# DHARAM CHAND JAIN v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

- **Citation:** [1976] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 53
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-04-14
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1414 of 1968
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dharam-chand-jain-v-the-state-of-bihar-7171
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

-
•
-;
53
DHARAM CHAND JAIN
A
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
April 14, 1976
IP. N. BHAGWATI, A. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.]
B
Miner.al Concession Rules 1960--r .. 54-Scope of.
On September 12, 1958, the appellant made an application to the State
Government under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for the grant of a
mining lease.
HavinQJ had no reply from the State Government be filed
a
revision application on June 21, 1961 before the Central Government which
directed the State Government to dispose of the application.
Since, there
was no reply from the1 State Government, the appellant! filed a second rev1s1on
.appfication before the Central Government,
which by its order dated November, 21, 1964,
allowed it.
Even so, 'the State Government refused to
implement that order. A third revision application was filed on January 27,
1961 before the Central Government which, after obtaining the views of the
State Government, rejected it.
Allo\ving the appeal against the order of the Central Governn1ent,
HELD :
(1) The State Government being a subordinate authority in the
matter of grant of a mining lease, was obliged under the lav..' to carry out
the orders of the Central Governmerit. It was not open to the Stat-e to decline
to carry out the orders of the Central Governn1ent particularly because the
Central Government was a Tribunal superior to the State Government. In
vie\v of Government's order dated November 21, 1964, it \vas not open to
the State Government to reject the application on any ground whatsoever.
If the State Government found itself unable to implement the order, a reference could have been made to the Central Goyernment for obtaining necessary
directions.
If any ground came into existence subsequent to the making of
the order of the Central Government, the State Government could have brought
it to the notice of the Central Governn1ent.
In any case, the State Gov-
-ernment could not have refused to implement the order of the Central Government unless that Government itself chose to revise it either on a reference
'Or suo n1oto. f57 C-E1
(2) l!nder r. 54 of the Miheral Concessions Rule, 1960 the C'entral Government acts as a revisional tribunal against MY order passed by the State
Gov.:::i.11ment.
When the State Governme11t refused to can-y out the order, the
Central Governn1ent should have proceeded to set aside the State Clovernment's
order and directed it to grant the application. The Central Government has
not disposed of the revision application in accordance with taw.
[55 B, 56 F]
(3) Assuming that the Central Government could revise its earlier order,
1hat could be done only if some fresh ground came into existence. There was
absolutely no legal justification for the Central Government to go "back upon
its earlier aider which stood unvaried and unvacated.
[58 A]

## Text

-
•
-;
53
DHARAM CHAND JAIN
A
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
April 14, 1976
IP. N. BHAGWATI, A. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.]
B
Miner.al Concession Rules 1960--r .. 54-Scope of.
On September 12, 1958, the appellant made an application to the State
Government under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for the grant of a
mining lease.
HavinQJ had no reply from the State Government be filed
a
revision application on June 21, 1961 before the Central Government which
directed the State Government to dispose of the application.
Since, there
was no reply from the1 State Government, the appellant! filed a second rev1s1on
.appfication before the Central Government,
which by its order dated November, 21, 1964,
allowed it.
Even so, 'the State Government refused to
implement that order. A third revision application was filed on January 27,
1961 before the Central Government which, after obtaining the views of the
State Government, rejected it.
Allo\ving the appeal against the order of the Central Governn1ent,
HELD :
(1) The State Government being a subordinate authority in the
matter of grant of a mining lease, was obliged under the lav..' to carry out
the orders of the Central Governmerit. It was not open to the Stat-e to decline
to carry out the orders of the Central Governn1ent particularly because the
Central Government was a Tribunal superior to the State Government. In
vie\v of Government's order dated November 21, 1964, it \vas not open to
the State Government to reject the application on any ground whatsoever.
If the State Government found itself unable to implement the order, a reference could have been made to the Central Goyernment for obtaining necessary
directions.
If any ground came into existence subsequent to the making of
the order of the Central Government, the State Government could have brought
it to the notice of the Central Governn1ent.
