Appeal dismissed due to lack of reasons in Central Govt's order, emphasizing transparency in judicial decisions.

The appeal was dismissed as the Central Government's order, lacking reasons for rejection, was upheld by the majority opinion, emphasizing transparency in judicial orders. The concurring opinion found implicit agreement with State Government's reasons sufficient. The Court ruled no breach of natural justice or illegality, allowing the appellant to reapply for the lease, ensuring procedural fairness.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Central Government's order for not providing reasons for rejecting the revision.
2. Compliance with the principles of natural justice.
3. Legality of the Central Government's order in ignoring the State Government's grant and non-compliance with Section 17 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Central Government's Order for Not Providing Reasons for Rejecting the Revision:

The appellant contended that the Central Government's order was invalid as it did not provide reasons for rejecting the revision. The relevant legal provisions and rules were examined, particularly Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, which states that no order shall be passed against an applicant unless they are given an opportunity to make representations. The Supreme Court emphasized that the requirement to provide reasons is essential to ensure transparency and minimize arbitrariness, especially when the Central Government functions as a tribunal. However, the majority opinion held that the Central Government's order was vitiated due to the absence of reasons, while the concurring opinion by Bachawat, J. disagreed, stating that the order implicitly showed agreement with the State Government's reasons and did not necessitate further explanation.

2. Compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice:

The appellant argued that the principles of natural justice were violated as the request for a personal hearing was denied, and extraneous matters were considered without providing an opportunity for explanation. The Court noted that while a personal hearing is not an absolute right, the opportunity to make written representations suffices to meet the requirements of natural justice. The Court found no merit in the claim that extraneous matters were considered without notice to the appellant, as there was no evidence to support this allegation.

3. Legality of the Central Government's Order in Ignoring the State Government's Grant and Non-compliance with Section 17 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957:

The appellant contended that the Central Government's order was illegal for ignoring the State Government's final order granting the lease and for not complying with Section 17 of the Act. The Court clarified that the State Government's order dated July 14, 1959, was merely a recommendation and not a final grant, as it required the Central Government's prior approval. Additionally, Section 17 of the Act pertains to the Central Government undertaking mining operations directly, which was not the case here. Therefore, the appellant's arguments on this ground were dismissed.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, with the majority opinion emphasizing the need for reasons in judicial orders, while the concurring opinion found the implicit agreement with the State Government's reasons sufficient. The Court upheld the Central Government's order, finding no violation of natural justice or illegality in the process. The appellant was provided with an opportunity to apply for the lease again, ensuring procedural fairness.

---