1972 (3) TMI 105 - SC - Companies Law

Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Judgment on Lease Application Appeal

C. Buchivenkata Rao Versus The Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment. The Court emphasized the directory nature of Rule 27, validated Venkatagiri's ... - Issues Involved:1. Compliance with Rules 27 and 32 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949.2. Nature of Venkatagiri's application - whether it was for a fresh lease or continuation of a previous lease.3. Consideration of the Central Government's order by the High Court.4. Introduction of a new ground regarding the amendment of Rule 28(1A) of the Mineral Concession Rules.5. Right of legal representatives to continue the appeal after the death of the original appellant.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Compliance with Rules 27 and 32 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949:The appellant Rao argued that Venkatagiri's application did not comply with Rule 27 and Rule 32 of the 1949 Rules. Rule 27 required specific details in the application, such as the applicant's name, nationality, and a map of the area. Rule 32 dealt with the priority of applications. The High Court found that the details mentioned in Rule 27 were intended for correct identification and were directory, not mandatory. The Court held that the omission to file a proper map initially was cured, and the grant of the lease to Venkatagiri was valid. The Supreme Court concurred with this view, stating that the essential facts to be taken into account before granting a lease were more important than the form of the application.2. Nature of Venkatagiri's Application:Rao contended that Venkatagiri's application was for the continuation of an existing lease, not a fresh lease. The High Court rejected this contention, pointing out that the application was on a form that complied with Rule 27, treating it as a fresh application. The Supreme Court found nothing wrong with the High Court's interpretation and upheld this view.3. Consideration of the Central Government's Order by the High Court:Rao argued that the Central Government had not considered in detail the comments offered by the State Government regarding each ground of revision. The High Court found that the Central Government's order was based on relevant considerations and could not be said to have omitted anything material. The Supreme Court concurred with this view, stating that the order was not vitiated on this ground.4. Introduction of a New Ground Regarding Amendment of Rule 28(1A):Rao sought to introduce a new ground, arguing that the application should be deemed rejected if not disposed of within nine months, as per the amended Rule 28(1A) introduced on 15th September 1956. The Supreme Court noted that this point was neither raised nor argued in the High Court. The Court cited precedents where new points were not allowed to be urged at a late stage. Moreover, the Court found that the appellant's legal representatives could not continue the appeal as the right to sue did not survive the death of the original appellant.5. Right of Legal Representatives to Continue the Appeal:The appellant Rao died during the proceedings, and his sons sought to continue the appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the right to pursue a remedy must survive the death of the predecessor. In this case, the rights related to the grant of a mining lease were personal and could not be separated from the applicant's qualifications. The Court found no provision in the rules for impleading an heir to continue the application for a mining lease. The legal representatives had not applied afresh, and the Court held that they had no right to continue the appeal.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the High Court's judgment. The Court made no orders as to costs. The key points were the directory nature of Rule 27, the proper interpretation of Venkatagiri's application, the relevance of the Central Government's considerations, the inadmissibility of new grounds at a late stage, and the lack of right for legal representatives to continue the appeal.