Review Petition (C) No. 739 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2010. Case: Union of India Vs Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)

Case NumberReview Petition (C) No. 739 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2010
CounselFor Appearing Parties: Goolam E. Vahanvati, AG, F.S. Nariman, Mukul Rohatgi, D.L.N. Rao, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Krishnan Venupgopal, L.N. Rao, P.S. Narsimhan, K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advs., Devdatt Kamat, Anoopam Prasad, Anandh Karman, Mohd. Nizam Pasha, Tara Narula, D.S. Mahra, Sunil Dogra, M.P. Shorawala, S.K. Kulkarni, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Vishal ...
JudgesP. Sathasivam and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
IssueMineral Concession Rule, 1960 ; Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Rule - Rules 35, 59, 60; Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 2, 11, 11(1), 11(2), 11(3), 11(4); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 47 - Order 47, Rule 1 - Order 47, Rule 1(1); Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Order 40; ...
Citation2013 (4) ABR 1116, 2013 (V) AD (SC) 94, 2013 (3) AKR 140, 2013 (4) AWC 3403 SC, JT 2013 (8) SC 275, 2013 (6) SCALE 257, 2013 (8) SCC 337
Judgement DateApril 23, 2013
CourtSupreme Court (India)


P. Sathasivam, J.

1. This review petition has been filed by the Union of India, Ministry of Mines, seeking review of the judgment and order dated 13.09.2010 passed in Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2010 (13) SCC 1 (Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2010 and Civil Appeal Nos. 7945-54 and 7955-61 of 2010).

2. In Sandur (supra), this Court had interpreted various provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short "the MMDR Act") and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (in short "the MC Rules") framed thereunder. It is the grievance of the Petitioner herein that this review is instituted since the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, could not put forth its view on the interpretation of the provisions of the MMDR Act in Sandur (supra) for the reason that the copy of the special leave petition was not served upon the review Petitioner which is a necessary and relevant party to the subject-matter in issue/dispute and the review Petitioner did not get an opportunity of being heard.

3. It is also brought to our notice that vide notification dated 30.01.2003, the Ministry of Coal and Mines was bifurcated into separate Ministries since the Petitioners in various SLPs furnished the name of the Ministry as "Ministry of Coal and Mines" in all the matters and according to them, it was not noticed by the Department concerned, namely, the Department of Mines.

4. We are conscious of the fact that the principles of natural justice guarantee every person the right to represent his/her case in the court of law, wherein the final verdict of the court would adversely affect his/her interest. Considering the above principle, this Court, vide order dated 04.10.2012, granted the opportunity to the Union of India to represent its case.

5. Before considering the claim of the Union of India about acceptability or otherwise of various conclusions in the impugned judgment, we have to consider whether the Petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 320 days.

6. The details furnished in I.A. No. 1 of 2011 filed for condoning the delay in filing the above review petition sufficiently prove that steps were taken at various levels in the Ministry of Mines, accordingly, we accept the reasons furnished therein. In view of the same, the delay is condoned.

7. Taking note of the reasons stated for the delay and the stand of the Department that the Ministry concerned, namely, Department of Mines was not duly projected and represented before this Court, we heard Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General for the review Petitioner, on merits, particularly, with reference to the points formulated for consideration and ultimate conclusion arrived therein and Mr. Fali S. Nariman, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel for the contesting Respondents and Ms. Anita Shenoy, Learned Counsel for the State of Karnataka.

8. Now, let us consider whether the review Petitioner has made out a case for reviewing the judgment and order dated 13.09.2010 and satisfies the criteria for entertaining the matter in review jurisdiction.

Review Jurisdiction

9. Article 137 of the Constitution of India provides for review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court which reads as under:

Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
15 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT