SATYANARAYANA SINHA versus M/S S. LAL AND COMPANY (PVT.) LTD.

SATYANARAYANA SINHA

M/S S. LAL AND COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. September 10, 1973

[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND S. N. DWIVEDI, JJ.]

Practice--CQ11.5tilution of India, 1950, Art .. 226-Writ jurisdiction of lligli Court--!! can bt~ invoked by person not aggrieved.

The first resp0-1'.dent filed- Vt'.rit petition in the High Court challenging the g1 ant of mining lease to the appellant. on the g'.round of direct infringement of his right to be granted mining lease over an area for which he applied for n1ining lease and which, according to him, formed part of the area for which the appe'i!ant was given the lease. But in fact, the first respondent's app1ica-tion \Vas not in respect of any part of the area for which the appellant \Vas. granted n1ining lease. Though tht appellant w~s made party to the proceed· ing, he did not appear as notices were not served on him. The IIigh Court aifl;v:ed the petition in the vie\V that there was violation of s. 31 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, and rr. 58 and 59 of the tvlineral Concession Rules 1960.

Allowing the appeal to this Court,

HELD : The first respondent had no interest in the subject-matter of the lease, and the petition was not maintainable. [618 G-H]

Though this contention was not ur...zed before the High Court as the appel-lant <lid not appear in the High Court, this Cour:, in appeal, can not only determine the soundness of the decision, hilt has jurisdiction to determine any point raised before it, such as, whether the appeal is competent, whether party has locus standi to present the petition and whether the petitioner was main-tainable. Ordinarily, the foundation for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226, is the perso_nal or individual right of the petitioner himself, though in cases of writs of habea~ corpus or quo li-'arranto, the rule may be relaxed. Jn respect of persons who are not aggrieved and who seek t0 invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court or this Court, the matter rests ultimately on the discretion of the Court, and depends on the nature and extent of the right or interest said to have been infringed and whether the infringement affects the petitioner in some way. [619 A-B, D, G~H]

In t'he present case, the first. respondent only alleged direct infring~n1ent of his right, but it was found that no right of his had been affected. He was neither p;:11ty nor person aggrieved or aff·ected and hence had no locus stanflt' to file tfie petition. [620 B~C]

Ebr(/fii111 Ahoobakar and A11other \'.Custodian General of Eracuee Property, [19521 S.C.R. 696, Chira11jit Lal Chowdhuri v. The U11io11 · of India. [ 1950] S. C.R. 869, The State of Orissa v. Mada!I Gopal Rungta, fl9521 S. C.R. 2.8. Tfte Calcutta Gas Con1pa11v ( Proprietar.v) Ltd. v. The Stat(: of JVe . .,-t lle11[.?af and Others [ 1962] Supp. 3 S. C.R. 1. Godde V enkateswara ·~Rao v. (iovcn1n1!'11t oj Andhra Pradesh and Others [1966] 2 S.C.R. 172 and R. v. Tha111es Magiistrates' CouJ't ex. p. Gree11ba1u11, [19571 55 L.C.R. 129---ex-tracted in Y:1rdley Source Book of English Administrative Law, 1970, p. 228, r<:ferred tL'.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2572 (N) ..if 1972.

Appeal by certifioate from the Judgment and Order dated 4th April 1972 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction · Case· No. 1121 of 1969.

B. P. Singh, for the appellant.

Lal Narain Sinha, Solicitor General of India and S. P. Nayar, for respondent Nos. 2 and 6.

D. Goburdhan, for respondents Nos. 3-5,

The Judgmeut of the Conrt was delivered by

JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J, The appellant was granted min· ing lease on August 30, 1969 by the State of Bihar (Respondent 3) · with the prior approval of the Central Government (Respondent 2) for winning mineral known as Apatite over as area of 1999.634 acres. Respondent 1 filed writ petition on September 15., 1969 .challenging the lease on the ground that he had earlier on March 22, 1965, applied for mining lease over an area of 280.62 acres in certain villages of Singhbhum District which was included in the lease granted to the appellant, but as no orders were. passed by the State Government within the statutory period the application was ·deemed to have been rejected, He thereafter filed revision petition to the Central Government which called for the comments of the State Government. The State Government intimated to .the Central <Jovern:nent that it wanted to work the area itself and for that reason had in fact rejected all the applications for this area including that of the first respondent. On receipt of •.his comment, the Central Govern-.men! rejected the revision petition of the first respondent

