STATE OF ORISSA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 13-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OF ORISSA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 13, 1994 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: Rules 24,54 and Explanation. 
Lease-Application for grant of-No orders passed by State Government 
within twelve months-Deemed refusal-Revision-Power of Central 
Government-Direction by Central Government to State Government to 
consider the application within 100 days-Non-compliance with by State-
Second revision before Central Government- Held not maintainable. 
Grant of lease-Where Central Government directs the State 
Government to grant mining lease State has locus standi to challenge that 
order. 
Pursuant to a Notification issued by State Government for grant of 
lease of iron ore, the 2nd respondent and two other applicants filed 
their applications but the same were not disposed of by the State 
Government for more than a year and consequently they were deemed 
to have been refused by virtue of the provisions contained in Rule 24 of 
the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Revision applications were filed 
before the Central Government which set aside the deemed refusal and 
directed the State Government to pass a final order on the applications 
within a period of 100 days from the date of the order. Since the State 
Govt. did not pass any orders as per the directions of the Central 
Government the 2nd respondent preferred a second revision before the 
Central Government stating that his application not having been 
disposed of within 100 days must be deemed to have been refused. By 
its order dated 10.5. 78 the Central Government directed the State 
Government to grant the mining lease to the second respondent. 
Against this order the State Government filed a writ petition in the 
High Court which held that the petition by State was not maintainable 
because the State Government was bound by the orders of the Central 
Government, the latter being a superior authority. The State 
Government preferred an appeal in this Court. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court; 
this Court. 
498 
-
STATE OF ORISSA v. U. 0. I 
499 
HELD: 1. Under the provisions of rule 54 of the Mineral Conces-
A 
sion Rules, 1960 the Central Government having once passed an order 
in revision, cannot again exercise the same power in respect of the same 
deemed refusal under Rule 24 read with Rule 54. Nor can it exercise 
the power of revision de hors the explanation to Rule 54 in the absence 
of any order passed by the State Government. [505 G] 
2. Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 clearly provides 
that where an application, inter alia, for the grant of a mining lease is 
not disposed of within the period prescribed in Rule 24, the State 
Government shall be deemed to have made an order refusing the grant 
B 
on . the date on which the period prescribed expires. In view of this 
·deeming provision a revision is clearly maintainable on the expire of 12 C 
months from the date of the application for a mining lease if no order is 
passed thereon. But there is no provision in the Mineral Concession 
Rules for a second revision to the Central Government if the State 
Government thereafter fails to pass an order despite the directions of 
the Central Government. [503 G to H, 504 A, 504 E] 
D 
3. The power of revision was exercised in the present case by the 
Central Government when it directed the State Government to dispose 
of the applications within 100 days. This period was prescribed by the 
Central Government for disposal of the applications is not covered by 
the Explanation to Rule 54. This period is not a period specified in the E 
Mineral Concession Rules but is a period fixed by the Central 
Government by an order in the exercise of its power of revision. The 
State Government has merely not carried out this order. In such a 
situation there is no deemed order of the State Government from which 
a revision would lie to the Central Government under Rule 54 of the 
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The Explanation to Rule 54 does not F 
cover such a situation. The failure of the State Government to pass an 
order within the time fixed by the Central Government in the exercise 
of its revisional power is not covered by the Explanation to Rule 54. A 
second revision, therefore is not maintainable when there is no fresh 
order, deemed or otherwise which can be challenged in revision. 
G 
[504 B to DJ 
4. The State Government is not merel

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