MADHYA PRADESH INDUSI'RIES LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 16-08-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MADHYA PRADESH INDUSI'RIES LTD. 
v. 
UNIO'.'i OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
August 16, 1965 
[K. Si;BBA RAO, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.) 
Mines .u1d Minerals (Re1111/atio11 and Development) Act (67 of 1957), 
s. 17 and Mineral Concession Rules. r. 55-Revisionul Jurisdic1io11 
of 
Central Gover11n1ent--Ohligation to cive reasons and personal hearing. 
Ccnj-iitution of /11dia, 1950, Art. 136-l>iscrrtionary jurisdiction. 
In 1959 on the application of the appellant for a mining lease in an 
.1rca the then Government of Bombay made an order granling the entire 
area of the mines to the appellant; but in 1960, the State of Bombay 
ha»ing been divided into the Stale< of Maharashtra and Gujarat. the 
Government of Maharashtra, in v.·hich State the mines fell, reserved the 
mines for exploitation in the public sector and informed the appellant 
that its application for a mining lease \vas rejected. 
The appcllanr's 
revision application under r. 55 of the 
~lineral Conce95ion Rules. was 
rejected by the Central Government. 
Thereafter, the Slate Government 
changed its mind and again called for applications for the grant of a 
mining !ease, and the appellant submitted its application. 
f\lcanwhile, the 
appellant filed an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution, 
lo 
this 
(~ourt. against the order of the Central Government dismissing irs revision 
applica1ion. 
In the appeal. the respondent urged that since the appellant bad 
submitted a fresh application, it \I. as not a tit case for the exercise of 
the jurisdiction of the Court under Arr. 136, and the appellant contended 
that the order of the Central Government was oad because : (i) the 
n1ines could not he plaet:d in the public sector without complying \vith 
the provisions of s. 17 of the Mines and Minerah (Rcgula1ion and Deve-
lopment) Ac1. 1957; (ii) the Central Government i~norcd lhe final order 
of the Government of Bombay granting the lease of the mines to the 
appellant~ (iii) no personal hc;1ring 
wa~ given 
10 rhe appellant: and 
(iv) no reasons \\'Cre given in the order. 
HELD (By Full Court) : (i) The appellant having taken the opportu-
nity to apply for lhc leas~. it \vas not a fit ca"e for 11Hcrfercncc under 
,\rt. 136. 1475 II, CJ 
(ii) Sccrion 17 h;1s nn bearing on the question •H i~-;uc, as it has nothiog 
1l1 do with public or pri\·atc seclors. (474 E-F; 47) C-DJ 
(iii) The order of the Government of Bomhay. \\"a" onlv a recom-
mendation to 
the (~cntral Government for rhc grant of a rTiining lease 
lo the appellant. 1474 D; 475 Di 
(iv) The appellant \\'as n01 entitled to a pcr:-.on:.il hearing hefore the 
Central Government. 1473 F; 475 C-D] 
Per Suhba Rao. J.-Rulc 5), requires a reasonable opportunity to be 
given to the applicant. 
But the oppor1unity need not necessarily be by 
personal hearing, even if it was asked for. 
It could be by written repre-
~entalion. 
It depends on the facts of each case and is ordinarily in the 
d;ocrction of the tribunal. [473 G-HJ 
•
A 
c 
I> 
•
I
E 
G 
II 
·~ ' ' ' 
"'. 
~ ' 4 
~ . , 
• 
• 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H' 
M. P. INDUSTRIES v. UNION (Subbai Rao, I.) 
461 
(v) Per Mudholkar and Bachawat, JJ.-The revision application was 
rejected by the Central Government because it agreed with the reasons 
given by the Government of Maharashtra, for refusing ,the appellant's 
application for a mining lease. 
The Central Government act.J.ng under 
r. 55, was therefore not bound to give in its order, fuller reasons for 
rejecting the application. [476 Bl 
Per Subba Rao, J. (Contra) : Neither the Stale Government's nor the 
Central Government's order disclosed reasons for rejecting the appellant's 
application, and therefore the Central Government's order was 
vitiated. 
~473 E] 
The Central Government was acting judiciaJiy as a tribunal, under 
r. 55, and so its decision was subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court 
under Art. 136. 
Therefore, it should give reasons for its order. If 
tribunals can make orders without giving reasons, it may lead to abuse 
of power in the hands of unscrupulous or dishonest officers. 
But, if 
reasons are given, it will be an 
effective restraint on such abuse, as the 
order, if it discloses extraneous or irrelevant considerations, will be ~ubject 
to judicial scrutiny and correction. 
A speaking order at its best will be 
reasonable and at its worst plausible. 
But, the extent, and nature of the 
reasons deP'~nd upon each cnse. 
\Vhat is essential is that reasons shall 
be given by an appella

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