# MADAN GOPAL RU~GTA v. SECRETAH.YTO THE OOVERNMENTOF

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 906
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/madan-gopal-ru-gta-v-secretah-yto-the-oovernmentof-2512
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

1161
Mohamm<dbh.i
Khudob..x Cll/tipa
••
Tira Blall of<Jujarol
WancAH ,1.
1961
Morch JG.
•
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
undor Ar_t. 31(1).
\Ve may add that the same will
apply to fecH collcctecl 11nder 8. I I ancl validated by
sub-s. (2) of s. 29.R. Thcre iR therefore no force in
this contention. It iR hcrc:by rejected.
In the result, the petitions are dismissed
with cost;i, One set of hearing fee.
Petilfon.y dismissed.
MADAN GOPAL RU~GTA
v.
SECRETAH.YTO THE OOVERNMENTOF
ORISSA
(B. P. SINHA, ·p, B.
GA.mNDRAGADKAR, K. ~
WANCHOO, N. RA.JAOOPALA AYYANOAH, and
T. L. VENKATARA)[A AIYAR, JJ.)
Writ-Iliyh Court-If can i.<.1uc writs beyond its territorial
juristliclion-Mi11eral Conce..;sion /l1de.~, 194.9, 6,57 !J.'J
00-Constilution of India Ari. 226.
'
'
The Stace Government of Orissa rejected the application of the appellant who had applied f()r grant of a mining least: in Decr.rnher 1957
on the ground that the State
Government proposed to arrangr. for lhe exploitation of the
area in the public si:ctor.
The appellant rnadr. an application
for review to the Central Govern1nent under r. 57 of the
rules of Mineral Concession Rub, 1949.
This application
was rejected by
the Central Government in June 1959.
Thereupon the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of
the Constitution in the High Court of Oris'ia.
This petition
was dismhsed by th~ 1-ligh Court on the ground that it had
no j11risdiction to dc;1l \vi th the matter under l\rt. 226 a'i
the final order in the case \\'a." passed by the Central Government, \vhich ,.,·as located beyond the territorial jurisdiction
of the High Court. The appellant came up by special leave
to appeal to the Supren1e Court. The 1nain question is as
to the limit of the jurisdiction of the Iiigli Court under Art.
226. The appellant contended that as the Central Go,·ern-
!JlCnt had rq.crely dismissed the rev~cw petition, the effective
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
907
order rejecting the appellant's application for the mining
lease was that of the State Government and therefore the
High {!ourt would have juris.diction to grant a writ under
Art. 226.
Held, that the High .Court was right in holding that
it had no jurisdiction to issue a wiit under Art. 226 in the
present case as the final order in this case was that of the
Central Government which was not situa"te within the trrritories over which the High Court had jurisdiction. This order
of the Central Gover.nment in effect rejecting the application
of the appellant for the grant of the mining ]ease to him and
confirming the rejection of the application of the appellant
by the Orissa Government is clearly not amenable to the
jurisdiction of the High Court of Orissa under Art. ·226 in
view of the fact that the Ccn tral Government is not located
within the territories subject to the jurisdiction of the Orissa
High Court. It would therefore ha\e been useless for the
Orissa High Court to issue a writ against the Orissa Government for the Central Government's Order rejecting the application of the appellant for the grant of the mining lease would
still stand.
Held, further that quite apart from the theoretical question of the merger of the State Government's Order with the
Central Government's Order,
the terms
of r. 60 of the
Mineral Concession Rule 1949 make it perfectly clear that
whenever the matter is brought to the Central Government
under r. 59, it is the order of the Central Government which
is effective and ·final.
So where there is a review petition
and the· Central Government passes an order on such 'petition one .way or the other it is the Central Government's
Order that prevails and the State Government's Order must
in those circumstances merge in the order of the Central
Government.
Election Gom,mission I nrlia v. l3aka V enkafa l:Jubha Rao,
(1953) S.C.R. 1144, Lt. Col. Kltajoo" Sin(lh v. Union of India,
(1961) 2 S.C.R. 828, A. T!iangol Kunju Musaliar v. M.
Venlcitaclmlam PoUi (1955) 2 S.C.R. 1196 relied on.
