Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the grant of a mining lease for Apatite by the State of Bihar to Satyanarayana Sinha with prior approval of the Central Government under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. M/s S. Lal and Company (Pvt.) Ltd., the first respondent, challenged the lease by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Patna High Court. On August 30, 1969, the appellant was granted a mining lease over 1999.634 acres. The first respondent had applied on March 22, 1965 for a mining lease over 280.62 acres in certain villages of Singhbhum District, claiming that this area was included in the appellant's lease. However, the State Government had rejected all applications for the area to work it in the public sector, and the Central Government rejected the first respondent's revision. Later, the State decided to release the area to the private sector and invited applications for a benefication plant. The appellant was selected due to financial soundness, and the Central Government authorised the grant under Rule 58(2) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, Section 31 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and the proviso to Section 6(1) of that Act. The first respondent filed the writ petition, but it was later admitted by the State of Bihar and the Central Government that the area for which the first respondent had applied was not included in the area granted to the appellant. The High Court, without the appellant appearing due to lack of notice, allowed the petition and quashed the lease on the ground that the conditions for relaxation of rules under Section 31 read with Rules 58 and 59 were not complied with. On appeal, the appellant contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because the first respondent was not a person aggrieved. The Supreme Court held that the foundation for exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226 is the personal or individual right of the petitioner, and a person not aggrieved cannot invoke such jurisdiction. The Court also held that in appeal it can determine any point, including locus standi and maintainability, even if not raised before the High Court. Since the first respondent's application did not cover the leased area, he had no interest in the subject-matter and lacked locus standi. The Court did not decide the merits of the lease validity. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order quashing the lease was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Locus Standi - Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950 - A person not aggrieved cannot file a writ petition; existence of personal right is the foundation for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. The first respondent's application for mining lease did not cover the area granted to the appellant, so he had no interest in the subject-matter and lacked locus standi. Held that the writ petition was not maintainable and the High Court order quashing the lease was set aside. (Paras 618-620) B) Practice and Procedure - Appellate Jurisdiction - Maintainability - No specific statute cited - The Supreme Court in appeal can determine any point raised before it, including whether a party has locus standi and whether the petition is maintainable, even if not urged before the High Court. The appellant did not appear before the High Court, but the Supreme Court considered the maintainability issue. Held that the appeal was competent and the point could be raised. (Paras 618-619) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Relaxation of Rule - Articles 32 and 226 of Constitution of India, 1950 - Ordinarily foundation for jurisdiction is personal or individual right of petitioner; relaxed only in habeas corpus or quo warranto. The matter rests on discretion of the Court depending on nature and extent of right infringed. The first respondent did not have any right affected, hence no locus standi. Held that the rule was not relaxed in his favor. (Paras 619-620) D) Mines and Minerals - Grant of Mining Lease - Relaxation of Rules - Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 Section 31; Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 Rules 58 and 59 - High Court held conditions for relaxation not complied with, but Supreme Court did not decide on merits due to lack of locus standi of writ petitioner. The Court noted contentions that Rule 59 was not applicable and reasons were recorded, but did not adjudicate validity. Held that writ petition dismissed on maintainability without determining validity of mining lease. (Paras 617-618)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first respondent had locus standi to file a writ petition under Article 226 when his application for mining lease did not cover the area granted to the appellant; whether the High Court was correct in quashing the mining lease for non-compliance with Section 31 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 read with Rules 58 and 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960; whether the Supreme Court in appeal could consider the question of maintainability not raised before the High Court
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; the first respondent had no interest in the subject-matter of the lease, and the writ petition was not maintainable for lack of locus standi; High Court judgment quashing the mining lease set aside.
Law Points
- Personal or individual right is the foundation for exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226
- existence of a legal right is a prerequisite for writ jurisdiction
- a person not aggrieved cannot maintain a writ petition
- relaxation of locus standi only in habeas corpus or quo warranto
- appellate court can determine maintainability and locus standi even if not raised earlier
