KRISHNA KUMAR MEDIRATTA versus PHULCHAND AGARWALA & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 702 · Decided: 21-01-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

E 
G 
702 
KRISHNA KUMAR MEDIRATTA 
v. 
PHULCHAND AGARWALA & ORS. 
January 21, 1977 
[A. N. RAY, C.J. AND M. H. BEG, J.] 
N{:nes & MineraJs (Regulation and Development) Act 1957, ss. 11 (2) and 19 
-Mmeral C.oncesswns Ru_les, 1960; Rules 9(2), 10, 11, 13-Scope of-A bona 
fide application accompa111ed by an incorrectly calculated fee or a fee wlzici1 is 
.dificient by oversight, if made good later is valid d.nd it takes precedents under 
s. 11 (2) for a preferential right as among contesting applicants. 
The appellant applied on 14-10-1961 for a prospecting licence for an area 
of 833.53 acres under rule 9(1) of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960. The 
application was in order, in all respects, except to the extent that instead of 
Rs. 32/-, the fees payable, a sum of Rs. 24/- only was paid. 
However, on 
realisation of this mistake, he paid the deficit of Rs. 8/- on 28-12-1961 and, by 
way of abundant caution, made a fresh application on 26-2-1962. 
Respondent 
No. 1 had applied on 2-11-1961 for a prospecting licence- for 748.16 acres out 
of which 272.40 acres were common with those for which the appellant had 
already applied. 
Since no orders were passed disposing of the applications of 
the appellant within 90 days of the making of it, the appellant filed a revision 
before the Central Government treating this omission on the part of the State 
to be tentamount to refusal of his application as provided by rule 11 (1). On 
20-10-1964, the Central Government asked the· State GovernmenJ to 
consider 
the application of the appellant dated 14-10-1961 within the next 9 months. The 
State Government, instead of considering the application dated 14-10-1961 as 
directed, offered thrice, on 30-1-1965, 7-7-1965 and 2-4-1970, 
a 
prospecting 
licence for an area of 365 acres which was not accepted by him and his attempts 
by way of revision against these orders to the Central Government and a writ 
petition in the High Court failed. The State Government, however, on 22-6-1965, 
directed the grant of a prospecting licence to respondent No. I for an area 
including 272.40 acres in dispute which was actually executed in his favour on 
30-4-1970. 
The appellant's objection before the Collector 
against 
this 
was 
rejected. 
On 12-4-1973, the Central Government accepted the objection relating 
to 272.40 acres and opined that his application dated 14-10-1961 was earlier in 
point of time within the meaning of s. 11 (2) of .the Mines & Minerals _(Regula-
tion and Development) Act, 1957. 
Agamst this order the respondent No. 1 
went to the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 
The High Court 
quashed the orders of the Central Government, by its order dated 12-3-1974 and 
held the application of the appellant d~ted. 14-10-196.1 not having been accom-
panied by the correct fee was no application at all m the eye of law. 
Accepting the appeal by special le.ave, the Court, 
HELD : (I) After considering legal position and all the facts and equities 
of the case the Central Government correctly held, on the question 
of law 
before it that the appellant's application before the State Government was a 
valid one' as it had been entertained without objection even if it was not accom-
panied, when filed, by the correct amount of fee. [706 A, El 
. (2) The Central Government bad correctly relied upon an estoppel against 
the State Government. The deficiency in the fees having been duly accepted on 
behalf of the State Government, it was bound to proceed on the assumption that 
there was a proper application before it valid from the date. of filing 
i~ .. The 
State Government was precluded by its own deeds from denying the validity of 
"the application. [706 A, El 
.> 
i 
j 
KRISHNA KUMAR V. PHUL CHAND (Beg, J.} 
703 
( 3) There is no patent error upon the face of the record warranting a cor• 
rection in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Con-
stitution by the High Court in the instant case. On the other hand, High Court 
itself committed an apparent error in holding that an application which· has only 
to be accompanied by the fee would be considered validly filed on the date on 
which it was filed only if proper fees has been tendered with it when it was 
filed. 
[706 G-Hl 
( 4) It is not very becoming for Governmental authorities when duties laid 
down by statutory rules having been performed by them, to take shelter behind 
such technicalities for denying a citizen's right to have his application

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