Statutory review between rival claimants requires natural justice and a hearing before cancellation of an existing grant.

A statutory review that pits rival claimants against each other, and allows the reviewing authority to cancel or revise an existing grant, creates a lis requiring judicial procedure. The Central Government's power under the Mineral Concession Rules could not be exercised as a purely administrative function merely because the rule used broad decision-making language or did not require records in every case. Once review was invoked, the affected lease-holder was entitled to notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The review order was therefore vulnerable for breach of natural justice and could be reconsidered after hearing the affected party.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Central Government, while deciding a review application under rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, acted in a quasi-judicial capacity so as to require notice and hearing to the person in whose favour the State Government had granted the mining lease.

Analysis: A statutory review under rules 52 to 55 created a contest between the aggrieved applicant and the successful applicant because the order of the State Government was final subject to review by the Central Government. The existence of a review right in favour of the aggrieved party, the prescription of limitation and fee, and the power to cancel or revise the State Government's order showed that a lis arose between the rival claimants. Rule 54 did not negative the duty to act judicially merely because the Central Government could act as it deemed just and proper or was not bound to call for records in every case. Once the review power was invoked, the person affected by the proposed cancellation had a right to represent his case before the authority deciding the review.

Conclusion: The Central Government was required to act quasi-judicially and to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant before passing the review order.

Final Conclusion: The impugned review order was liable to be quashed for breach of natural justice, and the matter could be decided afresh after hearing the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a review proceeding between rival claimants affecting an existing grant and nothing in the scheme excludes it, the reviewing authority must act judicially and afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected party.

---