made his investment, clothes his claim with an equity 
which could not be defuat,ed without clear proof of some overriding legal 
right or interest of another claimant, and, there is no such right in the 
heirs ,of B. [672G·Hl 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2580 of 
1969. 
Appeal from the judgment a:nd order dated August 6, 1969 of 
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 3124 of 1967. 
A. Subba Rao, for the appellants. 
S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. I. 
P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for respondents Nos.-Z1Uld,3; 
P. P. R

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