- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Goa And Others v. A.H Jaffar & Sons .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal was filed by the State of Goa and others against a judgment and order of the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench). The respondents had applied for a mining lease for bauxite in the villages of Mopa, Chandal, Warkhan, and Kasarwarne in Pernem Taluk, Goa.
Because the State Government did not dispose of the application within 12 months as stipulated in Rule 11 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the application was deemed rejected. The respondents challenged this deemed rejection by filing a revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 before the Central Government, which directed the State Government to decide the application on merits. The State Government then rejected the application on 18-8-1987; this rejection was set aside by the High Court, which directed a fresh decision after hearing the respondents and determining the applicability of an amendment to the Act effective from 10-2-1987.
The application was subsequently heard by the Commissioner and Secretary for Industries, Government of Goa, acting as a delegate empowered under a notification issued under Section 26 of the Act, and was rejected under Section 10(3) of the Act. The respondents then approached the State Government, where the Minister for Mines set aside the rejection and directed grant of the lease. The Minister's order was later set aside by the Government, and the respondents challenged the Government's action under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court decided various issues in favour of the respondents, quashed the Government order dated 14-1-1993, and restored the Minister's order dated 31-10-1991. The State challenged the correctness of the High Court's decision in this appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in view of the revisional remedy under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the respondents ought to have approached the Central Government rather than invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the respondents could still pursue revision despite limitation concerns under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, and whether delay could be condoned under its proviso given bona fide pursuit of the writ remedy.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the appeal had been argued at length and that counsel for the respondents sought to support the High Court judgment. However, the Court considered it unnecessary to decide certain questions addressed by the High Court, including: (i) whether the Commissioner’s order (described as administrative in nature by the High Court) could be reviewed by the State Government; and (ii) whether the Minister could exercise power in a matter where grant of lease is regulated by statute.
Instead, the Court rested its decision on the availability of a statutory revisional remedy under Section 30 of the Act. On that basis, the Court held that the proper course for the respondents was to approach the Central Government in revision rather than the High Court under Article 226.
Addressing the respondents’ apprehension about limitation under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the Court pointed to the proviso empowering the revising authority to condone delay upon satisfaction of sufficient cause. The Court indicated that the respondents’ bona fide pursuit of the remedy in the High Court would constitute sufficient cause for condonation, and expressed trust that if the revision were filed within four weeks, it should not be dismissed as time-barred.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED: The appeal succeeded; the High Court’s order was set aside.
The respondents were granted liberty to approach the revising authority (the Central Government) within four weeks from the date of the order, and the Central Government was directed to decide the revision in accordance with law. The direct effect is that the High Court’s restoration of the Minister’s order (directing grant of lease) did not stand, and the dispute was channelled to the statutory revisional forum under Section 30 of the Act. The opinion does not indicate that any broader precedent was laid down beyond this procedural direction regarding the appropriate remedy.
Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal filed by the State of Goa and others, is directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court, (Goa Bench). The respondents made an application for a lease for mining mineral bauxite in Mopa, Chandal, Warkhan, Kasarwarne Villages of Pernem Taluk in Goa. As this application was not disposed of by the State Government within 12 months as stipulated in Rule 11 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 the application was deemed to have been rejected. Against this order of deemed rejection the respondents filed a revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to the Central Government in which a direction was issued to the State Government to dispose of the respondents' application on merits. In pursuance of the direction issued by the Central Government the State Government decided the application of the respondent and rejected it on 18-8-1987. This order was set aside by the High Court and the State Government was directed to decide the application, afresh, after hearing the respondents and deciding the applicability of the amendment to the Act which had come into force with effect from 10-2-1987. The application was heard this time by the Commissioner and Secretary for Industries to the Government of Goa who being a delegate of State Government by virtue of notification issued under Section 26 of the Act was empowered to decide the application. The application was rejected in exercise of power under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act. Against this order the respondents approached the State Government. The order was set aside by the Minister for Mines and direction was issued to grant the lease. What happened thereafter is not necessary to be narrated. But the order of the Minister was set aside by the Government. Validity of this order was challenged in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Various issues were raised. They were decided in favour of the respondents. The order of the Government dated 14-1-1993 was quashed and that of the Minister dated 31-10-1991 was restored. It is the correctness of this order that has been challenged by the State.
3. The appeal has been argued at length. Shri Siraj Sait has attempted to support the judgment with industry and precision. But it does not appear necessary to decide whether the finding recorded by the High Court that the order of Commissioner being administrative in nature it could be reviewed by the State Government nor it is necessary to decide whether the Minister could exercise any power where the grant of lease is regulated by the Statute as in our opinion the remedy of revision having been provided by Section 30 of the Act, the proper course for the respondent was to approach the Central Government and not the High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent expressed apprehension that the period for limitation provided in Rule 54 of the Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 having expired, the revision might not be entertained. The proviso to the rule, however, empowers the revising authority to condone delay if it is satisfied that the revision could not be presented for sufficient cause within time. Since the respondent was pursuing its remedy in High Court bona fide, it would be sufficient cause to condone the delay and we trust that the revision if preferred within four weeks from today shall not be dismissed as being barred by time.
4. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside subject to the observations made above that the respondent shall be entitled to approach the revising authority, namely, the Central Government within four weeks from today which shall decide the same in accordance with law.
5. Parties shall bear their own costs.
Alert