"Shivji Nathuh/;ai v. The Unio

## Text

1161
Mohamm<dbh.i
Khudob..x Cll/tipa
••
Tira Blall of<Jujarol
WancAH ,1.
1961
Morch JG.
•
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
undor Ar_t. 31(1).
\Ve may add that the same will
apply to fecH collcctecl 11nder 8. I I ancl validated by
sub-s. (2) of s. 29.R. Thcre iR therefore no force in
this contention. It iR hcrc:by rejected.
In the result, the petitions are dismissed
with cost;i, One set of hearing fee.
Petilfon.y dismissed.
MADAN GOPAL RU~GTA
v.
SECRETAH.YTO THE OOVERNMENTOF
ORISSA
(B. P. SINHA, ·p, B.
GA.mNDRAGADKAR, K. ~
WANCHOO, N. RA.JAOOPALA AYYANOAH, and
T. L. VENKATARA)[A AIYAR, JJ.)
Writ-Iliyh Court-If can i.<.1uc writs beyond its territorial
juristliclion-Mi11eral Conce..;sion /l1de.~, 194.9, 6,57 !J.'J
00-Constilution of India Ari. 226.
'
'
The Stace Government of Orissa rejected the application of the appellant who had applied f()r grant of a mining least: in Decr.rnher 1957
on the ground that the State
Government proposed to arrangr. for lhe exploitation of the
area in the public si:ctor.
The appellant rnadr. an application
for review to the Central Govern1nent under r. 57 of the
rules of Mineral Concession Rub, 1949.
This application
was rejected by
the Central Government in June 1959.
Thereupon the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of
the Constitution in the High Court of Oris'ia.
This petition
was dismhsed by th~ 1-ligh Court on the ground that it had
no j11risdiction to dc;1l \vi th the matter under l\rt. 226 a'i
the final order in the case \\'a." passed by the Central Government, \vhich ,.,·as located beyond the territorial jurisdiction
of the High Court. The appellant came up by special leave
to appeal to the Supren1e Court. The 1nain question is as
to the limit of the jurisdiction of the Iiigli Court under Art.
226. The appellant contended that as the Central Go,·ern-
!JlCnt had rq.crely dismissed the rev~cw petition, the effective
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
907
order rejecting the appellant's application for the mining
lease was that of the State Government and therefore the
High {!ourt would have juris.diction to grant a writ under
Art. 226.
Held, that the High .Court was right in holding that
it had no jurisdiction to issue a wiit under Art. 226 in the
present case as the final order in this case was that of the
Central Government which was not situa"te within the trrritories over which the High Court had jurisdiction. This order
of the Central Gover.nment in effect rejecting the application
of the appellant for the grant of the mining ]ease to him and
confirming the rejection of the application of the appellant
by the Orissa Government is clearly not amenable to the
jurisdiction of the High Court of Orissa under Art. ·226 in
view of the fact that the Ccn tral Government is not located
within the territories subject to the jurisdiction of the Orissa
High Court. It would therefore ha\e been useless for the
Orissa High Court to issue a writ against the Orissa Government for the Central Government's Order rejecting the application of the appellant for the grant of the mining lease would
still stand.
Held, further that quite apart from the theoretical question of the merger of the State Government's Order with the
Central Government's Order,
the terms
of r. 60 of the
Mineral Concession Rule 1949 make it perfectly clear that
whenever the matter is brought to the Central Government
under r. 59, it is the order of the Central Government which
is effective and ·final.
So where there is a review petition
and the· Central Government passes an order on such 'petition one .way or the other it is the Central Government's
Order that prevails and the State Government's Order must
in those circumstances merge in the order of the Central
Government.
Election Gom,mission I nrlia v. l3aka V enkafa l:Jubha Rao,
(1953) S.C.R. 1144, Lt. Col. Kltajoo" Sin(lh v. Union of India,
(1961) 2 S.C.R. 828, A. T!iangol Kunju Musaliar v. M.
Venlcitaclmlam PoUi (1955) 2 S.C.R. 1196 relied on.
"Shivji Nathuh/;ai v. The Union of India, (1960) 2 S.C.R.
775, referred to.
The 8tate of U!U:-" Pradesh v. Mohammad Noolt, (1958)
S.C.R. 595, not apphcable.
CIVIL APPELI,AT!'J JumswcTioN: Civil App<'~!
