Binding revisional order controls mining lease refusal; later rejection on known grounds cannot override it.

A subordinate State authority cannot disregard a binding revisional order of the superior authority directing grant of a mining lease by relying on a ground already available or already considered when that order was made. Where later reconsideration is said to be justified, the proper course is to seek directions from the revisional authority rather than refuse implementation on its own. The later rejection of the lease application, and the superior authority's approval of that rejection, were therefore inconsistent with the earlier binding revisional direction and were unsupported by any genuinely fresh ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Government could refuse to implement the Central Government's revisional order directing grant of a mining lease, and whether the Central Government could sustain the State Government's later rejection on grounds already known when the earlier revisional order was made.

Analysis: The Central Government, acting as the revisional authority under the Mineral Concession Rules, had already directed the State Government to grant the mining lease to the appellant. That order was binding on the State Government, which had no discretion to reject the application on a fresh policy ground or on a ground that was already in existence and known when the earlier order was passed. If the State Government believed that later circumstances justified reconsideration, the proper course was to seek directions from the Central Government rather than disregard the binding order. The subsequent refusal, and the Central Government's later approval of that refusal, ignored the legal effect of the earlier revisional order and was unsupported by any genuinely fresh ground.

Conclusion: The State Government was bound to implement the earlier revisional order, and the Central Government was not justified in sustaining the rejection of the lease application. The impugned order was set aside and the appellant succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate authority cannot refuse to carry out a binding revisional order of a superior authority on a ground already available or previously considered, and reconsideration is permissible only on the basis of a genuinely fresh ground brought before the revisional authority.

---