Case Note & Summary
Background: The dispute arose from an application for a mining lease for bauxite in certain villages of Pernem Taluk, Goa. The State of Goa and others appealed against a judgment of the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) which had quashed a government order and restored an earlier ministerial order directing grant of lease. Facts: The respondent, A. H. Jaffar and Sons, applied for a mining lease. The application was not disposed of within twelve months as required by Rule 11 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, and was deemed rejected. The respondent filed a revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 to the Central Government, which directed the State Government to decide the application on merits. The State Government rejected the application on 18 August 1987. The High Court set aside that rejection and directed fresh decision after hearing and considering the amendment to the Act effective 10 February 1987. The application was then heard by the Commissioner and Secretary for Industries, a delegate under Section 26 of the Act, who rejected it under Section 10(3). The respondent approached the State Government; the Minister for Mines set aside the rejection and directed grant of lease. Subsequently, the Government set aside the Minister's order. The respondent challenged the Government's order dated 14 January 1993 in the High Court under Article 226. The High Court quashed the Government order and restored the Minister's order dated 31 October 1991. Legal Issues: The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court ought to have entertained the writ petition when a statutory remedy of revision under Section 30 of the Act was available to the respondent. Arguments: The State contended that the respondent should have approached the Central Government by revision instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. The respondent argued that the limitation period under Rule 54 might have expired, making the revision non-maintainable. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court observed that it was not necessary to decide whether the Commissioner's order was administrative and could be reviewed by the State Government, or whether the Minister could exercise power where grant of lease is regulated by statute. The Court held that since Section 30 provides a remedy of revision, the proper course for the respondent was to approach the Central Government, not the High Court. Regarding limitation, the Court noted that the proviso to Rule 54 empowers the revising authority to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown. The respondent had been pursuing its remedy in the High Court bona fide, which would constitute sufficient cause. The Court directed that if revision is filed within four weeks, it should not be dismissed as time-barred. Decision: The appeal was allowed, the High Court order was set aside, and the respondent was given liberty to approach the Central Government within four weeks, which would decide the revision in accordance with law. Parties were to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Mines and Minerals - Revision under Section 30 - Alternative Remedy - Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, Section 30 - The respondent challenged rejection of mining lease application by way of writ petition under Article 226 instead of filing revision to Central Government under Section 30. Held that since statutory revision was available, the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition; the appeal is allowed and High Court order set aside, and respondent directed to approach Central Government within four weeks (Paras 1-2). B) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Proviso to Rule 54 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - The respondent apprehended that revision might be barred by limitation, but the proviso empowers revising authority to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown. Held that pursuing remedy in High Court bona fide constitutes sufficient cause, and revision filed within four weeks should not be dismissed as time-barred (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 when a statutory remedy of revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 was available to the respondent.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; respondent entitled to approach the Central Government (revising authority) within four weeks from the date of judgment; Central Government to decide the revision in accordance with law; parties to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Statutory remedy of revision under Section 30 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act
- 1957 bars High Court writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- deemed rejection under Rule 11 of Mineral Concession Rules
- 1960
- condonation of delay under proviso to Rule 54 when pursuing remedy bona fide in High Court
