M/S. NANDRAM HUNATRAM, CALCUTTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1966] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 29-03-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

104 
MIS. NANDRAM HUNATRAM, CALCUTTA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
March 29, 1966 
[M. 
H!DAYATULLAH, J. R. MUDHOLKAR, R. S. BACHAWAT 
AND 
J. M. SHELAT, JJ.1 
Mines and Minerals-Failure t.o fulfil condition of lease and en-
da!lQering colliery-Government if can determine lease-Revi3ion-
A 
B 
Procedure for passing order-Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. 
C 
The appellant-firm held mining lease of a colliery on the condi· 
tlon to continue the wnrk, without voluntary intermission, in a ski!· 
fut and v."Orkman·like manner. The partners fell out amongst them-
aelves, the work of the colliery stopped, wages of the labourers were 
not paid, the essential services stopped working, and the colliery 
began to get flooded. The State Government stepped in and made a 
promise to the essential workmen that their wages would be paid D 
and this saved the colliery. The State Government gave a notice as-
king the firm to remedy the defect within sixty days failing which 
It would take over the colliery. As the firm did nothing to remove 
the defects and did not request for extension of time, the State G<lv-
ernmcnt took over the colliery and terminated the lease. The firm 
filed a revision before the Central Government. The Central Govern-
ment asked for the comments of the State Government and invited 
the firm to make its own comment upon the reply of the State Gov· 
ernment. Taking the entire matter into consideration, the Central 
E 
Government rejected the revision. In appeal to this Court, the firm 
contended that the action by the State Government was arbitrary 
and highhanded and that the Central Government did not give a 
hearing to the firm and also did not give any reasons in its order 
dismissing the revision. 
HELD: The action of the State Government far from being arbi-
trary or capricious was not only right but proper. This was hardly a 
case in which any action other than rejecting the app!ication for re-
p 
vision was called for and a detailed order was really not required be-
cause after all the Central Government was merely approving the 
action taken in the case by the State Gavernment, which stood com-
pletely vindicated. [108 B.c] 
The Mineral Concession Rules make it incumbent on the Central 
Government to obtain the comments of the State Government 
upon the application for revision and cast a duty on the Central Gov· 
G 
ernment to afford an opportunity to the applicant to make represen-
tations in respect of the commenL' of the State Government. This 
procedure was correctly followed and the Central Government thus 
had a detailed discussion of the pros and cons of the case before it 
[107 G]. 
H11rinaaar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shvam Sundar Jhunjhunwala,[19621 
2 S.C.R 339, Madh11a Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India. (1966] 
J.S.C.R. 466 and Aluminium Corporation of India r,td. v. Union of 
India and Ors., C.A. No. 635/64, dated 
2~1965] referred to. 
B 
• 
• 
. '
~ 
' 
 
~ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
NANDRAM HUNATRAM v. TTNIO" (!lirlayatul!ah, J.) 
105 
The firm did not fuM\I its obhgations under the lease and, what-
ever the reason, it was guilty of voluntary intermission in the work-
ing of the colliery and of endangering it by neglect. This entitled the 
State Government to step in and determine the lease under the 
terms of the lease and the provisions of the Mineral Concession 
Rules. [107 C-D]. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 257 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
February 19, 1963 of the Government of India, Ministry of Mines 
and Fuel, New Delhi on an application for review under rule 54 
of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960. 
S. N. Andley, Ramesliwar Nath, P. L. Vohra and Mahinder 
Narain, for the appellant. 
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, R. Ganapathy Iyer and 
B. R. G. K. Achar, for respondent No. I. 
R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, J. The appellant Messrs. Nandram Hunatram 
of Calcutta, a firm co:isisting of four partners including one 
Kishan Lal Aggarwal, held a mining lease for coal in respect of 
Handidhua Colliery for a period of 30 years commencing on 
April 6, 1959. Under Part VII of the lease, which contained the 
covenants of the lessee, the firm had undertaken to commence 
mining operations within one year from the date of the execution 
of the lease and then to continue the work of searching and win-
ning minerals without voluntary intermission in a skilful and 
work
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.