Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1. These appeals come up with applications seeking condonation of delay in their institution.
2. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and Adv.P.Gopinath Menon, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. At the outset, we may say that there is no reason worth acceptance to condone the enormous delay of more than 1½ years in instituting these appeals. The reason stated is that the Government were contemplating on policy matters touching the issue. That very plea would be counter productive to the grounds raised in the appeals because, what ultimately governs the parties are the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for short, the 'Act'.
4. Yet, we proceed to look into the merits, as well, to consider whether there is any prima facie case at least, for admission of these appeals, notwithstanding the inexcusable delay in their institution.
5. The activity of the respondents is one that falls within the provisions of the Act. The State Government's grant or refusal of permission is subject to revisional jurisdiction of the Central Government in terms of that Act. As per Exhibit P24, the Central Government decided the statutory revisions of the respondents. The orders of the State Government in those revisions were set aside, clearly stating that the policy decision of the State Government is not in consonance with the Act, and, is also against the National Mineral Policy, 2008. Paragraph 9 of Exhibit 24 order deals with that particular issue and the requirement to grant permit to the respondents herein. Accordingly, the Central Government set aside the earlier orders and directed the State Government to re- consider all the cases in the light of the discussions made in paragraph 9 of Exhibit P24 and pass appropriate orders.
6. Exhibit P24 is the statutory revisional order by the superior revisional authority in the statutory hierarchy in terms of the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents is, therefore, justified in relying on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Bhopal [AIR 1961 SC 182] to say that the refusal of the State Government to pass orders in consonance with Exhibit P24 is, in effect, denial of justice, and, further; more destructive of the basic principles of administration of justice as to the binding nature of decisions of superior authorities in the hierarchy. Adverting to Exhibit P25 order issued by the State Government after Exhibit P24 revisional order, it can be seen that it is handed down in wholesome misunderstanding of Exhibit P24 and the
scope of the provisions of the Act. That is arbitrary. We say so because, though the direction in Exhibit P24 is as noted above, Exhibit P25 is issued by the State Government by saying that the Ministry of Mines had only directed the State Government to re-consider the matter based on the 'facts in issue'. This is sheer statutory and institutional insubordination. We say so because, the 'facts in issue' were already considered by the revisional authority leading to Exhibit P24 order. This is exactly the reason why the revisional authority had directed re-consideration of the matter and issuance of orders in the light of what is stated in paragraph 9 of Exhibit P24 order.
7. Now, it also needs to be noted that the learned single Judge, looking into the entire materials, found that there cannot be a different policy in respect of different areas covered by different applications though put in by the same company. This is fully justified, having regard to the fact that the State Government's role in issuing the permit or sanction is exceptionally, and so minimum, because, the subject matter of the Act, in relation to the operations of the respondents is within the Union domain.
For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see anything for interference, on the merits of the appeals as well.
In the result, the civil miscellaneous applications and the writ appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) DG