In any case, the State Gov-
-ernment could not have refused to implement the order of the Central Government unless that Government itself chose to revise it either on a reference
'Or suo n1oto. f57 C-E1
(2) l!nder r. 54 of the Miheral Concessions Rule, 1960 the C'entral Government acts as a revisional tribunal against MY order passed by the State
Gov.:::i.11ment.
When the State Governme11t refused to can-y out the order, the
Central Governn1ent should have proceeded to set aside the State Clovernment's
order and directed it to grant the application. The Central Government has
not disposed of the revision application in accordance with taw.
[55 B, 56 F]
(3) Assuming that the Central Government could revise its earlier order,
1hat could be done only if some fresh ground came into existence. There was
absolutely no legal justification for the Central Government to go "back upon
its earlier aider which stood unvaried and unvacated.
[58 A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1414 of 1968.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
17th February 1968 of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Steel, Mines
and Minerals.
c
D
E
F
G
H
54
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] SUPPLEMENTARY
A
A. K. Sen, B. D. Khanna, Bishambar Lal and H. K. Puri, for the
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Appellant.
D. Goburdhan for Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J.
This is an appeal by special leave against the order
of the Central Government dated February 17, 1968, reiecting the
revision application filed by the appellant before the Central Government under r. 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. This
appeal reveals a wavering and vacillating attitude of the State Government of Bihar taking inconsistent stands in refusing to implement
a quasi-judicial order passed by the Central Government in favour
of the appellant on one pretext or another spreading over several
years.
This has naturally resulted in a substantial miscarriage of
justice to the appellant who, was compelled to toss like a shuttle-cock
from State Government to Central Government by filing revisions
after revisions against the orders of the State Government which
shows a somewhat extraordinary and curious conduct of the State
Government.
The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass.
The
appellant applied on September 12, 1958, for grant of a mining
licence in an area of 66. 77 acres in tehsil Ramgarh and deposited
the prescribed fees of Rs. 700/-. The State Government was unable
to make up its mind and passed no order at all on the application
filed by the appellant. The appellant thereupon filed a revision application before the Central Government on the basis that his application was deemed to have been rejected by the State Government as it
was not disposed of during the statutory period. This revision was filed
on June 22, 1961 and gives a detailed history of the case of the
appellant. The Central Government in its revisional capacity passed
an order dated March 24, 1962 directing the State Government to
dispose of the application of the appellant on or before September
30, 1962.
In spite of this direction, the State Government failed
to pass any order on the application of the appellant. Failing to get
any redress from the State Government in spite of the direction of
the Central Government, the appellant was compelled to prefer a
second revision application before the Central Government on October 15, 1963. Thereafter the Central Government invited the comments of the State Government on the second revision application.
The State Government, however, appears to have taken the stand
that as the area in question was the subject-matter of a litigation the
State Government was legally advised to defer grant of a mining
licence particularly in view of certain injunction orders passed by the
Alipore Civil Court and the Calcutta High Court.
These comments
were forwarded to the appellant for his explanation.
The appellant
informed the Central Government that the injunction orders relating
to Ramgarh litigation had since been vacated and the State Government may be directed to dispose of the application filed by the appellant for grant of the mining lease. It appears that by a subsequent
correspondence the State Government informed the Central Govern-
-
'
~
.
D. c. ;JAIN v. BIHAR STATE (Fazal ;Ali;:!.)
55
ment thatfinal orders on the application of the appellant could only
be made if he decided to. select. one' compact block for: the mining
lease.
On receiving, this co=ent; the Central.Government: allowed
the revision application again. and: directed the, Staie Government to
grant.the mining lease to the.appellant in~respect.of.a compact block
to be selected by him.:·,Thisiorder was.passed.on:November. 21;
1964, We might mention.here that under. r. 54 of the-Mineral·Concession Rules, 1960, the;Central Government acts:as ·'a" reVisional
tribunal against any order'. passed hr the State Government and has
obviously, therefore;. the sai:ne powers as.the State Government. r.This
matter is no longer res integra and is settled· by an authority of this
Court in State of Assam and others v. Om:Prakash Mehta & others(').
where this Cou~t observed a~ follows;;.'; · i ·,C ·:: · . ' ' :· ., ; : •·
__ "
. . "Under .Rule· '55 the Central' Government can· ca!Lfor ·: -~'
the records from the State' Government and-after considering ·.
: any co=ents made on . the petition by · the State Govern-·
.
. . ment or. other. authority,. may confirm, mooify or. 'set aside
.
the order:or .. pass such other order in.relation.thereto as the
Central Government may deem. just and proper;;· .It· also "' .
. . provides for an opportunity to the applicant to make his .
. representation against the comments', if,' any, received. from
· the. State Government or. other authority. .Thus the fact .
. that· the. application for renewal is deemed to have. been ·
refused as a result of Rule 24(2) does not prohibit the ·
Central Government from passing. any order· it may deem;
just and proper inchiding an order granting renewal." · · ; · ;
.
~
' ,
~
In' these circumstances,· therefore, when the
Central
Government
allowed the revision· application and directed the State Government
to grant the licence to the appellant; the. order ·must be deemed to
be an order passed· by the Central Government· granting the prayer
of the appellant for issue of the 'mining· lease;
As, however, the
application had been made to the State Government by· the appellant,
the form of the order of the Central Government was to give a clear
direction. to the State· Government to grant the .formal lease. The
order of the Central Govermnent dated November·21, ·1964,·there~
fore, left no discretion· to the State Government ·to· refuse ·to grant
the mining lease to· the appellant.
It. seems to Us· that· the
State
Government does not appear· to ·have appreciated . the rear content
of the order of the Central Government and was· labouring under ·a
misconception.that in spite of a clear direction'given by the superior
Tribunal, namely, the' Central Government, it was still ·open: to the
State Government to. r.eject the application'.' : . · ·
·
·
:,,
,_.
It appears that the State Govern~e~t, after r~ceiving. the, o~d~r
of the Central Government, refused to implement it on . the ground · ·
that the State Government had. formulated a policy that the area· in
dispute should be conserved for· building cement factories and licences
should be given only to those applicants who are prepared to !et up
a cement factory:
The, State' Government rejected the appjication of
(lj (1973] l.S. C.R. 584.
. .
. , -,
.. .
·- ~· /•" : )
,A
B
D
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] SUPPLEMENTARY
the appellant on December 17, 1966, as the appellant had not indicated anywhere in the application that he was prepared to set up a
cement plant. In fact the appellant on coming to know of the stand
taken by the Government did file an application before the Centrar
Government on January 27, 1967 that he could put up a cement
plant if it was economical to do so. The appellant consequently filed
a third revision application before the Central Government against
the order of the State Government dated December I 7, 1966 rejecting
the application of the appellant for grant of mining lease. This application was filed on January 27, 1967 and in his comments the appellant pointed out that by the time the Central Government was seized
of the matter the policy of the State Government of Bihar, due to
the change in the Mini~try, had changed and that it may be asked
to re-examine the matter.
The Central
Government
accordingly
invited further comments of the State Government in the matter and
this time the State G~ernment again took the stand that as the area
in dispute which wail" comprised in Tauzi No. 28 was the subject
matter of title suit in the Court of Hazaribagh, the State Government
was not willing to grant the licence to the appellant and involve itself
into an endless litigation.
This comment appears to have found
favour with the Central Government which rejected the revision application of the appellant by the impugned order dated February 17,
1968 against which the present appeal by special leave has been
preferred before us.
The facts mentioned above arc proved from the various annexures
filed by the appellant along with the special leave and printed in the
Paper Book and consist of various orders passed by the Central and
State Governments, the correspondence between the State Government
and the Central Government, the note-sheets and summary of facts
made by the concerned Ministry etc.
The learned counsel for the
respondent has not at all disputed the correctness of the contents of
these documents.
It seems to us 'hat the Central Government has not disposed of
the revision application in accordance with law.
To begin with, the
Central Government had expressly directed the State Govermnent to
dispose of the application of the appellant by its order dated March
24, 1962, on the first revision application filed by the appellant. Due
to the continued inaction of the State Government, the second revision
application was filed before the Central Government which was also
allowed on November 21, 1964 and the State Government was given
clear directiOils to grant the lease to the appellant.
