# MIS. NANDRAM HUNATRAM, CALCUTTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

- **Citation:** [1966] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 104
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-03-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 257 of 1964
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mis-nandram-hunatram-calcutta-v-union-of-india-anr-3785
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

104
MIS. NANDRAM HUNATRAM, CALCUTTA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
March 29, 1966
[M.
H!DAYATULLAH, J. R. MUDHOLKAR, R. S. BACHAWAT
AND
J. M. SHELAT, JJ.1
Mines and Minerals-Failure t.o fulfil condition of lease and enda!lQering colliery-Government if can determine lease-Revi3ionA
B
Procedure for passing order-Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
C
The appellant-firm held mining lease of a colliery on the condi·
tlon to continue the wnrk, without voluntary intermission, in a ski!·
fut and v."Orkman·like manner. The partners fell out amongst themaelves, the work of the colliery stopped, wages of the labourers were
not paid, the essential services stopped working, and the colliery
began to get flooded. The State Government stepped in and made a
promise to the essential workmen that their wages would be paid D
and this saved the colliery. The State Government gave a notice asking the firm to remedy the defect within sixty days failing which
It would take over the colliery. As the firm did nothing to remove
the defects and did not request for extension of time, the State G<lvernmcnt took over the colliery and terminated the lease. The firm
filed a revision before the Central Government. The Central Government asked for the comments of the State Government and invited
the firm to make its own comment upon the reply of the State Gov·
ernment. Taking the entire matter into consideration, the Central
E
Government rejected the revision. In appeal to this Court, the firm
contended that the action by the State Government was arbitrary
and highhanded and that the Central Government did not give a
hearing to the firm and also did not give any reasons in its order
dismissing the revision.
HELD: The action of the State Government far from being arbitrary or capricious was not only right but proper. This was hardly a
case in which any action other than rejecting the app!ication for rep
vision was called for and a detailed order was really not required because after all the Central Government was merely approving the
action taken in the case by the State Gavernment, which stood completely vindicated. [108 B.c]
The Mineral Concession Rules make it incumbent on the Central
Government to obtain the comments of the State Government
upon the application for revision and cast a duty on the Central Gov·
G
ernment to afford an opportunity to the applicant to make representations in respect of the commenL' of the State Government. This
procedure was correctly followed and the Central Government thus
had a detailed discussion of the pros and cons of the case before it
[107 G].
H11rinaaar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shvam Sundar Jhunjhunwala,[19621
2 S.C.R 339, Madh11a Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India. (1966]
J.S.C.R. 466 and Aluminium Corporation of India r,td. v. Union of
India and Ors., C.A. No. 635/64, dated
2~1965] referred to.
B
•
•
. '
~
'

~
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
NANDRAM HUNATRAM v. TTNIO" (!lirlayatul!ah, J.)
105
The firm did not fuM\I its obhgations under the lease and, whatever the reason, it was guilty of voluntary intermission in the working of the colliery and of endangering it by neglect. This entitled the
State Government to step in and determine the lease under the
terms of the lease and the provisions of the Mineral Concession
Rules. [107 C-D].

## Text

104
MIS. NANDRAM HUNATRAM, CALCUTTA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
March 29, 1966
[M.
H!DAYATULLAH, J. R. MUDHOLKAR, R. S. BACHAWAT
AND
J. M. SHELAT, JJ.1
Mines and Minerals-Failure t.o fulfil condition of lease and enda!lQering colliery-Government if can determine lease-Revi3ionA
B
Procedure for passing order-Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
C
The appellant-firm held mining lease of a colliery on the condi·
tlon to continue the wnrk, without voluntary intermission, in a ski!·
fut and v."Orkman·like manner. The partners fell out amongst themaelves, the work of the colliery stopped, wages of the labourers were
not paid, the essential services stopped working, and the colliery
began to get flooded. The State Government stepped in and made a
promise to the essential workmen that their wages would be paid D
and this saved the colliery. The State Government gave a notice asking the firm to remedy the defect within sixty days failing which
It would take over the colliery. As the firm did nothing to remove
the defects and did not request for extension of time, the State G<lvernmcnt took over the colliery and terminated the lease. The firm
filed a revision before the Central Government. The Central Government asked for the comments of the State Government and invited
the firm to make its own comment upon the reply of the State Gov·
ernment. Taking the entire matter into consideration, the Central
E
Government rejected the revision. In appeal to this Court, the firm
contended that the action by the State Government was arbitrary
and highhanded and that the Central Government did not give a
hearing to the firm and also did not give any reasons in its order
dismissing the revision.
HELD: The action of the State Government far from being arbitrary or capricious was not only right but proper. This was hardly a
case in which any action other than rejecting the app!ication for rep
vision was called for and a detailed order was really not required because after all the Central Government was merely approving the
action taken in the case by the State Gavernment, which stood completely vindicated. [108 B.c]
The Mineral Concession Rules make it incumbent on the Central
Government to obtain the comments of the State Government
upon the application for revision and cast a duty on the Central Gov·
G
ernment to afford an opportunity to the applicant to make representations in respect of the commenL' of the State Government. This
procedure was correctly followed and the Central Government thus
had a detailed discussion of the pros and cons of the case before it
[107 G].
H11rinaaar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shvam Sundar Jhunjhunwala,[19621
2 S.C.R 339, Madh11a Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India. (1966]
J.S.C.R. 466 and Aluminium Corporation of India r,td. v. Union of
India and Ors., C.A. No. 635/64, dated
2~1965] referred to.
B
•
•
. '
~
'

