Fair hearing required before invoking suo motu revisional power; undisclosed basis and no opportunity to respond vitiate the order.
An order said to invoke a separate revisional or suo motu power affecting civil rights must be expressly disclosed to the affected party, and a real opportunity must be given to meet that basis; an order made without such notice and hearing is vitiated. The text also explains that a revision application seeking cancellation of an existing mining lease and grant of a fresh lease was a single interconnected request, so rejection of the application as time-barred disposed of the whole revision and not only one part of it. The later order was treated as invalid for breach of fair hearing requirements.
Issues: (i) Whether the Central Government's order dated 30 September 1964 had finally disposed of the revision application under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. (ii) Whether the later order dated 5 November 1964 was vitiated because the Central Government purported to act on suo motu power without informing the affected party and giving an opportunity to meet that basis.
Issue (i): Whether the Central Government's order dated 30 September 1964 had finally disposed of the revision application under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
Analysis: The reliefs sought in the revision application were interconnected. A request to grant the mining lease could not be separated from the request to set aside the grant already made in favour of the appellant, because cancellation of the existing grant was a necessary prerequisite to any fresh grant. The order dated 30 September 1964 rejected the revision application as time-barred, which meant the whole application was rejected and not merely one limb of the prayer.
Conclusion: The order dated 30 September 1964 disposed of the entire revision application.
Issue (ii): Whether the later order dated 5 November 1964 was vitiated because the Central Government purported to act on suo motu power without informing the affected party and giving an opportunity to meet that basis.
Analysis: The impugned order was not shown to have been made in exercise of an independent suo motu jurisdiction. The proceedings throughout proceeded on the basis of the application under rule 54 and the connected revisional process. If the authority intended to invoke a separate suo motu power, fairness required prior intimation of that basis and an opportunity to show cause against both the existence and the exercise of that power. Mere disclosure of the opposite side's materials and comments was insufficient for that purpose.
Conclusion: The impugned order was invalid for breach of fair hearing requirements.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the writ petition was also allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an authority proposes to exercise a separate revisional or suo motu power affecting civil rights, it must expressly notify that basis and afford the affected party a real opportunity to meet it; an order made without such notice and hearing is vitiated.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