No. 407/61,
1962
Madan Gopal
Rung ta
••
Secretary to lhe
Governmeiit of Orissa
1962
JI.Coo Oopal
Rwegta
v.
8 ""''"9 lo '"'
Ooomrm1 ·1 oJ Orilsa
W 1nch()Q J.
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and or_der dated :'ugust :!3, I O~O, of the Orissa High
Court 111 O.J.C .. \o. 103 of Hl.>9.
·
N. C. Chatterjee and P. /(. Chritterje_e, for the
appellant.
C. I(' Dapftlar?J, Solicitor-General of India,
B. R. L. Iyengar and P. D. Menm1., for the respondents.
R.111. Patnai!.:, S. N. Andley, lliimeshu-ar Nath
and P. L. T' ol!ra, for the Intervener.
1962. March W.
The ,Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
WA~CITOO, J.-This is an appeal by special
leave against the ·judgment of the Orissa High
Court. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. The appellant made an ap13lication to the State Govornmcnt of Orissa in 1949 for .
grant of a mining lt>asc for manganese ore over an ·
area comprising 5400 acres situated in the distric't
of Keonjhar. The appellant was the first applicant
for the lease of the aforesaid area, and subsequently
other persons applied for lease of tho same area
including Messrs. Tata Iron and Steel Company
Limited {hereinafter referred to as Tatas). the intervener in the present a.ppca.l.
The Government of
Orissa decided to grant. tlrn lease in favour of Tatas
and in .Jan1111ry 19156 referred tho matter to the
Central Government for its approval under r. :l2 of
the Mineral Concession Rul<ls, 1949
( hereina.fter
reforred to as the Rulos), which lays down that ·if
more than one application regarding the s11.1ne . lo.nd
is rocoiverl, preference shall be givrn to tho application received first, unless- the State Government, for
any special reason, and with the prior approval of
the Central Government doi:ides to the contrnrv.
The appellant made a represnntation to the Central
Government against the reoommendation of the
- _l
(
a· 8.c.k.
SUPREME "(JOURT REPORTS
909
State Government.
Eventually, on April 9, 1957,
the Central Government tui;ned down the recommendation of the State Government about the grant
of the mining lease to Tatas. It also directed that
the applications received prior to the application of
Tatas should be considered according to tho Rules
but added that in case the Government of Orissa ·
desired to work the area on a departmental basis,
the Central Government would have no objection to
consider a proposal for that purpose. Thereafter
the State Govcrnrnfmt rejected the application of
. the appellant in December 1957 on the ground that
the State Government proposed to arrange for the
exploitation of the area in the public sector.
'.l'his was followed by an application for review
to the Central Government under r. 57 of the
Hules. This application was. rejected by the Central Government in June 1959. Thereupon the
appellant filed a petition under Art.
2~6 of the
Constitution in the High Court in July 1959. This
·petition was dismissed by the High Court on the
ground that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the
matter under Art. 226 as the final order in the
case was passed by the Central Government which
was located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of
the High Court. The appf'llant then applied to the
High Court for a certificatt· to appeal to t.hie Court,
which was rejected. He thrn asked for special leave
from this Court, which was granted; and that how
the matter has come up before us.
The main question raised before us is the limit
of ,be jurisdictkn uf the High Court under Art. 226
in circumEtances like those in the present case. The
contention on behalf of the appellant is that as the
Central. Governm<'nt had merely dismissed
the
review pe\ition, t_he (•ffectivn order rejecting the
appellant's application for the mining lease was
that of the btate Government and therefore the
Hig1 Court would have jurii.diction to grant a writ
1962
Madan Gopal
•Rung ta
••
$t(r1ltr.)' lo tJ.,
Goyernment ·of OrisstJ
Wane/Joo J.
l'6Z
Madan Uopal
Rungla •
••
StCf'elary to th~
Gooern.mml o/ Uri ua
910 SUPREME OOURT REPORTs (1962] SUPP.
under Art. 226, and that the principle Ia.id down
in Election Cmmnission India v. Sc1ka Venkata Subba
Rao(!) would not apply. Heliance in this connection
has been placed on the decision of this Court in
Tlte State of Utuir l'r1uksh v. Mohammed Nooli(').
It is well settled by a series of decisions of this
Court beginning with Salra V enkata Subba Rao'B case(') ·
that there is two-fold limitation on the power of the
High Court to grant a writ under Art. 226. These
limitation are firstly that the power is to be exercised
throughout the territories in relation to which the
High rourt exercise juri8diction, that is to Hay, the
writs isaued by tho High Court cannot run beyond
the territories subject to its jurisdic:tion, and secondly, that the person or authority to whom the High
Court is empowered to issue 'such writs must be
within thoRe territories, which clearly implies that
they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by
residence or location within those territories. The
view taken in this case has boen recently re,affirmed
by this Court in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of
India. (')Prima facie, therefore, as the final order
in this case was passed by the Central Government
which is not located within the territories over
which the High Court has jurisdiction, t.Jie High
Court will have no power to.grant a writ in this
•
case.
Learned counsel for
the appJllant however
relies on the decision in /Jfohd.Nooh's case(') where
it was held that it was not correct to sav that an
order of dismiBSal passed on April 20, 1948, merged
in the order in appeal therefrom p8i!8Cd in May
1949, and the two orders in turn merged in the
order passed in revision on April 2:!, 1950, or that·
the original order of dismissal only beoaruo final on
the pas8ing of the order in revision.· It was furthor
held that tho order of dismissal was operative on its
1. [1953J s.c.a. 1144.
2. t1958J s.c.R. 595.
s. [1961J 2 s.c.R. &28.
·-
3 S.C.R.
"
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
9ll
own strength and therefore no relief under Art. 226
could be granted against the order of dismissal pas·
scd in 19~8 as Art. 226 was not retrospective in
operation. It is urged that if the order of dismissal
in that case did not merge in the final order of revision which was passed in April 1950, after the Constitution came into force, there was no reason why
the order of the State Government should be taken
to have merged in the order of the Central Government in this case so as to deprive the appellant of
his remedy in the High Court under Art. 226.
We
are of opinion that the principle of Mohd. Nook's
case(1) cannot apply in the circumstances of the present case. The question there was whether·the High
Court would have power to issue a writ under ·
Art. 226 in respect of a dismissal which was effective from 1948, simply.because the revision against
the order of dismissal was dismissed by the State
Government in April 1950 after the Constitution
came into force. It was in those circumstances that
this Court held that the dismissalh1wing taken place
in 1948 could not be the subject.matter of an application under Art: 226 of the Constitution for that
would be giving retrospective effect to· that Article.
The argument that .the order of dismissal merged
in the order pa~sed in appeal therefrom and in the
final order of revision was repelled by this Court on
two grounds. It was held (firstly) that the principle of merger applicable to decrees of courts would
not apply to orders of departmental tribunals, and
(secondly) that the original order of dismissal would
be operative on its own strength and did not gain
greater efficacy by the subsequent order of dismissal
of the appeal or revision, and therefore the order of
dismissal having been passed before the Constitu- ·
tion would not be Op"n to attack under Art. 226 or
the Constitution. We are of opinion that the facts
iu Mohd. Nook's case(') were of a special kind and
(I) ll958J s.c.R. 595.
'
I96B
Mada• Gopal
Run(fta
••
Secretar,1 to l'M
<Jouernment oJ Orils:-
Wanchoo J.
•
..
1110
.\/!fia GopaJ
/lungi.
••
tiur11ary to llN
Gooernmetd oJOrissa
•
•
912 SUPREME OOURT REPoRTs (1982] SOPP.
the reasoning in that case would not apply to the
facts of the present case .
.Further, in A. Thau.gal Kunj11 J!u8aliu,. v. Jf .
Venkit;v;halam
Potti ('),
though this Court was
considering a matter in which the quc:ition which is
before us wiis not directly in issue, it had occasion
to consider certain decisions of curtain High Courts
which dealt with cases similar to the present case :
(ece p. l2lil). In those decisions orders had been
paesed by c<:rtain inforior authorities within the
wrritorics subject to the juri~diction of the High
Courts concerned, but they had been taken in appeal
before superior authorities which were loc11.ted out.