It appears that the appellant had pursuant to an advertisement in the newspapers applied along with others for the grant of mining lease for phosphatic rock (Apatite) over an area of 4.1 sq. miles in. village Khajurdari in Singhbhum District. But all the applications were rejected as the State Government had by th~n decided to work · the phosphatic bearing areas in the public sector. Later, however, as 3rd respondent felt that such ventnre could be better undertaken by private party rather than the State Government in view of the dis-persed nature of the deposits, whose concentrated and efficient super· vision may not be possible through the public sector, it decided to release the area in question to be worked in the private sector, Accordingly permission was sought from the Cent~al Government and an advertisement published in the newspapers for the general infor· mation of the interested parties who may be willing to set up bene· 1lcation plant for upgrading the low grade Apatite to ensure its use for the production of phosphatic fertiliser and who were capable of making an investment to the extent of Rs. 40 to 50 lakhs. The appellant who is reported to be financially sound submitted scheme for setting up benefication plant for upgrading the Apatite. In view of the financial solvency of the appellant his application was recommended to the Central G9vernment. The Central Gov.ernment accepted this recom-mendation and directed the grant of the mining lease in. the following 1erms: ·

"The Central Government in the interest of mineral development, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub· rule (2) of rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960,

hereby authorise the State Government to g~ant mining. lease for apatite over the area t~ Dr. Sat~a NarJm Smha without following the procedure laid down m sub·rule (I) of the said Rule 58 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

Further in exercise of the powers conferred by section 31 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Develop-B ment) Act, 1957, the Central Government hereby autho-rise the State Government to grant mmmg lease to Dr. Sinha over the area in question which does not form compact block.

Th< Central Government also, in exercise of the powers conferred by l'rov~so t·~ section 6( I) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulat1011 and Development) Act, 1957, autho-rise the State Government to grant mining lease for apatite over the µreas to Dr. Sinha in excess of the limit of 10 square mi'les prescribed in section 6(1) and (b) of the said Act."

Immediately on getting to know of the approval given by the Central Government tci the grant of the mining lease to the appellant. the first respondent moved the State Government for stay and though that application was rejected he made several other attempts but without any success. The last revision application was filed on November 17 1970 under r. 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules-hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' -before the 2nd respondent on which an order dated November 23, 1971 was passed. TI1is order as disclosed b_y the !st respondent in his supplementary affidavit shows that the Central Government had in exercise of their revisional powers. under r. 55 of the Rules, set aside the orders of the State Govern· ment and directed it to give further consideration and pass appropriate orders within period of four months in as much as the State Government had not followed the correct procedure in dealing with 1he application of the !st respondent.

At. this stage we may point out that in the writ petition filed by the first respondent though the appellant was party it seems he did not·. appear and the proceeding was ex pane. The appellant's case is that as no notices were served on him, nor was there any proof of service . as neither the covers in which the registered notices were sent nor the acknowl~dg1hent ciards had been returned to the Court. he did not have an opportunity to be heard. No doubt the State of Bihar and the Central Gover~ment had oppose~ .the petition but the High Court came to the. conclus10n that the cond1t10ns required for relaxation of the ~ules m special cases under s. 31 of the Mines and Minerals (Regula· t1?n and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter termed the Act) read ~1th. rr. 58 & 59 of the Rules, were not complied with while aooord-,~~ it~ ap_Proval for the grant of the mining lease to the appellant In t1 t 1e is appellant. view 1t allowed the petition and quashed the lease in favour. of

the ~;~1a~: j~dis con~ended by the appellant's learned advocate that 1 not ave an opportunity of urging before the Court

.that the writ petition filed by the first respondent was not maintain-able, because he is not person aggrieved as the area for which the lirst respondent had made an application for the grant of mining lease was not included in the area granted to the appellant. He further <:ontends that reasons were given by the State of Bibar while recom-mending the grant of the lease to the Central Government, which reasons, at any rate one of them as is evident from the order of the .Central Government, were approved. There is, according to him, no infringement of the provisions of s. 31 of the Act read with rr. 58 & 59 of the Rules.

The learned Solicitor-General on behalf of the Central Govern· ment supports the grant of the mining lease to the appellant on the ground that r. 59 of the Rules is not applicable to the facts of this case inasmuch as the 3rd respondent had not taken any firm decision to reserve the area granted to the appellant, which is necessary condition of the applicability of that rule. If that rule did not apply then he submits the procedure prescribed in r. 58 which is referred to therein need not be complied with. He further submits that even if r. 59 is applicable, reasons have been recorded by the Central Govern-ment for relaxing the Rules as required in s. 31 of the Act.In so far as. the 3rd respondent-the State of Bihar-is con-cerned, there has been volte-face in its stand before us. After having called for the applications and recommended the lease in favour of the appellant, and after having placed him in position where he had to incur huge expense, it now wants to contend that the grant of the lease is invalid. Even the first respondent, once he found that the area for which he applied for lease was not included in the appel-lant's lease, seems to have perferred to remain absent in the case, but the State Government wants to challenge the validity of the lease which it did not do before the High Court.

