STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. versus OM PRAKASH MOHT& ORS.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 22-12-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
169 
STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 
v. 
OM PRAKASH MOHT A & ORS. 
December 22, 1972 
(A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I. D. DUA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J 
Mines and Minerals (Regulations and 
Development) 
Act, 1951-
Sec. 8-Mineral Concession Rules 1960-Rule 24(3) 
and explanation 
to Rule 54 whether unreasonable and ultra vires aection 8 of the Act-
Renewal of Mining tease granted to the father of Respondents-Order 
in .revision of State Govt. refusing renewal of lease under deeming pro-
visions of Rules whether unrea·sonable, 
On 29-4-1942, a mining lease was granted bv the Crown Representa-
tive to the father of the respondents for a period of 20 years to operate 
the ooal mines. The father died on 18-5-1961. On 3-8-61, the res-
pondents applied for renewal of the lease. 
By his order dated 27-6-62, 
the Deputy Commissio.ner Khasi Jaya:ntia Hills informed the respondents 
that the application for renewal . must be deemed to have been refused. 
On 22-10-1962. the respondents filed a revision petition to the Central 
Government under Rule 54. This was rejected on 8-2-1963. On 7-5-63, 
the respopdents filed a writ petitio,n before the High Court for quashing 
the order dated 27-6-62 and for a writ of mandamus directing the rene-
wal of the lease. - The High Court allowed t)le petition filed 
by 
the 
respondents holdin~ that Rule 24(3) of the Rules under 
which 
the 
application by the respondents was deemed to have been reiected was 
unreasonable a.nd ultra vlrer of Sec. 8 of the Act, and 
the deemed 
refusal of the application for renewal had no legal 
effect 
that 
the 
explanation to Rule 54 <hould also be struck down as repugnant to the 
main sections of the Act .. 
On appeal by special leave to this Court, 
HELD : (i) The Act and the R.ules contained the complete code in 
respect of the grant and reneW9l of "rospecting licence a'S we11 as mining 
lease in lands belonging to the Oovernment, as well as the lands belong-
ing to private persons. 
The mining lease in question is 
in 
a 
land 
belong~g to Government and it is for a mineral included in the First 
Schedule !Jl the Act in respect of which no mininsz lease can be eranted 
without plevious approval of the Government. Normally, the Govern· 
ment like any other owner of properly is entilled tu choose with "'hom 
it shall deal and what sort of a contract it will e:nter into, hut bein~ a 
public authority, its acts are necessarily regulated 
by 
certain 
Rules. 
The ~ct and Rul~s in this case are intended to reguloate the develooment 
of mines and minerals under the control of the Union aind contained 
the provisions necessary for that ourpose. 
No person can claim as of 
right any lease or prospecting licence in anv la:nd belongin2 to Govern· 
ment or,,_ in any mi1'1es in gny lands belongin2 to Government except 
Wl'der and in accord"nce with the Act al'1rl t'li ... Rules or any right except 
these created or conferred by the Act. [! 74G-HJ 
As a result of the orovisions of ~•ctions 19 and 20 of 
the 
Act, 
renewal of the lease itramed to the father of the resoondent< is •ovcmed 
bv Act .and the Rules. Rule 24(3) as amended. hgs the eff•ct that 
white the provisi01'1s re2arditi2 di~po11:al within 90 davs of an annlication 
for renewal still stands, provision for deeming it should 
have 
been 
170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] 3 S.C.R. 
refused is no longer there. The explanation to Rule 54 has two pur-
poses : (i) to state the effect of the failure to dispose of the applica-
tions referred to in Rule 24 sub-rule (I) and (2) within the periods 
specified within these sub-rules as also (il) to provide the starting point 
for the purpose of computing the period of two months within which 
an application for re,ision under Rule 54 must be preferred. [! 75D, 0 & 
176A] 
(ii) There is nothing unreasonable in the order passed 
by 
the 
Central Governmemt. 
It has been mentioned in that order 
that 
after 
careful considerations of the facts stated in that review application, it 
was rejected as time barred. 
The application to the Central 
Govern-
ment preferred by the respondents contained. all the facts. 
There is 
no reason to assume that the Central Go~enmnent did not apply their 
minds to these facts, [177 DE] 
(iii) Rule 24(3) and the explanation to Rule 54 cannot be said to 
contravene the provisions of Section & of the Act. They 
are 
within 
the rule making powers of the Government and in view of the provi-
sions of Rule 24 and 54, the only reason whi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.