SHRIRAM JHUNJHUNWALA versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 733 · Decided: 04-05-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COUR.T REPORTS 
733 
SHRIRAM JHUNJHUNW ALA 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS 
(J. L. KAPUR, K. SUBBA RAO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH and 
RAGHUBAB DAYAL, JJ.) 
Mining 
lease-Union 
Government's 
order morlif.l{ing 
State Government's order-If can be quashed by the Higk Court. 
The State Government granted mining licence to the 
appellant owr an area of 83.18 acres as prayed for by him 
but the Union Government modified the order and directed 
that licence for 32 acres out of the whc.le area could not be 
granted and the licence should be r.stricted to the rest of the 
area. The licence for 32 acres was subsequently granted to 
Respondent No. 3. The appellant then filed an application 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of 
the Union Government granting licence 
for 32 
acres to 
Respondent No. 3 and for i;suing direction• that licence for 
that area be granted to him. The High Court dismissed the 
petition. On appeal by special leave. 
Held, that the order of the Union Government could not 
be quashed by the High Court as it did not exercise terrio-
riaJ jurisdiction over the Union Government and the direction 
prayed for could not be granted till the order of the 
Union 
Government Yr·as set aside. 
Crvn. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 236 of 1959. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated February 24, 1956, of the former Nagpur 
High Court, in Misc. Petition No. 232of1954. 
A. V. Viswanatha 
Sastri, 
G. J. Ghate and 
Naunit Lal, for the appellant. 
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of 
India, P.K. Chatterjee and T.M. Sen, for respondents 
Nos. 1 and2. 
B. P. Maheshwari, for respondent No 3. 
1961. 
May 4. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
1061 
May, 4. 
RAGHUBAB 
DAYAL, J.-This 
appeal, by Raghubar Dayal 
special leave, is against the order of the High Court 
J. 
1961 
Shriram 
Jliunjhunwala 
v. 
The State of 
Bombay 
Raghu.bar 
Da.yal J. 
734 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1962] 
of Judicature at Nagpur, dismissing the petition of 
the appellant under Art .. 226 of the Constitution. 
On August 9, 1950, the appellant applied 
to the State Government, Madhya Pradesh, for 
the grant of a prospecting licence for manganese 
ore over an area of 83· l 8 acres, comprising khasra 
No. l of mouza Seoni Bhondki. The State Govern-
ment granted the prospecting licence fur this area 
on June 18, 1951, and intimated that the pros-
pecting licence form which was pending approval 
by the Union Government, would be executed 
in due course. 
On April 21, 1951, respondent No. 3 applied 
for the grant of mining lease over·32 acres out 
of the aforesaid area of 83· 18 acres. On October 
20, 1951, the State Government informed him 
that that area had been already granted to the 
appellant under prospecting licence, and it was not 
available to him. 
On November 26, 1951, respondeat No. 3 
applied for review to the Union Government under 
r. 57 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949. 
On September 5, 1952, the Union Govern-
ment wrote to the State Government that its 
order regarding the grant of prospecting licence 
to the appellant over an area of 83·18 acres should 
be modified to the extent that the area granted 
under the prospecting licence be restricted to the 
virgin area of 51·18 acres, as the area of 32 acres 
had been previously held under a mining lease 
by Messrs Akbar Ali Mumvar Ali and had not 
by then been thrown open for re-grant. It was 
further directed by the Union Government, that 
that area of 32 acres b~ thrown open for re-grant. 
In consequence of this direction by tbe Union 
Government, the State Government modified its 
order dated June 18, 1951, granting the pros-
pecting licence to the appellant and restricted that 
licence to the virgin area of 51·18 acres only. 
2 .S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
735 
Thereafter, some time in April 1953, appli-
cations were invited for the grant of mining lease 
with respect to the area of 32 acres. The appel-
fant submitted au <>pplication for the grant of 
the mining lease for 83·18 acres. The respondent 
No. 3 did not file any fresh application. 
On April 
30, 1954, the State Government granted a mining 
lease for manganese ore over an area of 51·18 
acres and did not grant the lease for the area of 
32 acres, stating in its letter to the Deputy Com -
missioner that that area had been granted to res-
pondent No. 3 under mining lease, as directed by 
the Union Government, under r. 57 of th

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