THE GOVERNMENT OF GOA versus M/S. A.H. JAFFAR AND SONS AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 516 · Decided: 26-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 5 S.C.R. 516 
A 
THE GOVERNMENT OF GOA 
v. 
MIS. A.H. JAFFAR AND SONS AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2536 of 2001) 
B 
MARCH 26, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation Act, 
1957; s.30/Mineral Concession Rules, 1960; r. 54: 
c 
Grant of mining lease - Order of authorities challenged 
by filing an appeal -Filing of writ petition during pendency of 
the appeal - High Court directing authorities to dispose of the 
application for grant of lease on merit - Correctness of - Held: 
Incorrect - High Court failed to notice that by the time Writ 
D petition was disposed of by it, Supreme Court already decided 
the pending matter between the same parties on identical 
~ 
~ 
issues - Once a decision rendered intra parties attains finality, . 
no different view could be taken - Hence, the impugned order 
of the High Court set aside and directions contained in Para 3 
E of the said order shall operate so far as this Court is concerned 
- Directions issued. 
Administrative Order - Review of - Held: It could be 
reviewed by the State Government. 
F 
Respondents filed a writ petition before the Bombay 
High Court for directions for quashing order passed by 
the appellant authorities and for grant of mining lease over 
certain area in their favour. High Court noticed that the 
matter on the issue was pending for over 16 years and 
G the authorities did not address themselves to the main 
issue compelling the respondents to approach the Court 
every now and then, and directed the appellant to dispose 
of the application of the respondents for grant of mining 
I 
lease. Hence the present appeal. 
~ 
H 
516 
THE GOVERNMENT OF GOA v. M/S. A.H. JAFFAR 
517 
AND SONS AND ANR. 
....... 
Appellant-State contended that a dispute of similar A 
nature involving the parties in the present appeal was 
before this Court in State of Goa and Ors. vs. Mis. A.H. Jaffar 
and Sons AIR (1995) SC 333; and that it had attained finality 
between the parties, under the circumstances, High Court 
could not have given the impugned directions. 
B 
ii 
Respondents submitted that much prior to the 
hearing of the matter by this Court, order· dated 30th June, 
2000 was served on the respondents on 3rd July, 2000, 
and they had moved the Revisional Tribunal of the Central 
Government in terms of Section 30 of the Mines and c 
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read 
with Rule 54 of the Mineral concession Rules, 1960. The 
Revisional Tribunal of the Central Government by its final 
order dated 13.5.2002 has already decided the matter in 
favour of the respo11dents. 
D 
> ' 
r 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Notwithstanding stay order passed by this 
Court, the respondents pursued their remedies before the 
Revisional Tribunal.. That certainly was not proper and E 
desirable. To add to the vulnerability it needs to be noted 
that the writ petition though filed in 1993 was disposed of 
on 1st March, 2000, and by that time the decision of this 
Court in the earlier case between the same parties had 
been decided in a particular way. The High Court did not F 
~ notice that also. It needs no reiteration that once the 
decision is rendered intra parties and attains finality, a 
different view cannot be taken, more so, when finality is 
attached by this Court's order. (Para - 6) [520-G-H; 521-A] 
State of Goa and Ors. vs. Mis. A.H. Jaffar and Sons AIR G 
(1995) SC 333 - referred to. 
,, 
1.2 In the circumstances, the impugned order of the 
High Court is set aside and directions contained in 
paragraph 3 of the earlier. decision shall operate so far as 
H 
518 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A this case is concerned. If any decision has been taken by 
the State Government or the Central Government in the 
present dispute, the same shall be of no consequence. 
(Para - 7) (521-B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON : Civil Appeal 
B No.2536 of 2001. 
From the final Jucfgment and Order dated 01.03.2000 of 
the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 41 of 
1993. 
C 
H.L. Agrawal, Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis and B. Sunita 
Rao for the Appellant. 
Anis Suhrawardy, Shamama Anis, S. Mehdi Imam and 
Tabrez Ahmed for the Respondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to 
the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at 
Goa in Writ Petition no.41 /93 filed by the respondents. The writ 
E petition no.41/
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.