There is no doubt, as the High Court has pointed out, that where by relaxing the Rules the Central Government intends to authorise in any case the grant, renewal or transfer of any prospecting licence or mining lease, or the working of any mine for the purpose of se:irching for or winning any mineral, on terms and conditions different from those laid down in the Rules made under s. 13 of the Act, it can do so for reasons to be recorded in writin~. Whether any such reasons can be said to have been recorded in the order authorising. the grant of the lease on terms and conditions different from those laid down in the Rules made under s. 13 of the Act need nof concern us in this case, because, in our view, as the writ petition has been filed by petson who is not the person aggrieved, it is not maintainable.

As already pointed out it is admitted by respondents 2 and 3 that the application made by the first Iespondent was not in respect of the area which is granted to the appellant and consequently the fir~t res· pondent had no interest in the subject-matter of the lease. Even

Uiough this coote.ntion was not urged before 1he High Court, and in the circumst~ advened to by us could not have been urged, as · the appellant did not appear. this Court in an appeal can not only deternune the soundness of the deciskm, but has Jurisdiction to deter· mine any point raised before it, such as whether the appeal. i~ compe· led, whether J:.>arly has locus standi to present the petition and whether the petiUon is maintainable etc. See Ebrahim Aboobakar and Another v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property('). Jn Chiranjit Lal Clwwdhuri v. The Union of India(') it was held by this Court dlllt the le¢ right that can be enforced under Art. 32 must ordinarily be the right' of the petitioner himself who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief. In respect of the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Ooostitution it was laid down in The State of Ori[0]sa v. Modan Gopal Rungta(') that the existence of · the rii;irt is the (oundation of the exercise of jurisdiction of .the Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The right to which this Court had adverted as being the foundation for exercising the juris-diction under Art. 32 or Art. 226 of the Constitution, acoording to The Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal and Others (') is onJinarily the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified. Subba Rao, J., as he then was, observed in that case :

"Article 226 confers very wide power on the High Court to issue directions and writs of the nature mentioned therein for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part Ill or for any other purpose. It is, therefore, clear that persons other than those claiming fundamental rights can also approach the court seeking relief thereunder."

After citing the above passage in Godde Venkateswara Rao v. Governtn!!nt of Andhra Pradesh and Others(') the learned Judge who delivered the judgment in this case also observed at p. 181 ;

"A personal right need not be in respect of proprie· tary interest : it can also relate to an interest of trustee. That apart, in exceptional cases, as the expression "ordinary" indicates,. person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority can file writ even though he has no proprietary or even fiduciary interest in the subject-matter thereof."

In respect of persons who are strangers and who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court or of this Court, difficulty sometimes arises because of the nature and extent of the right or interest which is said to have been infringed, and. whether the infringement in some way affects such persons. On this aspect there is no clear enunciation of principles on which the Court will exercise its juiisdiction.

(1) [1952[ S. C. R. 696;

(2) [1950] S. C. R. 869.

(4) [1%2] Supp, 3 s. c. R. t.

(3) [1952] S. C. R. 28.

(5) [1966] 2 S. C. R. 172. ·

In England also the Courts have taken the view that when the appiication is made by party or by person aggrieved the Court will intervene ex debito justitias, in' justice to the applicant, and when it is made by stranger the Court considers whether the public interest demands its intervention. In either case it is matter which rests ultimately in the discretion of the Court: (see R. v. Thames Magistrates' Court, ex. p. Greenbaum(!).

In this case, however, the first respondent has not challenged the grant of the lease on the ground of ex debito justitiae but has done so on the ground of direct infringement of his right to be granted mining lease over 280.62 acres for which the appellant was given lease along with other area. Since it is now found that no such right Of the. first respondent has been affected, he has no locus standi. He is nei.ther party nor person aggrieved or affe.cted and consequently his writ petition in the High Court is not maintainable.

On this short ground, this appeal will be allowed and the writ petition filed by the first respondent.in the High Court dismissed. The. appellant will have his costs only against the State of Bihar.

Appia! allowed.