Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
  • Mr. K.D. Sharma
Acts
  • Section 30 of the Mines and Mineral Regulation Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act
  • schedule IV of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1977, hereinafter referred
  • Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960
  • Rule 43 of the Rules
  • D) Act & Rule 55
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
  • Mr. K.D. Sharma
Acts
  • Section 30 of the Mines and Mineral Regulation Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act
  • schedule IV of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1977, hereinafter referred
  • Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960
  • Rule 43 of the Rules
  • D) Act & Rule 55
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners, Krishan Kumar Bansal and R.K. Mittal, applied on 13-8-1969 for rent-cum-royalty leases in respect of two plots (each 200' x 200') in Pahar Kuva Makrana. Another applicant, Vali Mohammed son of Karim, applied on 4-11-1969 for a similar plot in the same area. The Assistant Mining Engineer granted the leases to the petitioners by order dated 19-7-1972, and formal rent-cum-royalty leases were executed in favour of the petitioners on 25-7-1972 under the form given in schedule IV of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules (referred to as "the Rules"). After execution, the petitioners commenced working at the quarries and made substantial expenditures.

Vali Mohammed appealed the Assistant Mining Engineer's order under Rule 43 of the Rules before the Joint Director of Mines and Geology. That appeal was dismissed in default on 28-5-1975 because neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared. Subsequently, a holder of a power of attorney on behalf of the petitioners filed an application before the Joint Director (acting under a mistaken belief about the appeal's status) seeking rehearing and setting aside of the ex parte dismissal. The Joint Director restored the appeal after being satisfied the power-of-attorney holder was sick on the hearing date. On merits, the Joint Director cancelled the leases granted to the petitioners by order dated 1-12-1975.

The petitioners appealed to the State Government; the appeal was dismissed on 9-9-1975 (order marked Ex.6). The petitioners then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on 1-4-1977 on the ground that an equally efficacious alternative remedy of revision to the Central Government had not been availed.

Thereafter, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Central Government (initially on 5-6-1977, then in prescribed form on 22-9-1977 with a treasury challan and an application for condonation of delay). The Central Government dismissed the revision as time-barred by an order dated 25-10-1977, stating the revision should have been filed within three months of the State Government's order.

The petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 226 challenging the orders of (a) the Central Government dated 25-10-1977, (b) the State Government dated 9-9-1976 (as mentioned in the Central Government's order), and (c) the Joint Director dated 1-12-1975.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Central Government was justified in dismissing the petitioners' revision petition as time-barred where no rule framed by the Central Government prescribes a period of limitation for filing revisions under Section 30 of the Mines and Mineral Regulation Act, 1957, in respect of leases of minor minerals.
  2. Whether the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (which applies to major minerals), is applicable to revision petitions concerning leases of minor minerals before the Central Government.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments (as presented in the opinion)

  • The Central Government has not framed any rule prescribing a period of limitation for filing a revision petition under Section 30 of the Mines and Mineral Regulation Act, 1957, in respect of leases of minor minerals; therefore it was not justified in rejecting the revision as time-barred on the ground that it was not filed within three months.
  • Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court authority Chandra Bhusan & Anr. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (Regional) U.P. & Ors., (1967 (2) SCR 287) and the decision of a Single Bench of this High Court in Jamaluddin v. The State of Rajasthan (1979 WLN (UC) 78) to support the contention that, absent a statutory or rule-based period, the Central Government cannot mechanically dismiss a revision as time-barred.

Respondents / Central Government (as reflected in the decision)

  • The Central Government treated the revision petition as time-barred on the basis that it should have been filed within three months of the State Government's order; the Central Government therefore dismissed the petitioner's revision application as time-barred under its revisional powers (the order cites Section 30 of the MM (R & D) Act and Rule 55 of the MCR, 1960).
  • There is no detailed set of arguments by opposing private parties recorded in the opinion beyond the Central Government's reliance on delay; the opinion notes that counsels for non-petitioners and the Additional Government Advocate did not successfully controvert the legal position advanced by the petitioners' counsel.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Chandra Bhusan & Anr. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (Regional) U.P. & Ors., 1967 (2) SCR 287 Authority relied upon to support the proposition that, in the absence of a rule prescribing a limitation period, the authority cannot mechanically dismiss a revision as time-barred. The court accepted reliance on this authority as supportive of the petitioners' legal position that no specific limitation for revisions in respect of minor minerals had been prescribed by the Central Government.
Jamaluddin v. The State of Rajasthan, Single Bench decision, reported in 1979 WLN (UC) 78 Decision relied upon by petitioners' counsel as a supporting instance from this Court for the legal principle that absence of a prescribed limitation period precludes summary dismissal as time-barred. The court treated this decision as further supporting authority for the petitioners' contention and noted that opposing counsel could not successfully controvert the legal position thereby indicated.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the record and heard counsel for the petitioners, the non-petitioners, and the Additional Government Advocate. It proceeded by identifying the statutory and rule framework relevant to revision petitions under Section 30 of the Mines and Mineral Regulation Act, 1957.

The court observed that:

  • No rule framed by the Central Government prescribes a period of limitation for filing a revision petition under Section 30 of the Act in respect of leases of minor minerals.
  • The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules (1959) do not prescribe any period of limitation for filing a revision petition before the Central Government in cases relating to minor minerals.
  • Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 prescribes a two-month limitation for revisions relating to major minerals, but that rule was enacted for major minerals and its 2-month period cannot be applied to revision petitions concerning leases of minor minerals.

The court further reasoned that the Central Government could, in an appropriate case, refuse to entertain a revision petition if there was clear evidence of undue delay or laches by the applicant. However, in the instant case the Central Government had proceeded on an assumption that a three-month limitation applied to revisions concerning minor minerals and dismissed the revision on that basis. The Central Government did not, in its order, specifically find that the petitioner was guilty of laches or undue delay; rather, it dismissed the revision as time-barred because it was not filed within three months of the State Government's order.

Because there was no rule prescribing a three-month (or other) limitation for revisions in respect of minor minerals, and because the Central Government's dismissal did not rest upon a finding of laches or undue delay, the court concluded that the Central Government was not justified in rejecting the revision petition merely on the ground of delay computed against an inapplicable rule.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Writ petition allowed; the impugned order of the Central Government dated 25-10-1977 is quashed, and the Central Government is directed to consider and decide the revision petition filed by the petitioners in accordance with law.

Implications / Consequences:

  • Direct effect on the parties: The Central Government's dismissal of the petitioners' revision as time-barred is set aside; the Central Government must now adjudicate the revision on merits in accordance with applicable law and procedure.
  • The court clarified that no rule framed by the Central Government or under the Rajasthan Rules prescribes a period of limitation for filing revision petitions in respect of leases of minor minerals; therefore a dismissal purely on the basis of a presumed three-month limitation (or by reference to rules applicable to major minerals) was unsustainable in this case.
  • The court noted the Central Government retains the power to refuse to entertain a revision if there is demonstrable undue delay or laches, but such a conclusion must be reached on the facts and not by mechanically applying a limitation rule that does not exist for minor minerals.
  • Costs: The parties were directed to bear their own costs in this writ petition.
  • No explicit statement in the opinion asserts that a new broader precedent is being laid down; the decision resolves the petitioners' grievance by directing consideration of their revision in accordance with law and clarifies the limited point about the absence of a prescribed limitation for revisions concerning minor minerals.

This summary is based exclusively on the content of the provided opinion; no information not contained in the opinion has been added.

Show full summary ...

    Krishna Kumar Bansal And Anr. v. Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

    1. This writ petition filed by Krishan Kumar Bansal and R.K. Mittal u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the following fact & circumstances. The petitioners applied for rent cum-royalty leases in respect of wo plots-each measuring 200' x 200' & situated in an area known Pahar Kuva Makrana for one year by way of an application dated 13-8-1969 to the Mining Department. One Vali Mohammed son of Karim also presented an application on 4-11-1969 for grant of rent-cum royalty lease in respect of plot measuring 200' x 200' and situated in the same area. The Assistant Mining Engineer granted the lease to the petitioners vide the order dated 19-7 1972 In pursuance of this order rent-cum-royalty leases were executed in favour of the petitioner on 25-7-1972 in accordance with the form given under schedule IV of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1977, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. Alter the leases were executed, the petitioners started working at the quarries and spent a huge amount in smoothly carry kg out the work.

    2. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Engineer dated 19-7-1972 (granting leases to the petitioners, Vali Mohammed filed an appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules before the Joint Director of Mines and Geology. The appeal, however, was dismissed in default on 28.5.1975 as neither the appellant nor his counsel had put in his appearance before the Joint Director when the appeal was called for hearing. Later on, the holder of the power of attorney on behalf of the petitioners filed an application before the Joint Director that the appeal may be reheard and the exparte order be set aside. This application was filed by the holder of the power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner under a wrong impression that the appeal had been decided exparte by the Joint Director. The Join Director of Mines and Geology restored the appeal to its original number on the application of the holder of power attorney on behalf of the petitioners, on being satisfied that the power-of-attorney holder could not put in his appearance before him on the dated when the appeal was called for hearing on account of having fallen sick. The appeal was subsequently heard on merits by the Joint Director and the rent-cum-royalty leases which had been granted in favour of the petitioners were cancelled. As against this order of the Joint Director of Mines and Geology dated 1-12 -1955, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the State Government which was dismissed on 9-9-1975, as is evident from the order marked Ex.6 which was passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan. Aggrieved by this order of the State Government, the petitioner No.l filed a writ petition in the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court vide its order dated 1-4-1977 on the ground that an equally efficacious alternative remedy by way of revision to the Central Government was not availed of by the petitioner who should have first approached the Central Government for redress. The petitioners, therefore, filed a revision petition before the Centrai Government on 5-6 1977 against the order of the State Government The petitioners were asked by the Central Government to file a revision petition in a prescribed from "N" and so the petitioners again submitted the revision petition on 22-9-1977 in the prescribed form along with a treasury challan of Rs. 100/- as required by the Central Government. Along with this revision petition, the petitioners filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. The Central Government dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners as time barred vide its order dated 25.10.1977 which reads as follows:

    " GOVERNMENT OF INDIA"
    MINISTRY OF STEEL AND MINES DEPARTMENT OF MINES REGISTERED FINAL ORDER...
    "I am directed to refer to your revision application dated nil received on 23-9-77 against the order of the State Government of Rajasthan, dated 9-9-76 This being so, you should have filed your revision application by 9-12-76 i e. within 3 months of the State Govt. order. The reasons for the delay as given by you have been carefully gone into but not found enough to justify the delay in filing the Revision Application."

    2. The Central Government, therefore, in exercise of their revisional powers under Section 30 of the MM (R & D) Act & Rule 55 of the MCR, 1960 hereby dismiss your revision application as time barred.

    Yours faithfully, Sd/-I J. S. KHURANA DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA The petitioners have now filed this writ petition challenging the orders passed by the Central Government, the State Government and the Joint Director of Mines and Geology on 25 10 1977, 9-9 1976 and 1-12-1975 respectively

    4. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. H.M. Parekh learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R Mehta, learned Counsel for Padam-chand. Mr. R.R. Vyas appearing on behalf of non-petitioner No. 5 and Mr, M.D. Purohit Additional Government Advocate.

    5. It has been contended by Mr. Hastimal Parekh, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Central Government has not framed any rule prescribing a period of limitation for filing a revision petition before it against an order passed by the State Government in respect of leases of minor minerals and, in the absence of any such specific rule, the Central Government was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's revision petition as time-barred on the ground that it has not been filed within a period of 3 months from the date on which the impugned order was passed by the State Government and no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay in filing it. Reliance in support of the above contention was placed on an authority of the Supreme Court Chandra Bhusan and Anr. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (Regional) U.P and Ors.) reported in 1967 (2) SCR 287 and on a decision of the Single Bench of this Court Jamaluddin v. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1979 WLN (UC) 78. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners and the Additional Government Advocate could not succeed in controverting the legal position pointed out by Mr. Hastimal Pareekh appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners. Consequently, I am of the view that no period of limitation for filing a revision petition under Section 30 of the Mines and Mineral Regulation Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act against the order of the State Government in respect of leased of minor minerals has been preseribed in any Rule framed by the Central Government, nor any period of limitation is prescribed under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959 also for filing a revisian petition before the Central Goverment in cases relating to minor minerals. It is no doubt true that, so far as leases relating to major minerals are concerned thte Central Government has framed Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 which prescribes a period of limitation of two months from the date of communication of the order to the applicant for filing a revision petition against an order passed by the State Government, but the period of limitation prescribed in this Rule cannot be made applicable to the revision petitions filed by the aggrieved party against the orders of the State Government relating to leases of minor minerals. The Central Government was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the petitioner's revision petition merely on the ground that it was not filed within three months from the date on which the impugned order was passed by the State Government and that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of the delay in filing it. It will not be out of place to mention that the Central government could refuse to entertain the revision petition, if upon consideration of all the circumstances, it was of the view that there was considerable undue delay in filing the revision petition and the petitioner could safely be held to be guilty of such laches. But in the instant case the Central Government appears to have proceeded on the assumption that a period of limitation of three months has been prescribed for filing such revision sagainst the order of the State Government relating to leases of minor minerals, and, as the revision petition has not been filed within three months from the date of the impugned order of the State Government and as no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay in filing it, the revision petition must be dismissed on this score. In the absence of any rule framed by the Central Government prescribing a period of limitation for filing such revision petition must be dismissed on this score. In the absence of any rule framed by the Central Government prescribing a period of limitation for filing such revision petitions the Central Government was not justified in rejecting the petitione's revision on the ground that it was filed after the expiry of three months, specially, when it has not been mentioned in the order of the Central Government that the petitioner could be said to be guilty of laches or undue delay. Hence the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Central government on 25.10.1997 is quashed and the Central government is directed to give its decision on the revision filed by the petitioners in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear own costs of this writ petition.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Krishna Kumar Bansal And Anr. v. Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
    (Sep 8, 1979)