TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (3) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urposes are these. The appellant made an application to the State Government of Orissa in 1949 for grant of a mining lease for manganese ore over an area comprising 5400 acres situated in the district of Keonjhar. The appellant was the first applicant for the lease of the aforesaid area, and subsequently other persons applied for lease of the same area including Messrs. Tata from and Steel Company Limited hereinafter referred to as Tatas), the intervener in the present appeal. The Government of Orissa decided to grant the in favour of Tattas and in January 1956 referred the matter to the Central Government for its approval under r. 32 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which lays down that if more t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral Government which was located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The appellant then applied to the High Court for a certificate to appeal to this Court, which was rejected. He then asked for special leave from this Court, which was granted; and that how the matter has come up before us. The main question raised before us is the limit of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 in circumstances like those in the present case. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that as the Central Government bad merely dismissed the review petition, the effective order rejecting the appellant's application for the mining lease was that of the State Government and therefore the High Court would have jurisdiction t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;s case (supra) where it was held that it was not correct to say that an order of dismissal passed on April 20, 1948, merged in the order in appeal therefrom passed in May 1949, and the two orders in turn merged in the order passed in revision on April 22, 1,950, or that the original order of dismissal only became final on the passing of the order in revision. It was further held that the order of dismissal was operative on its own strength and therefore no relief under Art. 226 could be granted against the order of dismissal passed in 1948 as Art. 226 was not retrospective in operation. It is urged that if the order of dismissal in that case did not merge in the final order of revision which was passed in April 1950, after the Constitutio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to attack under Art. 226 of the Constitution. We are of opinion that the facts in Mohd. Nooh's case were of a special kind and the reasoning in that case would not apply to the facts of the present case. Further, in A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkitachalam Potti ([1955] 2 S.C.R. 1196), though this Court was considering a matter in which the question which is before us was not directly in issue, it had occasion to consider certain decisions of certain High Courts which dealt with oases similar to the present case : (see p. 1213). In those decisions orders had been passed by certain inferior authorities within the territories subject to the jurisdiction of the High Courts concerned, but they had been taken in appeal before superior ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the Orissa Government to grant mining lease to the appellant. Therefore when the Central Government rejected the review petition, it in effect rejected the application of the appellant for the grant of the mining lease to him. This order of the Central Government in effect rejecting the application of the appellant for the grant of the mining lease to him and confirming the rejection of the application of the appellant by the Orissa Government is clearly not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Orissa under Art-226 in view of the fact that the Central Government is not located within the territories subject to the jurisdiction of the Orissa High Court. It would therefore have been useless for the Orissa High Court to issue a ....