Revisional orders under mineral concession rules must disclose reasons; personal hearing is not an absolute right.

Revisional power under the Mineral Concession Rules was treated as quasi-judicial, so the authority was expected to disclose the basis of its decision by recording reasons itself or by adopting the State Government's reasons; a non-speaking affirmance was vulnerable. Rule 55 was also read as requiring an opportunity to make representations, not an absolute right to a personal hearing in every case. Section 17 of the Mines and Minerals Act was confined to cases where the Central Government proposed to undertake prospecting or mining itself, and did not govern every reservation of land for public sector exploitation. Discretionary interference under Article 136 was declined on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional order passed by the Central Government under the Mineral Concession Rules was vitiated for want of reasons; (ii) whether the appellant was entitled, as of right, to a personal hearing and whether the requirements of natural justice were breached; (iii) whether section 17 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 had any bearing on the reservation of the area for public sector exploitation; (iv) whether interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was warranted in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional order passed by the Central Government under the Mineral Concession Rules was vitiated for want of reasons.

Analysis: The revisional power under rules 54 and 55 was treated as quasi-judicial in character. The scheme of the Rules contemplated a judicial disposal of the revision, and the revisional authority was required to disclose the basis of its decision, either by giving its own reasons or by adopting the reasons already recorded by the State Government. A non-speaking affirmance, where neither the original nor the revisional order disclosed reasons, was held to be vulnerable.

Conclusion: The absence of reasons in the revisional order rendered it unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled, as of right, to a personal hearing and whether the requirements of natural justice were breached.

Analysis: The requirement under rule 55 was an opportunity to make representations against comments received from the State Government or other authority. That safeguard did not necessarily mean a personal hearing in every case. A written representation could satisfy natural justice, depending on the facts. On the material before the Court, personal hearing was not held to be an absolute right.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled as of right to a personal hearing.

Issue (iii): Whether section 17 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 had any bearing on the reservation of the area for public sector exploitation.

Analysis: Section 17 applies where the Central Government itself proposes to undertake prospecting or mining operations in an area not already held under a prospecting licence or mining lease. It does not govern every governmental decision to keep an area for public sector exploitation. Since there was no proposal by the Central Government to undertake mining operations in the present case, the section was inapplicable.

Conclusion: Section 17 had no bearing on the controversy.

Issue (iv): Whether interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was warranted in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Court declined to interfere because the appellant had a fresh opportunity to apply pursuant to the later notification, and intervention at that stage was considered likely to create complications and affect public interest. The matter was therefore treated as one not fit for discretionary interference.

Conclusion: Interference under Article 136 was declined.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the impugned revision order was not disturbed, with the result that the appellant obtained no relief in the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority acting quasi-judicially must disclose the basis of its decision, either by recording reasons itself or by clearly adopting the reasons of the order under revision; however, where discretionary interference is declined on the facts, the appeal does not succeed.

Dissenting Opinion: Bachawat, J. agreed with dismissal of the appeal but differed on the necessity of fuller reasons in the revisional order. In that view, the State Government's reasoned order and the Central Government's expression that there was no valid ground for interference were sufficient compliance, and the revisional order was not invalid merely because it did not elaborate further.

---