side the territories subject to the jurisdiction of tho
High Courts concerned. In those circumst1mces the
High Courtll ha.d held that the order of the inferior
authorities had merged in the orders of the authorities. This Court apparently approved of the view
taken by the High Courts in those casus on the
ground that a wrjt against the inferior authority
within the torritoriell could not l>e of any avail to
the petitioners concerned in those cases and could
give them no . relief for the orders of the superior
authority outside the jurisdiction would. remain
outstanding and opcrativo af.(ainst them. 1'horefore,
as no writs could be issued against the outside
authorities, this Court was of the view that tho
High Courts were right in dismis8ing the petitions,
as any writ against the inferior e.uthority which is
within the jurisdiction of the High Court, in vi"w
of the orders of the superior authority, would be
infructuous. The position in the present case is
similar to that envisaged above. The Orissa Government rejected the api>iJcation of the appellant for
grant of the mining lease.
The ii ppella.nt being
aggrieved by that order went in review to the Contra] Government under tho Rule8 and that review
petition was dismissed so that in effect the Central
(!) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1196,
•
•
3 S.d.R.
SOPREME COURT REPORTS
913
Government also rejected the application of the
appellant for grant of the mining lease to him. It
is not in dispute that if the Central Government
was so minded it could ha.ve allowed the review and
directed the Orissa Government to grant mining
lease to the appellant. Therefore when the Central
Government rejected the review petition, it in effect
rejected the application of the appellant for the
grant of the mining lease to him. This order of the
Central Government in effect rejecting the applica-
. tion of the appellant for the .grant of the inining
lease to him and confirming the rejection of the
application of the appellant by the Orissa Government is clearly not amenable to the jurisdiction of
the High Court of Orissa under Art.226 in view of
the fact that the Central Government is not located
within the territories subject to the jurisdiction of
the Orissa High Court. It would therefore have been
useless for the Orissa High Court to issue a writ
against the Orissa Government for the Central Government's order rejecting the review petition and
therefore in effect rejecting the application of the
appellant for grant of the mining lease would still
stand. This is made clear by r. 60 of the Rules,
which provides
that "the order of the Central
Government under Rule 59 and subject only to such
order, any order of a State Government under these
rules, s~all be final''.
Clearly therefore r. 60 provides that where there is a review petition against the
order passed in the first ihstance by the State Government, the order of the Central Government
passed in review would prevail and would be the
final order dealing with an application for a mining
lease under the Rules. Therefore, quite apart from
the theoretical question of the merger of the State
Government's order with the Central Government's
order, the terms of r.60 make it perfectly clear that
whenever the matter
is brought to the Central
Government under r . .59, it is the order of the Central Government which is effective and final. In these
1962
M ad,n· Gopal
Rungta
y,
Secrcla·y to ~ht
G(;Vernment of Orissa
lYanchoo J.
1961
Madat< Gopal
Rungld
...
8e'1'dcny lo lht
Governmerct oj Orillo
woncAoo J.
9I4 SUPREME COUR'"i. REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
circumstances we are of opinion that the High Court
was right in holding that it had no jLirisdiction to
issue a writ under Art. 22() in the present c1isc as the
final order in this ease was that of the ~ntral Governm<'nt which was not situate within the territories
over which the High Court has jurisdiction.
Our attention in this connection was drawn to
Shivji Nathubhai v.
'J'he l.:nion of India (1).
In that
case a mining lease had been granted by the State
Government to a particular person and them was a
review petition against the grant of that mining
lease. The order granting tlw mining lease was set
aside on reviow without notice to thc person to
whom the lease had been granted. In that connection a question arose whether tho person to whom
the State Government had granted tho lea,~e had
any interest to enable him . to make an application
under Art. 22ti. It was then pointed out liy this
Court that under the Rules the order of tho State
Government would be cfft>ctive a~ there was no requirement that it was not final until confirmation
by the Central Govornmm1t.
That case however is
of no assistance to the appellaut for where there is
a review petition and the Central Government passes an order on such potitiou one w~y or thn other
it is the Central Government's order that prevails
and the State Government's order must in those
eircurustances merge in the order of tho C"ntral
Government. The observations in that case on
which the appellant relics were made in another
connection and can have no bearing on the question
before us, where an order has been paBBed by the
Central Government on review and it is that order
which is made final by r. tiO and which stands in the
way of the appellant. 'lhere is therefore no force
in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
(IJ [1960J 2 s.c.J.{. ns.
1
..
.