AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Reis, J.—Heard Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri A. Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent no. 2.
Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the Learned Counsel. Learned Counsel waives service on behalf of respondent no. 2.
The short point for controversy in the above petition is with regard to the order passed by respondent no. 1 dated 31/01/2011 whereby the revision application challenging the order refusing the renewal of the mining lease came to be rejected essentially on the ground that there was no power vested in the authority to condone the delay.
Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel has assailed the impugned order by pointing out that respondent no. 1 has misconstrued the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 whereby there are ample powers conferred on the appropriate Government to condone such delay. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that respondent no. 1 has misconstrued the provisions of Goa, Daman & Diu Mining Concessions (Abolition and Declaration as Mining Lease) Act, 1987 and has come to an erroneous conclusion that there was no power to condone the delay in filing a renewal application. Learned Senior Counsel in support of his submissions has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 51 of 2011 dated 18/02/2011, whereby this Court has come to the conclusion that such conclusions on the part of respondent no. 1 are contrary to law and remanded the matter back to respondent no. 1 o decide the revision application afresh. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Sri Nand Lal Jain v. The State of Bihar, (1980) 3 SCC 317 and another judgment of the Apex Court reported in Harkaran Das Mangilal and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . Learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the ratio of the said judgment established that there is power in the Central Government to entertain application for renewal after the time prescribed. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that though several contentions were advanced by the petitioner before the respondent no. 1 in support of their claim, nevertheless the respondent no. 1 has not given any reasons why such contentions were not considered. Learned Senior Counsel, as such, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be modified and set aside.
On the other hand, Shri A. Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent no. 2, in fact, did not disputed that several contentions were advanced by the petitioner and that the respondent no. 1 has not given any reasons nor dealt with such contentions in the impugned order. Learned additional Government advocate also did not dispute that this Court in similar circumstances had remanded the matter back to the respondent no. 1 to decide the revision afresh, in the said judgment dated 18/02/2011.
Considering the submissions of the Learned Counsel and on perusal of the impugned order, I find that respondent no. 1 was not justified to reject the revision application filed by the petitioner solely on the ground that there was no power to entertain the renewal application, belatedly without considering the other contentions raised by the petitioner. It was incumbent upon the respondent no. 1 to give reasons whilst passing the impugned order. The ratio in the judgments of the Apex Court relied by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would have to be considered by the respondent no. 1 whilst deciding all the contentions raised by the parties including the point of limitation and the power, if any, to condone delay afresh. Apart from that, considering the judgments of this Court relied by the learned Senior Counsel, I find that there is no reason to take a contrary view in the above case.
In view of the above, I pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 31/01/2011 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) Revision application no. 8/4/2010-RC.II is restored to the file of respondent no. 1.
(iii) Respondent no. 1 is directed to decide the said revision afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law, preferably within six months. All the rival contentions of the parties are left open.
(iv) Rule is disposed of in the above terms.
(v) Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.