Article 299 compliance controls State mining leases; absent valid execution, damages fail but restitution may still be recovered.

A mining lease granted by the State under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules was treated as an exercise of executive power and therefore had to comply with Article 299 of the Constitution. Because the lease papers were not executed in the required constitutional form, no valid and enforceable contract arose and a claim for damages for breach could not be maintained. However, where the State retained amounts deposited under the aborted lease and the plaintiff had not acted gratuitously, restitution was available under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. The plaintiff was therefore entitled only to refund of the sums actually paid and retained, not to damages or loss of profit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the mining lease granted under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955 was an exercise of the State's executive power so as to attract Article 299 of the Constitution of India and whether the lease was validly executed in compliance with that Article; (ii) Whether, despite the absence of a valid enforceable contract, the plaintiff was entitled to refund of the amounts deposited under the lease arrangement.

Issue (i): Whether the mining lease granted under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955 was an exercise of the State's executive power so as to attract Article 299 of the Constitution of India and whether the lease was validly executed in compliance with that Article.

Analysis: The grant of a minor mineral lease was held to be a function of the State's executive power. The Court treated the Director of Mines and Geology as acting on behalf of the State under the delegated framework of the rules, and therefore held that the transaction had to satisfy the constitutional requirements governing State contracts. Article 299 was held to be mandatory. The lease papers were not signed by the authorised officer in the manner required, and the sanction letters and related documents did not cure the absence of execution in the name and on behalf of the Governor. Accordingly, the alleged lease did not ripen into a valid contract capable of supporting a suit for damages for breach.

Conclusion: The lease was subject to Article 299 and, not having been executed in compliance with it, was not a valid and enforceable contract; the claim for damages for breach was therefore not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether, despite the absence of a valid enforceable contract, the plaintiff was entitled to refund of the amounts deposited under the lease arrangement.

Analysis: The deposits towards security, dead rent, incidental charges and application fee were made pursuant to the contemplated lease and were retained by the State after the lease was cancelled without fault on the plaintiff's part. The Court applied the principle of restitution embodied in Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, holding that a person who lawfully does something or delivers something for another, not intending it to be gratuitous, is entitled to compensation where the other party has enjoyed the benefit. On that footing, the plaintiff was entitled to recover only the amounts actually deposited, not the larger claim for damages or loss of profit.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled only to refund of the deposited to the extent of Rs. 4,715/- with interest.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the decree for damages was set aside and replaced by a limited decree for refund of the amounts actually paid under the aborted lease arrangement.

Ratio Decidendi: A mining lease granted by the State in exercise of executive power must comply with Article 299 of the Constitution of India to create an enforceable contract, and in the absence of such compliance damages for breach are barred, though restitution may still be claimed for amounts paid and retained under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

---