MADAN GOPAL RUNGTA versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 906 · Decided: 16-03-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1161 
Mohamm<dbh.i 
Khudob..x Cll/tipa 
•• 
Tira Blall of<Jujarol 
WancAH ,1. 
1961 
Morch JG. 
• 
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. 
undor Ar_t. 31(1). 
\Ve may add that the same will 
apply to fecH collcctecl 11nder 8. I I ancl validated by 
sub-s. (2) of s. 29.R. Thcre iR therefore no force in 
this contention. It iR hcrc:by rejected. 
In the result, the petitions are dismissed 
with cost;i, One set of hearing fee. 
Petilfon.y dismissed. 
MADAN GOPAL RU~GTA 
v. 
SECRETAH.YTO THE OOVERNMENTOF 
ORISSA 
(B. P. SINHA, ·p, B. 
GA.mNDRAGADKAR, K. ~­
WANCHOO, N. RA.JAOOPALA AYYANOAH, and 
T. L. VENKATARA)[A AIYAR, JJ.) 
Writ-Iliyh Court-If can i.<.1uc writs beyond its terri-
torial 
juristliclion-Mi11eral Conce..;sion /l1de.~, 194.9, 6,57 !J.'J 
00-Constilution of India Ari. 226. 
' 
' 
The Stace Government of Orissa rejected the appli-
cation of the appellant who had applied f()r grant of a min-
ing least: in Decr.rnher 1957 
on the ground that the State 
Government proposed to arrangr. for lhe exploitation of the 
area in the public si:ctor. 
The appellant rnadr. an application 
for review to the Central Govern1nent under r. 57 of the 
rules of Mineral Concession Rub, 1949. 
This application 
was rejected by 
the Central Government in June 1959. 
Thereupon the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of 
the Constitution in the High Court of Oris'ia. 
This petition 
was dismhsed by th~ 1-ligh Court on the ground that it had 
no j11risdiction to dc;1l \vi th the matter under l\rt. 226 a'i 
the final order in the case \\'a." passed by the Central Govern-
ment, \vhich ,.,·as located beyond the territorial jurisdiction 
of the High Court. The appellant came up by special leave 
to appeal to the Supren1e Court. The 1nain question is as 
to the limit of the jurisdiction of the Iiigli Court under Art. 
226. The appellant contended that as the Central Go,·ern-
!JlCnt had rq.crely dismissed the rev~cw petition, the effective 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
907 
order rejecting the appellant's application for the mining 
lease was that of the State Government and therefore the 
High {!ourt would have juris.diction to grant a writ under 
Art. 226. 
Held, that the High .Court was right in holding that 
it had no jurisdiction to issue a wiit under Art. 226 in the 
present case as the final order in this case was that of the 
Central Government which was not situa"te within the trrri-
tories over which the High Court had jurisdiction. This order 
of the Central Gover.nment in effect rejecting the application 
of the appellant for the grant of the mining ]ease to him and 
confirming the rejection of the application of the appellant 
by the Orissa Government is clearly not amenable to the 
jurisdiction of the High Court of Orissa under Art. ·226 in 
view of the fact that the Ccn tral Government is not located 
within the territories subject to the jurisdiction of the Orissa 
High Court. It would therefore ha\e been useless for the 
Orissa High Court to issue a writ against the Orissa Govern-
ment for the Central Government's Order rejecting the appli-
cation of the appellant for the grant of the mining lease would 
still stand. 
Held, further that quite apart from the theoretical ques-
tion of the merger of the State Government's Order with the 
Central Government's Order, 
the terms 
of r. 60 of the 
Mineral Concession Rule 1949 make it perfectly clear that 
whenever the matter is brought to the Central Government 
under r. 59, it is the order of the Central Government which 
is effective and ·final. 
So where there is a review petition 
and the· Central Government passes an order on such 'peti-
tion one .way or the other it is the Central Government's 
Order that prevails and the State Government's Order must 
in those circumstances merge in the order of the Central 
Government. 
Election Gom,mission I nrlia v. l3aka V enkafa l:Jubha Rao, 
(1953) S.C.R. 1144, Lt. Col. Kltajoo" Sin(lh v. Union of India, 
(1961) 2 S.C.R. 828, A. T!iangol Kunju Musaliar v. M. 
Venlcitaclmlam PoUi (1955) 2 S.C.R. 1196 relied on. 
"Shivji Nathuh/;ai v. The Union of India, (1960) 2 S.C.R. 
775, referred to. 
The 8tate of U!U:-" Pradesh v. Mohammad Noolt, (1958) 
S.C.R. 595, not apphcable. 
CIVIL APPELI,AT!'J JumswcTioN: Civil App<'~! 
No. 407/61, 
1962 
Madan Gopal 
Rung ta 
•• 
Secretary to lhe 
Governmeiit of Orissa 
1962 
JI.Coo Oopal 
Rwegta 
v. 
8 ""''"9 lo '"' 
Ooomrm1 ·1 oJ Orilsa 
W 1nch()Q J. 
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 
Appea

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