VRAJLAL MANILAL & CO. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 97 · Decided: 10-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · 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)

1 s.c.n. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
97 
VRAJLAL MANILAL & CO. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
IP. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J .• K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SHAH, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Mines and Minerals-State Government refuses to renew 
certificate of approval-Review ;petition to Central Government 
-Central Government receives report and information from the 
State Government behind the back of the appellants-Central 
Government acting quasi-iudiciaUy-Violation of natural justice 
-Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 
(No. XLIII of 1948)-Mines Concession Rules, 1949 rr. 57, 59. 
The appellants constitute a partnership engaged in mining 
and they held a prospecting license as well as a certificate of 
approval from the State Government under the Mineral Conces-
sions Rules, 1949 framed under the Mines and Minerals (Regula· 
tion and Development) Act, 1948. The approval certificate was 
granted for one year and ,until December 1955 it had been renew-
ed from year to year when the State Government refused to 
renew it on the ground that the partners composing the firm had 
changed. Thereupcn the appellants applied under r. 57 of the 
-Minerals Concession Rules to the Union Government for the 
review of the order of the State Government refusing to renew 
the certificate of approval. While this application was pending 
the Union Government corresponded with the State Government 
and gathered information and received the latter's remarks 
regarding the merits of the matter behind the appellants' back. 
The request made by the appellants for copies of the correspon-
dence and for an opportunity to be heard was refused by the 
Union Government. Ultimately the Union Government refused 
the review application on the ground that there was no valid 
ground to interfere with the decision of the State Government. 
The present appeal was filed on special leave granted by this 
Court. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the 
Union Government while disposing of an application under 
r. 57(2) in terms of r. 59 acts as a quasi-judicial authority and the 
order which was passed taking into consideration the report of 
the State Government behind the appellants' back and without 
affording a reasonable opportunity for presenting their case was 
contrary to natural justice and was therefore void. 
· 
Held: (i) The Union Government when disposing of an ap-
plication for review under r. 59 is functiolling as a quasi-judicial 
authority. 
Shivji Nathubh~i v. Union of India, [1960)' S.C.R. 775, relied 
on. 
(ii) Though Shivji Nathubhai's case was concerned with a 
case where an order had been passed prejudicial to the respon-
dents before the Central Government without affording them 
LIP(D)ISCI-4 .. 
1964 
March 10 
98 
SUPRE!VIE COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
1964 
an opportunity to meet the case of an applicant for review the 
. -. 
same principle would apply even where a petition for review is 
VraJlal .Manila! 4' rejected based on materials which were not made available to 
Co. 
the applicant for review. 
T, 
Union J1 1t~dia an.; 
(iii) Applying the above principle to the present case the 
no " 
order of the Central Government is vitiated as being contrary to 
the principles of natural justice in that the decision wa" render-
ed without affording to the appellants a reasonable opportunity 
of being heard which is a sine qua non of a fair hearing. 
.Ayyangar, J. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 115 
& 1I6 of I 963. Appeals by special leave from the .iudgment 
and orders dated July 9, 1958, September 24, 1958 of the Union 
of India (Ministry of Steel, Mines and Fuel, New Delhi) and 
the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi respectively. 
G. S. Pathak, Rameshwar Nath and S. N. Andie)', for the 
appellant (in both the appeals). 
S. G. Patwardhan and B. R. K. G. Achar, for respondent 
No. 1 (in both the appi;als). 
by 
I. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 116/1963). 
March 10, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered 
AYYANGAR, J.-Civil Appeal No. 115 is by special leave 
granted by, this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution and 
is against an order of the Union of India (Ministry of Steel, 
Mines and Fuel) dated July 9, 1958 rejecting an application 
filed by the appellants under rule 57 of the Mineral Concession 
Rules, 1949 to review an order passed by the Government of 
Madhya Pradesh rejecting their application for the renewal of 
the Certificate of Approva
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.