NOOKALA SETHARAMAIAH versus KOTAIAH NAIDU & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 31-03-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
153 
NOOKALA SETHARAMAIAH 
v . 
KOTAIAH NAIDU & ORS. 
March 31, 1970 
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 
Mineral Concession Rules, 1949-Rules 28(l:A). 57(1)-Scope of-
l'ailure of the State Government to dispose of applications for grant of 
mining lease within the time prescribed by the rules-Whether the State 
Government is deemed to have refused the applications. 
Review-If Central Government could review 
u>tder rule 57(1) 
decision of State Government to grant leave pursuant to 111andan1us 
issued by High Court. 
In September, 1953, the first respondent applied for a mining lease 
for over 900 acres in the then Hyderabad State. He was granted a lease 
of about 57 acres in January, 1954, by an order of the State Govern-
ment which was silent as regards the other areas included in his appli-
cation. 
While the respondent kept pressing for a lease of the remaining 
areas, the State Government began to grant some of these areas to other 
persons including the appellant. Meanwhile, on December 8, 
1955, the 
respondent moved the Central Government under Rule 57 of the Mineral 
Concession Rules, I Q49, seeking a direction to the State to grant to 
him the lease of the areas sought by him and to stop granting further 
areas to other applicants. 
This review 
petition 
\Vas dismissed 
on the 
basis that the order of the State Government granting only 57 acres by 
implication amounted 
to a rejection of the respondent's 
claim for 
the 
balance area. 
On September 15, 1956, the Minera1 Concession Rules were amended 
and a new sub rule 28( 1) (A) was introduced which provided that every 
application under Rule 27 shall be disposed of within 9 months from the 
date of its receipt. 
The amended Rule 57 provided that the failure of the 
State Government to dispose of an application within the prescribed period 
would be deemed to be a refusal to grant a lease and that the aggrieved per-
son may, within two months, apply to the Central Government for a re· 
view. 
A further amendment of Rule 57(2) provided that any application 
pending with the State Government on 14th September, 1956 and remain-
ing undisposed of on the 24th1 August, 1957, shall be disposed of by the 
State Government within 
6 months from the latter date. 
Prior to this 
amendment the respondent had filed another review petition before the 
Central Government and on September 26, 1957, that petition was dismiss· 
ed by the Government as "being premature; this was on the basis that the 
respondent's original application was pC11ding on 31st August, 1957, 
and 
the period of 6 months from that date, as prescribed by the amended Rule 
57(2) had not yet expired. 
The respondent then moved the High Court by a petition under 
Article 226 making the State Government alone party and seeking a 
writ of mandamus to the Government to dispose of his application of 
September, 1953, expeditiously. The High Court allowed 
this petition 
and did not accept the contention on behalf of the State Government 
that in view of section 57(2) the respondent's application must be 
ll!Sup Cl/11 
SUPRFME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] l S.C.R. 
deemed to have been rejeC'ted. It held that oection 57(2) was intended to 
be 'for the benefit of the applicant and did not relieve the State Govern-
ment from performing the statutory function imposed on it under rule 
1 7 of granting or refusing the licence. 
During the pcndency uf the 
first petition, the respondent had also filed a second petition seeking the 
sD.me relief and this was disposed o~ in August, 1959 on the basis of a 
statement by the Government Advocate that the State Government was 
prepared to dispose of the first respondent's application on the merits 
without relying on rule 57 (2). 
A 
B 
By an order on May 27, 1961, the State Government granted on 
mining lease to the respondent all the areas for 
which he had applied 
in September, !953 excludng those areas which had been earlier leased 
to others. 
However, the Central Government allowed a review petition 
under Rule 57 filed by the appellant and set aside the o'rder on the ground 
'that the application made by the appellant, the first respondent, as well 
C 
as others which were pending before the State Government should be 
deemed to have been rejected on !st March, 1958 in view of rule 
57(2). 
The !st respondent then challenged this order by a writ petition in 
the High Court which was allowed and the order was quashed. 
The 
cou'rt h

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