SHIVJI NATHUBHAI versus THE UNION OF INDIA & . OTHERS

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 775 · Decided: 19-01-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 13 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
SHIVJI NATHUBHAI 
v .. 
THE UNION OF INDIA & . OTHERS 
B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
775 
K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA AND J. c. SHAH, JJ. 
Mining Lease-Grant by the State Governm~nt-:Cancell_at_ion. jn 
review by the Central Government-Such cancellation if a quasi-Judicial 
act-Mineral Concession Rules, r949. 
rr. J2S4· 
· 
Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, r949, provided as 
follows: 
"Review. Upon receipt of such application, the Central 
Government may, if it thinks fit, call for the relevant records and 
other information from the Provincial Government, and after 
considering any explanation that may be offered by the Provin-
cial Government, cancel the order of the Provincial Government 
or revise it in such manner as the Central Government may deem 
just and proper." 
. 
The appellant was granted mining leases in respect of five 
areas and possession was delivered to him. On an application for 
review made by one of the respondents under r. 52 of the Rules, 
the Central Government, without giving the appellant an 
opportunity of being heard, cancelled the leases with regard to 
two of the areas and directed the State Government to grant 
leases in respect thereof to the said respondent. The appellant 
applied to the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for 
quashing the said order. The Single Judge who heard the 
application as well as the Division Bench on appeal held that the 
order of cancellation was an administrative order and the appel-
lant was not entitled to a hearing. It was contended on behalf of 
the appellant in this Court that rr. 52-55 of the Rules showed that 
the proceeding before the Central Government was a quasi-
judicial proceeding and, consequently, the rules of natural justice 
must apply. 
Held, that the contention must prevail and the order of 
cancellation be quashed. 
In exercising its power of review under r. 54 of the Mineral 
Concessions Rules, r949, the Central Government acted judicially 
and not administratively. 
· 
Assuming that the act of the State Government in granting a 
mining lease was an administrative act, it was not correct to say 
that no right of any kind passed to the lessee thereunder untill 
the review was decided by the Central Government where a 
review had been applied for. 
Rule 52, therefore, by giving the 
aggrieved party the right to a review created a lis between him 
and the lessee and, consequently, in the absence of anything to 
the contrary either in r. 54 or the statute itself, there could be no 
99 
January r9. 
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)] 
doubt that the Central Government was acting quasi-judicially 
under r. 54. 
Shivji lVathubai 
. 
. 
Province of Bombay v. Kushalda.s S. Advani. 
[r950] S.C.R. 
The Uni:: of India 621• applied. 
and Others 
R. v. Electricity Commissioner. (r924) I. K. B. r7r, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 428 ofl959. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated 
February 25, 1959, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit 
Bench) at Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 47-D of 
1955, arising out of the judgment and order dated 
November 28, 1955 of the said High Court in \Vrit 
Petition No_ 306-D of 1954. 
N. C. Chatterjee, J. B. Dada.chanji, S. N. Andley. 
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. 
C. 
K. Daphtary. Solicitor-General 
of India, 
R. Gapapathy Iyer, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for 
respondents Nos. 1 & 2. 
G. S. Pathak, S.S. Shukla and Mrs. E. Udaya-
ratnam, for respondent No. 3. 
1960. January 19. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
Wanchoo J. 
WANCHOO J.-This appeal upon a 
certificate 
granted by the Punjab High Court raises the question 
whether an order of- the Central Government under 
r. 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, (herein-
after called the Rules) framed under s. 6 of the Mines 
and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 
No. 53of1941, (hereinafter called the Act) is quasi-
judicial or administrative. The brief facts necessary 
for this purpose are these. 
The appellant was granted 
a mining lease by the then Ruler of Gangpur State on 
December 30, 194 7, shortly before the merger of that 
State with the State of Orissa on January 1, 1948. 
This lease was annulled on June 29, 1949. Thereafter 
the appellant was granted certificates of approval in 
respect of prospecting licences and mining leases_ 
Eventually, the appellant applied on December 19, 
1949, for mining leases for mangan

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