D. N. KOY AND S. K. BANNERJEE AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 522 · Decided: 30-09-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

522 
D. N. KOY AND !'. K. BANNERJEE AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIRAK AND ORS. 
September 30, 1970 
(J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE 
AND A. N. GROVER, JJ,J 
Mineral Concession . Rules, 1960, rr. 54, 55-Disµosal of applica-
sion-exercise of Suo-motu powers-Whether can be done without affarJ. 
i'ng opportunity. 
The respondent-State granted a mining lease to the appellant. 
The 
5th respondent, whose application was rejecteQ_ moved the Cl!ntral Gov-
ernment under rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, praying 
(i) 
for setting 
aside 
the 
grant in 
favour of 
the 
appellant, 
and (ii) for grant of the area on 
lease to him. The Central 
Gov-
ernment asked f9r the comments of the appellant and the State Govern-
ment and after receipt of 
these comments, they 
were passed to the 
parties for further 
co_mments. The 
Central Government by an order 
passed on Sept. 30, 1964 rejected the application of 5th respondent as 
time-barred. Thereafter, the Central Government on Nov. 5, 1964, under 
the revisionary powers conferred by r. 55, of the Rules and "all 
the 
powers enabling in this behalf," set aside the order granting the lease to 
the appellant, and further directed regrant after issuing fresh notifica-
tion. 
The appellant, moved the High Court under Art. 226 of 
the 
Constitution for quashing the order of November, 1964, The High Court 
dismissed the , petition. 
HELD : The appeal as well as the Writ Petition must be a)lowed 
and the order cf the Central Government Nov. 5, 1964 must be set aside. 
The }ligh Court erred in its approach that the two prayers in the 
application of the 5th respondent wefe independent, and that the Central 
Government by its order of Sept. 30, 1964 had disposed of only .the prayer 
of 5th respondent to grant the area on lease to him, but it had not disposed 
of his other prayer to cancel the grant in favour of the appellant; The 
two reliefs asked for by the 5th respondent were inter-connected reliefs. 
Jn the context in whiCh they were mad, they could not be considered 
as independent prayers. Further by its order dated September 30. 1964, 
the Central Government dismissed the entire· application of the 5th res-
pondent on the ground that the same was time-barred. 
If his applica-
tion in respect of one part of his prayer was time-barred, it v.'as equally 
time-barred in respect of t"" other part . .[527 B-0] 
The order of Nov. 5, 1964 of the Central Government does u.ot show 
that it was made in the exercise of its suo motu powers. 
It is ·purported 
to have been made on the basis of the application made by the 5th 
respondent. [527 El 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
If the Central Government wanted to exercise its suo motu power 
ll 
it should have intimated that fact as well as the grounds on which it 
proposed to exercise that power to the appellant and given him .an oppor-
tunity to show cause against the exercise of suo motu power as well as 
I 
D. N. ROY v. BIHAR (Hegde, J.) 
523 
A 
against the grounds on which it wanted to exercise its poiNer. The Central 
Government had not given him that opportunity. Failure of the Central 
Government to do so, vitiates the impugned order. L527 H] 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeal No. 1908 ot 
1968. 
Appeal from the judgment and decr.ee dated August 9, 1966-
of the Patna High Court in Misc. Judicial Case No. 1665 of 
1964. 
M. C. Chagla, Kai/ash Mehta al!ld A. K. Nag, for the appel-
lants. 
C 
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor-General 
and R. C. Prasad, for 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4. 
V. A. Seyid Muhammad 
and S. P. Nayar, for respondent 
No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J. On June 24, 1959, the Deputy Commissioner 
Santai Parganas caused a notice dated June 20, 1959 published 
in the Bihar Gazette in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 7 
of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, of the availability for 
regrant of mining rights in respect of fireclay over the whole of 
village Palasthali No. 39, situate in Thana Nala, Block Kasta, 
Sub-Division Jamtara in the District of Santai Parganas. 
He 
announced in that notice that the said area will be available for 
regrant with effect from August l, 1959 and invited applications 
for grant of mining lease in respect of that area in accordance 
with the provisions of Mineral Concession Rules, 1949. 
The 
appellant, a partnership firm applied for that lease on June 24, 
1959 itself. 
Thereafter other persons including the Sth respon--
dent Nankhu Singh also applied

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