In view of this
order it was not open to the State Government to reject the application of the appellant on ,any ground whatsoever. If the State Government found itself unable to implement the order of the
Central
Government a reference could have been made to the Central Government for obtaining necessary directions. Ultimately the order of the
Central Government culminated into the grant of a licence in favour
of the appellant after he had selected a compact block.
Thereafter
the State Government instead of implementing this order took the
stand that they had devised a policy to grant leases only to those
'
-
J
,
'
D. c. JAIN y. BIHAR STATE (Fazal Ali, !.)
57
persons who were prepared to set up a cement plant. Subsequently
this policy was also given a go by and the State Government rejected
the application of the appellant on the ground that the land was the
subject-matter of a litigation.
This led to the last revision filed by
the appellant before the Central Government.
The Central Government, after calling for the comments of the State Government, appears
to have upheld the order of the State Government rejecting the appli-
<:ation.
In doing so, the Central Government overlooked the fact
that it had already directed by its order dated November 21, 1964
that the State Government should grant the. mining lease to the appellant in respect of a compact block selected by the appellant.
The
State Government, being a subordinate authority in the matter of
grant of mining lease, was obligated under the law to ·carry out the
orders of the Central Government as indicated above. But the State
Government declined to do so on the ground that .it had laid down
a policy that the mining leases in respect. of the area :ihould be given
only to those who were prepared to set up a cement factory. It was
clearly not open to the State Government to decline to carry out the
orders of the Central Government on this ground, particularly because
the Central Govermnent was a tribunal superior to ·the State Government. If a ground came into existence subsequent to the making of
the order of the Central Government which warranted a reconsidera-
. tion of the order of the Central Qovernment as indicated above, the
State Government could have brought this ground to the notice of
the Central Government. However, one t\ling is manifestly clear that
the State Government could not have refused to implement the order
of the Central Govermnent unless the Central Government itself chose
to revise it either on a reference by the State Government or suo
motu.
In fact to take the view that the State Government could
decline to carry out the order of the Central Government on some
ground, which it thinks proper would be subversive of judicial discipline.
Therefore, when the appellant preferred a revision application
to the Central Government against the refusa~f the State Government
to carry out the order of the Central Government by rejecting his
application, the Central Government should have proceeded to set
aside the order of the State Government and directed the
State
Government to grant the application of the appellant. Instead of doing
this, the Central Government again appears to have entered into the
merits of the question as if its earlier order was not in existence at
all and sustained the rejection of the application of the appellant on
the ground that the area in question was the subject-matter of the
title suit in the Court of Hazaribagh, even though the appellant had
pointed out to the Central Government that the injm:ction issued by
the Court regarding the premises in dispute had been vacated. Even
assuming for the sake of argument that the Central Government could
revise its earlier order,-and putting the case of the Central Government at its highest,-this could be done only if some fresh ground
came into existence which warranted reconsideration of the earlier
order. The fact that there was a litigation pending in the Hazaribagh
Court in respect of the area in question was neither a new or a fresh
fact which came into existence for the first time after the order was
made by the Central Government directing the State Government to
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] SUPPLEMENTARY
grant ·the licence to the appellant. The litigation was pending since
1954 and the Central Government was aware of this fact even when
it passed its order dated November 21, 1964. In these circumstances,
therefore, there was absolutely no legal justification at all for the
Central Government to go back upon its earlier order.
The earlier
order of the Central Government stood unvaried and unvacated and
the State Government was bound to implement it and, therefore, the
Central Government was in error in upholding the action of the State
Government rejecting the revision application filed by the appellant
and thus silently condoned the lapse committed by the State Government.
For the reasons "given above, we are satisfied that the order impugned passed by the Central Government cannot be allowed to stand and
must be set aside.
We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the
order of the Central Government dated February 17, 1968 rejecting
the revision application of the appellant and direct the State Government to implement the order of the Central Government dated November 21, 1964 for granting the mining lease to the appellant.
The
appellant will be entitled to his costs throughout.
[1976] SUPPLEMENTARY
-
f-·