Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vishal Vinayak Bandekar, proprietor of M/s V. N. Bandekar, filed two writ petitions challenging the order of the Revision Authority (Central Government) under the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, which rejected his applications for renewal of a mining lease. The petitioner had applied for renewal of a mining lease in Goa. The Revision Authority rejected the application solely on the ground that a previous application for the same lease had been rejected by the Government of Goa. The petitioner argued that the authority failed to consider the merits of the present application and violated principles of natural justice. The court agreed, holding that each application must be considered on its own merits and that the authority's order was unsustainable. The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the Revision Authority for fresh consideration on merits, directing that the petitioner be given an opportunity of hearing.
Headnote
A) Mining Law - Lease Renewal - Natural Justice - The Revision Authority under the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 must consider each renewal application on its own merits and cannot reject it merely because a previous application for the same lease was rejected. The court held that the authority failed to apply its mind and violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Revision Authority was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal of mining lease solely on the ground that a previous application for the same lease had been rejected, without considering the merits of the present application.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders of the Revision Authority, and remanded the matters back to the Revision Authority for fresh consideration on merits, with a direction to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Mining lease renewal
- Consideration on merits
- Revision Authority's powers
- Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act
- 1957
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (04) 172
Writ Petition No.730 and 792 of 2011
Mr. S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. A. V. Pavitran for the petitioner; Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent no.1; Ms. A. Razaq, Government Advocate for respondent no.2 in W.P.No.730/2011; Ms. Neha Kholkar, Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.2 in W.P.No.792/2011
The Revision Authority (Central Government) under the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, Government of India, Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110 011; Government of Goa through its Secretary (Mines), Secretariat Porvorim, Bardez, Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging the order of the Revision Authority rejecting applications for renewal of mining lease.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the orders of the Revision Authority and a direction to consider the renewal applications on merits.
Filing Reason
The Revision Authority rejected the petitioner's applications for renewal of mining lease solely on the ground that a previous application for the same lease had been rejected, without considering the merits of the present applications.
Previous Decisions
The Government of Goa had rejected a previous application for the same mining lease.
Issues
Whether the Revision Authority was justified in rejecting the renewal application solely on the ground of rejection of a previous application.
Whether the Revision Authority violated principles of natural justice by not considering the application on its merits.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Revision Authority failed to consider the application on its own merits and merely relied on the rejection of a previous application.
The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi
Each application for renewal of a mining lease must be considered on its own merits by the Revision Authority. The authority cannot reject an application merely because a previous application for the same lease was rejected. Failure to consider the application on merits and to provide an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Counsel for the parties agree that substantially common issues of law and fact arise and, therefore, it will be appropriate if these petitions are disposed of with the common judgment and order.
The Revision Authority rejected the application solely on the ground that a previous application for the same lease had been rejected by the Government of Goa.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed two writ petitions in the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the orders of the Revision Authority dated not mentioned. The court heard the parties and disposed of the petitions with a common judgment on 27 April 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957:
