Shriram Jhunjhunwala v. The State of Bombay and Others

Da.yal J. on June 18, 1951, and intimated that the pros-

pecting licence form which was pending approval by the Union Government, would be executed in due course.

On April 21, 1951, respondent No. 3 applied for the grant of mining lease over·32 acres out of the aforesaid area of 83· 18 acres. On October 20, 1951, the State Government informed him that that area had been already granted to the appellant under prospecting licence, and it was not available to him.

On November 26, 1951, respondeat No. 3 applied for review to the Union Government under r. 57 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949.

On September 5, 1952, the Union Govern-ment wrote to the State Government that its order regarding the grant of prospecting licence to the appellant over an area of 83·18 acres should be modified to the extent that the area granted under the prospecting licence be restricted to the virgin area of 51·18 acres, as the area of 32 acres had been previously held under a mining lease by Messrs Akbar Ali Mumvar Ali and had not by then been thrown open for re-grant. It was further directed by the Union Government, that that area of 32 acres b~ thrown open for re-grant. In consequence of this direction by tbe Union Government, the State Government modified its order dated June 18, 1951, granting the pros-pecting licence to the appellant and restricted that licence to the virgin area of 51·18 acres only.

Thereafter, some time in April 1953, appli-1961 cations were invited for the grant of mining lease with respect to the area of 32 acres. The appel-Shriram fant submitted au <>pplication for the grant of Jhunjh'I\ nwala 83·18 v. the mining lease for acres. The respondent The State of No. 3 did not file any fresh application. On April Bombay 30, 1954, the State Government granted a mining lease for manganese ore over an area of 51·18 Raghubar acres and did not grant the lease for the area of Da,yal J. 32 acres, stating in its letter to the Deputy Com - missioner that that area had been granted to res-pondent No. 3 under mining lease, as directed by the Union Government, under r. 57 of the Mineral Concession Rules.

Sometime thereafter, on May 17, 1954, the appellant filed the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court, praying for the quashing of the order of the Union Government, respondent No. 2, granting 32 acres of area in dispute to respondent No. 3, by the issue of a writ of certiorari and also for the issue of a direction that the appellant was entitled to the minii;ig lease in respect of that area.

The High Court dismissed this petition, holding that in order to give the relief prayed for it was essential that the order of the Union Government be quashed and, as the High Court could not reach it, it would b£ incongruous to direct the State Government to ignore the order of the Union Government. It is against this order that this appeal has been filed.

This appeal has no force. The pray<'r in the writ petition was for the quashing of the order of the Union Government granting 32 acres of area in dispute to respondent No. 3, by issue of a writ of certiorari and for the issue of a direction that the applicant was entitL~d to a mining lease in respect of the said area of 32 acres.

The order of the Union Government could not

1961 be quashed by the High Court of Bombay, as

it did not exercise territoria I jurisdiction over the Shrirll111 Union Government. The High Court could not Jhmrjh'U"'oala ... issue the directions prayed for even if it could

TM Stat' of issue such a direction till the order of the Union

Bombay Government granting the mining lease of 32 acres

to respondent No. 3 was set aside.

T::cghubar Dayal J. In this view of the matter, it is unnecessary

to consider the points urged for the appellant that the order of the Union Government was not an order within its jurisdiction inasmuch as it passed it without issuing notice to the appellant or affor-ding him an opportunity to be heard on the review application filed by respondent No. 3. The ques-tion, in this form, was not raised before the High Court and if it had been raised, it would not have been within the juriRrlir:tion of the High Court to interfere with it.

It has also been mged that the Union Government had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated April 7, 1954, under r. 57 of the Rules when, in fact, no application for review by respondent No. 3 was pending before it, as the review appli-cation filed by respondent No. 3 on November 26, 1951, had been disposed of by the Union Government on September 5, 1952. The review application, however, was not in fact finally disposed of by the letter from the Union Govern-ment to the State Gov<'rnmcnt, dated September 5, 1952. That letter asked the State Government to reduce the area of tho prospecting licence gran-ted to the appellant to iJJ · 18 acres and to throw open for re-grant Hte' r<'maining area of 32 acres. The letter convev<:>d no order nf tho Union Govern-ment about th~ way in whfrh the Union Govern-ment was disposing of t,he review application. It is clear from the sevcra 1 letters on record that the Union Government never treated the review proceedings before it to have been disposed of. Respondent ~o. 3 was informed by those letterR that the matter was under consideration. It is therefore not correct to sav that there was no review application JWHding with the Union ,_';hri,.ram Govemment on April 7. when it passed the J /11111jhunwals Hlfi4, v. order cancelling the orders of the State Govern-The State of me'1t dated October 20, 1931, and directing thG Bomiay State Government to grant a mining lease for manganese ore over au area of 32 acres to res-Raghuhar pondent No. 3, provided he was otherwise eligible. Dayal J.

The State Government, as urged for the appellant, has the power, under the Rules, to grant the mining lease. But its granting such a lease is subject to the orders on a review by the Union Government. Its order is final, subject to the order of the Union Government. When the Union Government directed the grant of the mining lease for .<n area of 32 acres to respondent No. 3, the State Government had to order such grant, in accordance with the directions of the Union Govern-ment. In fact, at that stage, the State Govern-ment only effectuates the order of the Union Government. It carries out that order which re-mains the final order. The contention that the effective order is ultimately of the State Govern-ment and therefore can be quashed by the High Court is not open to the appellant.

The appeal has thc-rcfore no force and is hereby dismissed with costs.

Appeal dism·issed.