1964 (3) TMI 114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Government Madhya Pradesh rejecting their application for the renewal of the Certificate of Approval granted to them. The appellants filed a petition to the High Court Punjab under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the above order of the Union of India (UOI). This petition was dismissed by the High Court in limine and civil Appeal No. 116 of 1963 is by special leave of this Court against this order of the High court, Punjab. It would thus be seen that both the appeals are directed to challenge the validity of the same order and we shall therefore deal with them together. 2. The appellants, who constitute a partnership, are engaged inter alia in the business of mining and they held a prospecting lice....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd this application was recommended by the District Officer, Bhandara. The State Government, however, by an order dated September 21, 1956 rejected the application, the reason given being that the partners composing the firm had changed. This order was communicated to the appellants on October 6, 1956 and thereupon the appellants made an application on November 15, 1956 to the Union Government for a review of the order of the State Government under rule 57 of the Mineral Concession Rules. Rule 57(2) which was invoked by the appellants provides : 'Where a State Government has failed to dispose of an application for grant of renewal of a certificate of approval or prospecting licence or a mining lease within the period prescribed therefo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndence between the Government of India and the Government of the State as to the merits of the appellants' application are now on record but it is common ground that the appellants were not informed of these documents prior to the order now impugned rejecting the application for review was passed. On July 9, 1958 the application of the appellants was rejected by the Union Government, the order stating : 'The Central Government have come to the conclusion that there is no valid ground for interfering with the decision of the Government of Madhya Pradesh rejecting your application for renewal of a certificate of approval for the year 1956.' 5. The appellants thereafter applied to the Government of India requesting for a copy of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was concerned with a case where an order had been passed prejudicial to the respondents before the Central Government without affording them an opportunity to meet the case of an applicant for review but the same principle would, in our opinion, apply even where a petition for review is rejected based on materials which were not made available to the applicant for review. 7. As we have already indicted, the State Government had refused renewal of the certificate of approval because they considered that there had been a change in the composition of the firm which destroyed its identity. On the other hand, the case of the appellants was that the terms of the partnership deed made express provisions for the continuance of the identity of the....