STATE OF GOA AND ORS. versus M/S. A.H. JAFFAR AND SONS

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 259 · Decided: 09-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
STATE OF GOA AND ORS. 
v. 
M/S. A.H. JAFFAR AND SONS 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 
[R.M. SAHAI AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957 : 
Sections 10(3), 26 and ;JO. 
Mineral Concessions Rules, 1969: Rules 11 and 54. Mining lease-Ap-
plication for grant of-Rejection-l?.emedy against-Held proper remedy is 
revision before Government and not before High Court-Applicant bona fide 
pursuing remedy before High Court-Direction that applicant shall approach 
A 
B 
c 
the Revising Authority and application· should not be treated as time barred. D 
The Respondent made an application for grant of a lease for mining 
mineral boxite in Goa which was not disposed of within U months as 
stipulated in Rule 11 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and was thus 
deemed to have been rejected. They filed a Revision, under Section 30 of E 
the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957, to the 
Central Government and pursuant to the direction issued by the Central 
Government the State Govt. considered the application but rejected the 
same. The High Court set aside this order and directed the State Govt. to 
decide the application afresh after hearing the respondents and consider-
ing the applicability of the amendment to the Act. Thereafter, the applica-
F 
tion was heard by the Commissioner and Secretary for Industries to the 
Govt. of Goa but was rejected. Against this order, the respondents ap· 
proached the State Government and the order was set aside by the Mini-
ster for Mines and a direction· was issued to grant the lease to the 
respondents. The order of the Minister was set aside by .the Government 
Respondents challenged this order before the High Court which quashed G 
the o.rder of the Government and restored the Minister's order. Against 
the judgment of the High Court, State of Goa filed an appeal in this Court. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of High Court, this 
Court 
H 
259 
260 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
' 
A 
HELD : The remedy of revision having been provided by Section 30 
B 
c 
D 
of the Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957, the proper course 
for the respondent was to approach the Central Government and not the 
High Court. Proviso to rule 54 of the Mineral Concession ·Rules, 1960 
empowers the revising authority to condone delay if it is satisfied that the 
revision could not be presented for sufficient cause within time. Since the 
respondent was pursuing its remedy in High Court bona fide, it would be 
a sufficient cause to condone the delay. The revision, if preferred within 
four weeks from today, shall not be dismissed as being barred by time. The 
Central Government shall decided the same in accordance with law. 
(261-F, G, 262-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6040 or 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.93, 1.3.93, 2.3.93 & 3.3.93 
of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 449 of 1992. 
Siraj Seth, H.O. Pathak and P.O. Sharma for the Appellants. 
AS. Nambiar, T.V.S. Ratna and Ms. A. Subhashni for the Respon-
dents. 
E 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
This appeal filed by the State of Goa and others, is directed against 
the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court, (Goa Bench). The 
F 
respondents made an application for a lease for mining mineral boxite in 
Mopa, Chandal, Warkhan, Kasarwarne Villagers of Pernem Taluk in Goa. 
As this application was not disposed of by the State Government within 12 
months as stipulated in Rule 11 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 the 
application was deemed to have been rejected. Against this order of 
deemed rejection the respondents filed a revision under Section 30 of the 
G Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter 
referred to as 'the Act') to the Central Government in which a direction 
was issued to the State Government to dispose of the respondents' applica-
tion on merits. In pursuance of the direction issued by the Central Govern-
ment the State Government decided the application of the respondent and 
H rejected it on 18th August 1987. This order was set aside by the High Court 
STATEOFGOA v. AH.JAFFAR 
261 
and the.State Government was directed to decide the application, afresh, A 
after hearing the respondents and deciding the applicability of the amend-
ment to the Act which had come into force with effect from 10th February 
1987. The application was heard this time by the Commi

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