UNION OF INDIA versus SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 1045 · Decided: 23-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 2 S.C.R. 1045 
UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD. AND ORS. 
(Review Petition (C) No. 739 of 2012) 
IN 
(Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2010) 
B 
APRIL 23, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950 
C 
Art. 137 - Review Petition - Held: Review proceedings are 
not by way of an appeal; they have to be strictly confined to 
the scope and ambit of 0.47, r. 1 CPC - In the instant case, 
the error contemplated in the impugned judgment is not one 
D 
which is apparent on the face of the record, rather the dispute 
is wholly founded on interpretation and applicability of ss. 
11(2) and 11(4) of MMDR Act - In review jurisdiction, mere 
disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the 
ground for invoking the same - However, the misquoted 
portion of the Report, owing to clerical mistakes, is deleted 
E 
from the judgment - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0.47, 
r. 1 - Supreme Court Rules. 1966 - 0.40 - Mines and Minerals 
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - ss. 11(2) and 11(4) 
- De/ay/Laches. 
The petitioner-Union of India filed the instant review 
petition seeking review of the judgment and order dated 
13.9.2010 passed in Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. 1 
It was the case of the petitioner that it could not put forth 
F 
its view in the case for the reason that copy of the special 
G 
leave petition was not served upon it and, as such, it 
could not get an opportunity to be heard in the case. The 
1. 
Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. vs. State of Kamataka and Ors. 2010 
(11) SCR 240. 
1045 
H 
1046 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 2 S.C.R. 
A impugned judgment was mainly challenged on two 
issues (i) "that the impugned judgment has incorrectly 
reported the 'Report of the Committee to Review the Existing 
Laws and Procedures for Regulation and Development of 
Minerals'. As a consequence, the ratio of impugned 
B judgment, which relies on this Expert Committee Report, 
shall stand erroneous in the eyes of law"; and (ii) that s. 
11 (2) and s. 11 (4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development 
and Regulation Act, 1957) should be applicable to both 
virgin and previously held areas. 
c 
Disposing of the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The details furnished in I.A. No. 1 of 2011 
filed for condoning the delay of 320 days in filing the 
review petition sufficiently prove that steps were taken at 
D various levels in the Ministry of Mines. In view of the 
same, the delay is condoned. [para 6) [1050-A] 
1.2 It is true that the Expert Committee's Report has 
been misquoted to the extent of adding four lines, which 
E was originally not a part of the report. Thus, this Court 
has the power to modify the impugned judgment to the 
extent of deletion of the misquoted statement under 
review jurisdiction. Therefore, the portion of para 2.1.21 
of the report which is misquoted in the impugned 
F judgment owing to clerical mistake, is deleted. 
Consequently, a portion of para 51 of the impugned 
judgment is also deleted. [para 17, 19 and 20) [1053-D-E; 
1054-B-C] 
1.3 However, it cannot be said that the impugned 
G judgment is erroneous on the face of law merely because 
the Expert Committee Report was misquoted. In the 
considered view of this Court, the impugned judgment 
stands good of reason even without these misquoted 
lines as well. [para 20) [1054-C-D] 
H 
UNION OF INDIA v. SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON 1047 
ORES LTD. 
Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. vs. State of A 
Kamataka and Ors. 2010 (11) SCR 240 = 2010(13) SCC 1 
- referred to. 
2.1 With regard to the second issue that both s.11 (2) 
ands. 11(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and 
8 
Regulation) Act, 1957 should be applicable to both virgin 
and previously held areas, the same has been well 
reasoned in the impugned judgment. The error 
contemplated in the impugned judgment is not one which 
is apparent on the face of the record rather the dispute C 
is wholly founded on the point of interpretation and 
applicability of ss, 11 (2) and 11 (4) of the MMDR Act. In 
review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of 
the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the 
same. As long as the point is already dealt with and 
. answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the D 
impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view 
is possible under the review jurisdi~tion. Review 
proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be 
strictly confined to the scope and ambit of 0. 47, r. 1 of 
C

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