Finality inter partes and institutional hearing upheld; later legal change did not reopen substitution or invalidate the approval order.

Finality inter partes was treated as controlling because the parties had already accepted substitution of the legal heirs in earlier proceedings and the appellant had not raised a timely objection; the later change in legal interpretation did not reopen that settled position. The Court also held that dismissal of the earlier special leave petition, read with the prior writ and substitution orders, barred the appellant from re-agitating maintainability on res judicata and finality grounds. On judicial review of the Central Government's approval order, the Court found an institutional hearing had occurred, the materials were available to the parties, and the order was not vitiated merely because a different officer communicated it. No procedural infirmity was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 25A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, inserted with effect from 1 April 1991, is clarificatory and retrospective or only prospective. (ii) Whether the dismissal of the earlier special leave petition operated as res judicata so as to bar the appellant from challenging the maintainability of the legal heirs' application in the later proceedings. (iii) Whether the Central Government's approval order dated 27 September 2001 was vitiated for breach of natural justice or other procedural infirmity.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 25A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, inserted with effect from 1 April 1991, is clarificatory and retrospective or only prospective.

Analysis: The controversy over substitution of legal heirs had already travelled through multiple rounds of litigation, and the later ruling in Saligram Khirwal recognised that Rule 25A had only prospective operation. Even so, the Court declined to reopen the settled inter partes position because the earlier orders had already accepted the legal heirs' locus and the appellant had participated without timely objection. The decision was therefore treated as having attained finality between the parties.

Conclusion: Rule 25A was not reopened for adjudication in the appellant's favour, and the settled position between the parties was not disturbed.

Issue (ii): Whether the dismissal of the earlier special leave petition operated as res judicata so as to bar the appellant from challenging the maintainability of the legal heirs' application in the later proceedings.

Analysis: The Court held that the substitution of the legal heirs had already been accepted in earlier proceedings and that the appellant had been heard in the substitution-related miscellaneous cases without pressing a timely objection. The subsequent dismissal of the special leave petition, together with the earlier writ proceedings and orders, reinforced finality inter partes. Applying the settled principle that even an erroneous decision on law binds the parties unless set aside in appropriate proceedings, the Court held that the issue could not be reopened merely because of a later change in legal interpretation.

Conclusion: The bar of finality and res judicata applied against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the Central Government's approval order dated 27 September 2001 was vitiated for breach of natural justice or other procedural infirmity.

Analysis: The Court accepted that judicial review is confined to the decision-making process and not to reappreciation of merits. On the record, the matter had been heard within the Central Government set-up, the parties had access to the materials relied upon, and the note prepared by the officer who heard the matter was approved within the governmental hierarchy before the communication of the decision. This amounted to an institutional hearing, and the fact that a different officer communicated the order did not invalidate it. The Court also found no substance in the challenge based on Article 77 or alleged extraneous considerations.

Conclusion: The approval order was not shown to suffer from any legal or procedural infirmity.

Final Conclusion: The Court found no ground to interfere with the impugned decisions and upheld the rejection of the appellant's challenge in both matters.

Ratio Decidendi: Finality inter partes cannot be reopened merely because a later decision states a different legal position, and an administrative decision taken after an institutional hearing is not invalid merely because the communicating officer did not personally hear the parties.

---