https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280023 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. en-us Mon, 16 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Apr 2019 15:19:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280023 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280023