Reasoned orders are required in mineral rights revisions; a non-speaking rejection was quashed and reconsideration ordered.

A revisional order affecting mineral rights must disclose reasons and show application of mind to the material before the authority. A formulaic rejection stating only that no valid ground existed to interfere was held insufficient where the revisional authority had to examine the preferential claim and the State Government's comments under the Mines and Minerals regime. The order was therefore invalid for want of reasons and was quashed, and the revision application was directed to be reconsidered afresh.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Central Government's order rejecting the revision application without reasons was liable to be quashed and the matter reconsidered afresh.

Analysis: The revision order merely stated that there was no valid ground to interfere and did not disclose the reasons for rejecting the claim. In matters affecting valuable mineral rights, a reasoned or speaking order is required, particularly where the revisional authority is expected to examine the merits and indicate the grounds that led to its conclusion. The preferential claim under Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the statutory revision under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 could not be rejected by a formulaic order that showed no application of mind to the relevant materials or to the State Government's comments.

Conclusion: The impugned order was invalid for want of reasons and was quashed. The revision application was directed to be decided afresh.

---