Prospecting licence application fee deficiency does not void an otherwise valid earlier application or defeat priority.

A prospecting licence application was not void merely because the accompanying fee was initially deficient, where the application was duly filed, acknowledged and later cured by payment of the deficit. The rules distinguished between filing the application and the fee to accompany it, and contained no provision treating a short fee as making the application invalid. The State's conduct in entertaining the application and allowing correction showed that it treated the application as pending and valid, so it could not later rely on the technical defect to defeat it. The earlier application therefore retained priority over the later applicant, and the revisional order recognising that priority was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for a prospecting licence becomes void or invalid merely because the fee tendered with it was deficient, and whether the earlier application retained priority over a later application.

Analysis: The application was duly filed and acknowledged, and the deficiency in fee was later made good. The rules distinguished between the making of an application and the fee to accompany it; no provision stated that a deficient fee rendered the application void. The State Government's conduct in entertaining the application, permitting correction of the deficit, and later making repeated offers showed that it treated the application as pending and valid. In these circumstances, the State was precluded from denying its validity on a technical ground. The subsequent grant to the later applicant could not defeat the appellant's earlier and valid application, and the revisional order of the Central Government giving effect to that priority was not erroneous.

Conclusion: The deficient fee did not invalidate the appellant's application, and the appellant retained the benefit of priority over the later applicant.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unsustainable, and the Central Government's order restoring the appellant's preferential claim was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A prospecting licence application is not void ab initio merely because the accompanying fee was short, where the application was otherwise entertained and the defect was allowed to be cured; in such a case, the earlier application retains priority and technical objections cannot defeat substantive rights.

---