KAYS CONCERN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 1042 · Decided: 06-04-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1042 
KAYS CONCERN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
April 6, 1976 
[P. N. BuAGWATI, A. C. GuPTA AND s. MURTAzA FAZAL Au, JJ.] 
Mi1.1eraJ Concession Rufes, 1960, Rule 54-Dispo::>al of revision application 
-Ohhgat1011 ol Central Govern111e11t to (,Ollsidcr tlie entire material before 
ii. 
On the expiry of his sub~lease for extracting phosphale form an area of 
400 hectares situate in Singbhum district, Bihar, the appellant applied to the 
State Government for a grant of fresh lease. For nine months the State 
Government failed to dispose of his _application, and under R. 24(3) of the-
Mineral Concession Ilules, 1960, it was deemed to have been refused. Under 
_ Rut~ 54 of the ~1fineral Concession Rules, 1960, the appellant applied for 
revision and the Centtal Government directed the State Government to consider 
his application on merits. The State Government rejected the applk~ation on .. 
the ground that it had decided not to grant lease for pho..."<phate to individuals 
or private parties, but to work this mineral in the public sector. The app'eJ-
lant again applied for revision during the pendency of which an advertisement 
of the State Government appeared in the 'Statesman' indicating the abandon-
ment of its proposal to mine phosphate and apatite in the public sector. 
The appellant brought the advertisement to the notice of the Central Govern* 
1nent, 
but it rejected his revision application. 
completely disregarding the 
advertisement. 
The appellant preferred an appeal to this Court hy "pecial leave. 
Al!owinf the appeal and remanding the case to the Central Government, 
the Court, 
HELD : 
The Central Government failed to take into consideration this 
advertisement which appeared to indicate a change in the stand of the State 
Oovern1ncnl, and made its order in complete disregard of it. 
Thts was clear 
nonMapplication of n1ind on the part of the Central Government to a very 
material circun1stance which was brought to its notice before its disposal of 
the revision application. 
The order of the Central Government, therefore, sufM 
fers from a patent error. 
[l 0440-H, 1045A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1633 of 1968. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 
2nd December, 1967 of the Government of India, Ministry of Steel, 
Mines and Metals (Department of Mines and Metals) at New Delhi 
in No. M.V. 1 (141) /67. 
S. K. Mehta and K. R. Nagaraja, for the appellant. 
S. P. Nayar and Girish Chandra, f.~r respondent No. l. 
U. P. Singh and Shambhu Nath !ha, for respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHAGWATI, !-
This appeal can be disposed of on a very nap:,ow 
point and we will, therefore, se! ont. only so m~ch of ~he facts givmg 
rise to the appeal as bear on this, pomt and omit what 1s unnecessary. 
Since 23rd December, 1959 the appellants had a sub-lease from 
the Receiver in Suit No. 203 of 1905 for extracting phosphate from 
! 
• 
• 
• 
KAYS CONCERN v. UNION (Bhagwati, ].) 
I 0 43 
an area of 400 hectares situate in Singhbhum District in the State of 
Bihar. 
This sub-lease, according to the State of Bihar, came to an 
end from 1st September, 1964 and the appellants, therefore, made an 
application to the State of Bihar on 22nd/24th March, 1965 for a 
grant of fresh mining lease for extraction of apatite and pl10sphate from 
the same area under Rule 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 
made by the Central Government under s. 13 of the Mines & Minerals 
(Regulation & Development) Act, 1957. The State 
Government 
failed to dispose of the application within a period of nine months 
from the date of its receipt and hence under Rule 24(3) of the Mine-
ral Concession Rules, 1960 the application was deemed to have been 
refused by the State Government. The appellants preferred a revi-
sion application to the Central Government on 16th February, 1966 
against the deemed refusal of their application under Rule 54 of the 
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The Central Government disposed 
of the revision application by an order dated 31st December. 1966 
directing the State Government to consider the application of the 
appellants and to decide it on merits. 
The State Government there-
after by an order dated 9th February, 1967 rejected the application 
of the appellants on the ground that the State Government had already 
taken a decision not to grant lease for phosphate ore to any individual 
or private party as it had decid

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