SATYANARAYANA SINHA versus M/S S. LAL AND COMPANY (PVT.) LTD.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 615 · Decided: 10-09-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
61:; 
SATYANARAYANA SINHA 
v. 
M/S S. LAL AND COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. 
September 10, 1973 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND S. N. DWIVEDI, JJ.] 
Practice--CQ11.5tilution of India, 1950, Art .. 226-Writ jurisdiction of lligli 
Court--!! can 
bt~ invoked by person not aggrieved. 
The first resp0-1'.dent filed- a Vt'.rit petition in the High Court challenging the 
g1 ant of a mining lease to the appellant. on the g'.round of a direct infringement 
of his right to be granted a mining lease over an area for which he applied for 
a n1ining lease and which, according to him, formed part of the area for which 
the appe'i!ant was given the lease. 
But in fact, the first respondent's app1ica-
tion \Vas not in respect of any part of the area for which the appellant \Vas. 
granted a n1ining lease. Though tht appellant w~s made party to the proceed· 
ing, he did not appear as notices were not served on him. 
The IIigh Court 
aifl;v:ed the petition in the vie\V that there was a violation of s. 31 of the Mines 
and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and rr. 58 and 59 of 
the tvlineral Concession Rules 1960. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : The first respondent had no interest in the subject-matter of the 
lease, and the petition was not maintainable. [618 G-H] 
Though this contention was not ur...zed before the High Court as the appel-
lant <lid not appear in the High Court, this Cour:, in appeal, 
can not only 
determine the soundness of the decision, hilt has jurisdiction to determine any 
point raised before it, such as, whether the appeal is competent, whether a party 
has a locus standi to present the petition and whether the petitioner was main-
tainable. Ordinarily, the foundation for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 
32 or Article 226, is the perso_nal or individual right of the petitioner himself, 
though in cases of writs of habea~ corpus or quo li-'arranto, the rule may be 
relaxed. 
Jn respect of persons who are not aggrieved and who seek t0 invoke 
the jurisdiction of the High Court or this Court, the matter rests ultimately on 
the discretion of the Court, and depends on the nature and extent of the right 
or interest said to have been infringed and whether the infringement affects the 
petitioner in some way. [619 A-B, D, G~H] 
In t'he present case, the first. respondent only alleged direct infring~n1ent of 
his right, but it was found that no 
right of his had been affected. 
He was 
neither a p;:11ty nor a person aggrieved or aff·ected and hence 
had 
no 
locus 
stanflt' to file tfie petition. [620 B~C] 
Ebr(/fii111 Ahoobakar and A11other \'.Custodian General of Eracuee Property, 
[19521 S.C.R. 696, Chira11jit Lal Chowdhuri 
v. 
The 
U11io11 · of 
India. 
[ 1950] S. C.R. 869, The State of Orissa v. Mada!I 
Gopal 
Rungta, 
fl9521 
S. C.R. 2.8. Tfte Calcutta Gas Con1pa11v ( Proprietar.v) Ltd. v. The Stat(: of 
JVe . .,-t lle11[.?af and Others [ 1962] Supp. 3 S. C.R. 1. Godde V enkateswara 
·~Rao 
v. (iovcn1n1!'11t oj Andhra Pradesh and Others [1966] 2 S.C.R. 172 and R. 
v. Tha111es Magiistrates' CouJ't ex. p. Gree11ba1u11, [19571 
55 L.C.R. 
129---ex-
tracted in Y:1rdley Source Book of English Administrative Law, 1970, p. 228, 
r<:ferred tL'. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2572 (N) ..if 
1972. 
Appeal by certifioate from the Judgment and 
Order dated 4th 
April 1972 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction · Case· 
No. 1121 of 1969. 
~16 
S'JPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 19'.(4 j 1 S.C.R. 
B. P. Singh, for the appellant. 
Lal Narain Sinha, Solicitor General of India and S. P. Nayar, for 
respondent Nos. 2 and 6. 
D. Goburdhan, for respondents Nos. 3-5, 
The Judgmeut of the Conrt was delivered by 
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J, The appellant 
was granted a min· 
ing lease on August 30, 1969 by the State of Bihar (Respondent 3) · 
with the prior approval of the Central Government (Respondent 2) 
for winning a mineral known as Apatite over as area of 1999.634 
acres. Respondent 1 filed a writ petition on September 
15., 
1969 
.challenging the lease on the ground that he had earlier on March 22, 
1965, applied for a mining lease over an area of 280.62 acres in 
certain villages of Singhbhum District which was 
included in 
the 
lease granted to the appellant, but as no orders were. passed by the 
State Government within the statutory period the 
application 
was 
·deemed to have been rejected, He thereafter filed a revision petition 
to the Central Government whic

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