L.P.A. No. 521 of 2012. Case: Murliwala Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India. Jharkhand High Court
| Case Number | L.P.A. No. 521 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sumeet Gadodia, Adv. and For Respondents: Shamim Akhtar, S.C. (Mines) and Prabhas Kumar, Advs. |
| Judges | R. Banumathi, C.J. and S. Chandrashekhar, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 115; Constitution of India - Articles 225, 226, 227, 32; Government of India Act, 1915-19 [Repealed] - Sections 107, 108; Government of India Act, 1935 [Repealed] - Section 224; Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 30 |
| Citation | 2014 (2) JLJR 611 |
| Judgement Date | April 28, 2014 |
| Court | Jharkhand High Court |
Judgment:
R. Banumathi, C.J., (At Ranchi)
1. When the judgment was rendered by the Single Judge in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whether intra-court appeal is maintainable under clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna (as adopted by the Jharkhand High Court) is the point falling for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Brief facts, which led to filing of this L.P.A., are as under:-
The appellant is a company carrying on business of mining in the name and style of Murliwala Mineral Pvt. Ltd. and engaged in exploring, opening, working mines drills and shafts borewell and pump refine and quarry for stone, coal, earth lime stone, iron, aluminum, tantinium, vanadium, mica, feloshper, quartz, bauxite and other minerals and to develop the same for business purposes. By its application dated 9.1.1997 in terms of Rule 22(i) of the Minerals Concession Rules, 1960, the appellant applied for grant of lease for minerals, Mica Felosphar and Quartz, in an area of 140 acres of land situated in Mouza Nagri of the district Giridih. Vide memo dated 12.3.1997, the Assistant Mining officer, Giridih, informed the appellant to furnish certain documents and the appellant submitted the same. Vide memo dated 23.2.2000 issued by the Additional Director, Mines, Govt. of Bihar, the Assistant Mining officer, Giridih, was directed to procure the 'No Objection Certificate' of the Forest Authority and to make the same available along with other documents.
3. It is noted that though the appellant applied for grant of mining lease on 9.1.1997 and the same remained pending with the erstwhile State of Bihar and after creation of the State of Jharkhand, vide letter dated 23.2.2000 and by other letters, the appellant was directed to appear before the authorities; but the application was not disposed of. For early disposal of his application, the appellant moved Jharkhand High Court in W.P. (C) No. 6318/2003. Vide order dated 23.12.2003, the same was disposed of with a direction to the State Government to dispose of the application within three months. Vide memo dated 12.5.2004, the State of Jharkhand rejected the application of the appellant. The appellant preferred revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, before the Government of India and vide order dated 19.3.2007, the revision application was dismissed by the revisional authority.
4. Challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner, vide memo dated 12.5.2004, and the order dated 19.3.2007 passed by the revisional authority, the appellant filed writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 2844/2007. The said writ petition was dismissed on 22.11.2012, in which learned Single Judge held that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction in the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court is to see whether the State Government or Tribunal has remained within the bounds of the jurisdiction or committed serious error of jurisdiction or acted in excess of jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge further held that the original authority, i.e. the State Government or the revisional authority, namely, the Central Government Mining Tribunal have not committed any perversity warranting interference by the court and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has preferred this intra-court appeal.
5. In view of the serious objections raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the intra-court appeal, we heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of the intra-court appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, submitted that irrespective of the fact that whether the impugned order is passed by a Court or the Tribunal at the first instance in exercise of the original jurisdiction or by the Tribunal in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, such an order can always be challenged by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari and the order of the learned Single Judge passed in such writ petition under Article 226 could be challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal. It was submitted that even though the writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since the appellant has challenged not only the order passed by the revisional authority but also challenged the order passed by the original authority, i.e. Deputy Secretary to the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, therefore, writ petition has to be treated as one filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that merely because in its nomenclature the writ petition has been filed under Article 227, the same is not conclusive in determining the nature of the writ petition and going by the prayer and substance of the pleadings in the writ petition, it is to be construed only as a writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and consequently, this LPA against the order of the Single Judge is maintainable. In support of his contention, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) Mavji C. Lakum v. Central Bank of India ((2008) 12 SCC 726)
(ii) Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Anr. v. Lata P. Kore & Ors. ((2008) 13 SCC 525)
(iii) State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Vasan Kumar Shiv Charan Lal ((2008) 15 SCC 233)
(iv) Ashok K. Jha & Ors. v. Garden Silk Mills Limited & Anr. ((2009) 10 SCC 584)
(v) M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors. ((2009) 1 SCC 8)
(vi) Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil ((2010) 8 SCC 329)
(vii) Sahi Ram v. Auatar Singh & Ors. ((1999) 4 SCC 511)
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant filed writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order passed by the 2nd respondent and the learned Single Judge held that neither the original authority (State Government), nor the revisional authority (Union of India) has committed any error of jurisdiction or illegality to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and since the writ petition under Article 227 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, L.P.A. is not maintainable under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) Umaji Keshao Meshram & Ors. v. Smt. Radhikabai & Anr. (AIR 1986 SC 1272)
(ii) Kanhaiyalal Agraival & Ors. v. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. (2001 (3) Jhr. Cr. 184 (SC))
(iii) Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankar Prasad ( (1999) 6 SCC 275)
(iv) Swapan Kumar Bandopadhyay v. SAIL through its unit Bokaro Steel City & Ors. (2006 (1) JCR 1 (Jhr) (FB))
(v) Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Firoze M. Mogal & Anr. (AIR 2014 Gujarat 33 (FB))
8. We have considered the submissions and carefully gone through the judgments relied upon the appellant and the respondents.
9. Article 226 of the Constitution of India deals with power to issue certain writs. Article 226 reads as under:-
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeascorpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without--
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard,
makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which falls immediately after Article 226, deals with "power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court". Article 227 reads as under:-
227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.- (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial