M/S. KALINGA MINING CORPORATION versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 814 · Decided: 07-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 814 
M/S. KALINGA MINING CORPORATION 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1013 of 2013) 
FEBRUARY 07,.2013. 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND H.L.GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Res Judicata: 
c 
Writ petition - Substitution of legal heirs of applicant for 
grant of mining lease - Allowed by High Court - SLP 
dismissed in limine - Issue again raised by appellant in writ 
petition challenging the order of granting mining lease - Held: 
It cannot be said that High Court has effoneously accepted 
0 the plea raised by LRs of respondent that the claim of 
appellant is baffed by re~ judicata - On the plea of a decision 
in a subsequent judgment, the issue cannot be permitted to 
be reopened since it has become final inter partes -
Judgments - Finality of judgment. 
E 
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: 
r.25-A - Held: Is prospective in operation. 
Administrative Law: 
F 
Opportunity of hearing - Mining lease - Plea of violation 
of principles of natural justice alleging that parties wers heard 
by a differsnt officer and decision was made by another officer 
- Held: Judicial rsview of administrative action/quasi judicial 
orders passed by Government is limited only to correcting the 
G errors of law or fundamental procedural rsquirsments which 
may lead to manifest injustice - When conclusions of 
authority ars based on evidence, the same cannot be rs-
apprsciated by the court in exercise of its powers of judicial 
rsview - In the instant case, the order was the verbatim 
H 
814 
KALINGA MINING CORPORATION v. UNION OF INDIA 815 
& ORS. 
reproduction of report prepared by the officer who had heard A 
the parties and it was signed by the other officer merely to 
communicate the approval of Central Government to parties 
- It is clearly a case of institutional hearing - Order does not 
suffer from any legal or procedural infirmity - Judicial review. 
In response to the notification dated 20.7.1965 issued 
by the State Government, the appellant, respondent no. 
10 and others submitted their applications for grant of 
mining lease in respect of the notified area. On 8.6.1973, 
B 
the Central Government rejected all the applications. C 
Respondent no. 10 filed a writ petition (OJC No. 829 of 
1978), which was allowed by High Court on 4.9.1987 
directing the Central Government to reconsider the matter 
after giving all the parties concerned an opportunity of 
hearing. On 10.9.1987 respondent no. 10 died. Legal heirs 
of respondent no. 10 approached the High Court for D 
substitution, which was allowed. 
On 8.4.1999, the Central Government approved the 
recommendation of the State Government for grant of 
mining lease in favour of legal representatives of E 
respondent no. 10. In the writ petition filed by the 
appellant, the High Court, by its order dated 2.7.2001 held 
that on the death of respondent no. 10, her application 
for mining lease did not abate. SLP No. 13556 of 2001 filed 
by the appellant against the said order was dismissed in 
F 
limine on 24.8.2001. Ultimately, by order dated 27.9.2001, 
mining lease was granted in favour of legal 
representatives of respondent no. 10. The appellant 
challenged the said order before the High Court In OCJ 
No. 3662 of 2002. Meanwhile In Sa/igram Khirwal's case It G 
was held that legal heirs could not pursue an application 
for mining lease and that r.25-A was prospective. 
However, the High Court observed that legal heirs would 
be at liberty to make a fresh application In their own right. 
The writ petition was allowed to be amended In view of H 
816 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 1 S.C.R. 
A judgment in Saligram's case, but the preliminary objection 
raised by the appellant regarding the maintainability of the 
application for mining lease by legal heirs, was rejected 
by the High Court, by its order dated 3.8.2007, holding 
that the controversy stood concluded between the parties 
B by rejection of earlier SLP No. 13556 of 2001 on 24.8.2001. 
The appellant challenged the order dated 31.8.2007 in C.A. 
No. 1013 of 2013. OCJ No. 3662 of 2002 was, ultimately, 
dismissed by the High Court on 24.11.2008. The 
appellant challenged the said order in C.A. No. 1014 of 
c 2013. 
In C.A. No 1013 of 2013, the question for 
consideration before the Court was: whether the 
dismissal on 24.8.2001 of the SLP filed by the appellant 
against the judgment of the High Court dated 2.7.2001 in 
D OJC No. 11537 of 1999 would attract ttie principles of res 
juclicata, so as to disentitle the app

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