~
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
NANDRAM HUNATRAM v. TTNIO" (!lirlayatul!ah, J.)
105
The firm did not fuM\I its obhgations under the lease and, whatever the reason, it was guilty of voluntary intermission in the working of the colliery and of endangering it by neglect. This entitled the
State Government to step in and determine the lease under the
terms of the lease and the provisions of the Mineral Concession
Rules. [107 C-D].
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 257 of
1964.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
February 19, 1963 of the Government of India, Ministry of Mines
and Fuel, New Delhi on an application for review under rule 54
of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960.
S. N. Andley, Ramesliwar Nath, P. L. Vohra and Mahinder
Narain, for the appellant.
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, R. Ganapathy Iyer and
B. R. G. K. Achar, for respondent No. I.
R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah, J. The appellant Messrs. Nandram Hunatram
of Calcutta, a firm co:isisting of four partners including one
Kishan Lal Aggarwal, held a mining lease for coal in respect of
Handidhua Colliery for a period of 30 years commencing on
April 6, 1959. Under Part VII of the lease, which contained the
covenants of the lessee, the firm had undertaken to commence
mining operations within one year from the date of the execution
of the lease and then to continue the work of searching and winning minerals without voluntary intermission in a skilful and
workman-like-manner. The firm had appointed one M. L. Goel
as the Manager and Kishan Lal Aggarwal as the occupier of the
colliery. It appears (and in fact it is not denied) that the partners
fell out among themselves and 2s none of them was willing to
spend money on the colliery, work deteriorated and came to a
standstill in May 1962. Goel reported to the State Government
that the wages of the labourers had not been paid for weeks, that
work had stopped at the colliery and that even the essential services were not being maintained owing to non-payment of wages.
He wrote to the firm and Government early in the first week of
May, bringing to their notice that the colliery was in danger of
being flooded if the essential services stopped working. On May
9, 1962 the essential services stopped working as their wages had
not been paid for several weeks. The colliery began to get flooded when the pumps stopped and it was apprehended that within
the next few honrs the pumps would be drowned and the cdlliery
lost. Government, however, stepped in and made a promise to the
essential workmen that their wages would be paid and this saved
the colliery. On May 14, the Chief Inspector of Mines was informed by Kishan Lal Aggarwal that he was restrained by the other
L,S5CSI-9( a)
106
81JPREMB COURT REPORTS
I 19fi!j) 8UPP. o.C.R.
partners af the fim1 from making pa)ment for running expenses
A
of the colliery and that he was not in a position to perform his
duties as an occupier. He accordingly resigned his office. Goel also
resigned and on May 16, 1962 the Subdivisional Officer, Talchar
informed Government that the situation had become very alarming
and that some action was absolutely necessary. Government thereB
upon gave a notice on May 19, 1962 asking the firm to remedy the
defect within sixty days of the receipt of the notice failing which
Government threatened to take over the colliery from the firm. As
the firm did nothing to remove the defects and did not request for
extension of time, Government took over the cr-lliery and terminated the lease.
The firm thereupon filed an application for revision before the
C
Central Government under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession
Rules 1960. The Central Government asked for the comments of
the State Government on the application and invited the firm to
make its own comments upon the reply of the State Government.
Taking the entire matter into consideration the Central Government by order, Febiuary 19, 1963, rejected the application for revision. The present appeal is against the order of the Central GovD
ernment by special leave of this Court.
It was admitted in the application for revision and it is not
denied before us that the partners were quarrelling among themselves and the work at the colliery had therefore stopped. It is admitted that the wages of the labourers were not paid for about five
weeks before Government sent its notice on May 19, 1962. It is
E
further admitted that the essential services hld also stopped working and that but for the timely action oo the Government, the colliery would have been flooded in a matter of hours and probably
rendered unworkable till dewatered. With this background in mind
we have to consider the objections of the firm to the order of the
Central Government in the first instance and of the State Government in the final analysis.
F
Clause (3) of Part VII of the lease is one of the covenants by
the lessee and under it the lessee undertook to continue work, without voluntary intermission. in a skilful and workman-like-manner.
Under els. (i) to (x) of Rule 41 of the Mineral Concession Rules.
1949 and under Rule 27(5) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960
power is conferred on the State Government to require the lessee
G
by notice to remove a breach within 60 days of the receipt of notice
and in default to determine the lease and for.feit the whole ex part
of the security in deposit. Under Ru!e 27(J)(f) the lc,sec is also
required to conduct operations in a proper. skilful and workmanlike-manner. It is abvious that there was a breach by the lessee of
the covenants and the Mineral Concession Rules when the firm
H
stopped working the colliery. Even if the firm did not order the
stoppai:e of the work at the colliery it is clear from the complaint!
•
.
'
>
A
B
c
D
G
H
NA~DRAM m;NATRAM v. UNI0N (Hidayalullah, J.)
107
of Goel and Kishan Lal Aggarwal that no payment was being made
to the labourers and they stopped work. On record there are many
telegrams and letters sent by the Workers' Association to Government complaining of the failure of the firm to pay their wages for
weeks. It is thus clear that action was absolutely necessary to save
the colliery from being ruined. It is contended, however, that the
wages were paid in full on the 17th of July but that obviously cannot do away with voluntary intermission which had already taken
place for a few weeks. The firm in its representation to the Central
Government said that it had plans to raise as much as 240,000 tons
of coal per year but their performance shows that in April, 1962
they had raised less than 2,000 tons and nothing in May, June and
July. In these circumstances, there is no merit whatever in the submission of the firm that the action by the State Government was
arbitrary and high-handed. It is plain that the firm did not fulfil
its obligations under the lease and, whatever the reasooi., it was
guilty of voluntary intermission in the working of the colliery and
of endangering it by neglect. This entitled the State Government lo
step in and determine the lease under the terms of the lease and
the provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules.
It is, however, argued before us that the Central Government
did not give a hearing to the firm and also did not give any reasons
in its order dismissing the application for revision. Reliance is
placed upon two recent decisions of this Court which, following
the earlier decision reported in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam
Sundar Jhunjhunwa/a(') have laid down that Government should
give reasons when it performs quasi-judicial functions such as hearin~ appeals and revisions. The two cases are Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.(') and Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.(') In Harinagar
Sugar Mills(') the order was reversed on the ground that reasons for
the decision should have appeared. In the Aluminium case there
was dispute as to how much scrap was remelted and Government
gave its decision on a report received behind the back of the aggrieved party again without stating why a part of the assessee's case
was rejected. In the Madhya Pradesh Industries case it was pointed
out that an order affirming an earlier decision need not fail because
it does not repeat the same reasons over again.
The Mineral Concession Rules make it incumbent on the
Central Government to obtain the comments of the State Government upon the application for revision and cast a duty on the Central Government to afford an opportunity to the applicant to make
representations in respect of the comments of the State Government. This procedure was correctly followed and the Central
Government thus had a detailed discussion of the pros and cons of
the case before it. The facts in the case were quite clear and spoke
(') (1962] 2 S.C.R. 330.
I')
(196f>] J S.C.R, 466.
( 3)
C.A. ~o. 635 of 1964- decitl!O'd on September 23, 1065.
108
SUl'REMF. COURT lt!!:PORTS
[196Gj 8Ul'P. 8,C,R.
for themselves. The belated attempt to pay the back wages of the
workmen did not undo the voluntary intermission for a significantly long period and did not wipe off the dereliction on the part of
the finn by which the existence of the colliery was gravely endangered. The documents on the record quite clearly establish that the
colliery was being flooded as the .es•ential services had stopped
functioning and but for the timely intervention of the State Government the colliery would have been lost. In these circumstances. it
is quite clear that the action of the State Government was not only
right but proper and this is hardly a case in which any action other
than rejecting the application for revision was called for and a detailed order was really not required because after all the Central
Government was merely approving of the action taken in the case
by the State Government. which stood completely viPc;icated. The
order of the Central Government is clearly sustainable on the material and it is not said that anything has been withheld from us.
The action of the State Government far from being arbitrary or
capricious was perhaps the only one to take and all that the Central
Government has done is to approve of it.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
A
'
B
c
D
..