DHARAM CHAND JAIN versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1976] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 53 · Decided: 14-04-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
• 
-; 
53 
DHARAM CHAND JAIN 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
April 14, 1976 
IP. N. BHAGWATI, A. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] 
B 
Miner.al Concession Rules 1960--r .. 54-Scope of. 
On September 12, 1958, the appellant made an application to the State 
Government under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for the grant of a 
mining lease. 
HavinQJ had no reply from the State Government be filed 
a 
revision application on June 21, 1961 before the Central Government which 
directed the State Government to dispose of the application. 
Since, there 
was no reply from the1 State Government, the appellant! filed a second rev1s1on 
.appfication before the Central Government, 
which by its order dated Nov-
ember, 21, 1964, 
allowed it. 
Even so, 'the State Government refused to 
implement that order. A third revision application was filed on January 27, 
1961 before the Central Government which, after obtaining the views of the 
State Government, rejected it. 
Allo\ving the appeal against the order of the Central Governn1ent, 
HELD : 
(1) The State Government being a subordinate authority in the 
matter of grant of a mining lease, was obliged under the lav..' to carry out 
the orders of the Central Governmerit. It was not open to the Stat-e to decline 
to carry out the orders of the Central Governn1ent particularly because the 
Central Government was a Tribunal superior to the State Government. In 
vie\v of Government's order dated November 21, 1964, it \vas not open to 
the State Government to reject the application on any ground whatsoever. 
If the State Government found itself unable to implement the order, a refer-
ence could have been made to the Central Goyernment for obtaining necessary 
directions. 
If any ground came into existence subsequent to the making of 
the order of the Central Government, the State Government could have brought 
it to the notice of the Central Governn1ent. 
In any case, the State Gov-
-ernment could not have refused to implement the order of the Central Gov-
ernment unless that Government itself chose to revise it either on a reference 
'Or suo n1oto. f57 C-E1 
(2) l!nder r. 54 of the Miheral Concessions Rule, 1960 the C'entral Gov-
ernment acts as a revisional tribunal against MY order passed by the State 
Gov.:::i.11ment. 
When the State Governme11t refused to can-y out the order, the 
Central Governn1ent should have proceeded to set aside the State Clovernment's 
order and directed it to grant the application. The Central Government has 
not disposed of the revision application in accordance with taw. 
[55 B, 56 F] 
(3) Assuming that the Central Government could revise its earlier order, 
1hat could be done only if some fresh ground came into existence. There was 
absolutely no legal justification for the Central Government to go "back upon 
its earlier aider which stood unvaried and unvacated. 
[58 A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1414 of 1968. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
17th February 1968 of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Steel, Mines 
and Minerals. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
54 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1976] SUPPLEMENTARY 
A 
A. K. Sen, B. D. Khanna, Bishambar Lal and H. K. Puri, for the 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Appellant. 
D. Goburdhan for Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAZAL ALI, J. 
This is an appeal by special leave against the order 
of the Central Government dated February 17, 1968, reiecting the 
revision application filed by the appellant before the Central Govern-
ment under r. 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. This 
appeal reveals a wavering and vacillating attitude of the State Govern-
ment of Bihar taking inconsistent stands in refusing to implement 
a quasi-judicial order passed by the Central Government in favour 
of the appellant on one pretext or another spreading over several 
years. 
This has naturally resulted in a substantial miscarriage of 
justice to the appellant who, was compelled to toss like a shuttle-cock 
from State Government to Central Government by filing revisions 
after revisions against the orders of the State Government which 
shows a somewhat extraordinary and curious conduct of the State 
Government. 
The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass. 
The 
appellant applied on September 12, 1958, for grant of a mining 
licence in an area of 66. 77 acres in tehsil Ramgarh and deposited 
the prescribed fees of Rs. 700/-. The State Government was unable 
to make

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