http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2536 of 2001

PETITIONER: Government of Goa

RESPONDENT: A.H. Jaffar and Sons and Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/03/2008

BENCH: DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division  Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa in Writ Petition  no.41/93 filed by the respondents.  The writ petition no.41/93  was filed seeking quashing of the orders dated 3rd January,  1991 passed by the Directorate of Mines and Labour and  dated 22nd March, 1999 passed by the Secretary, Mines,  Government of Goa. Further prayer was for direction for grant  of respondent\022s application for mining lease over an area of  34.68 hectares situated at two different villages in Ponda  Taluka after executing the necessary lease deeds in favour of  the respondents.

2.      After referring to the chequered history of the litigation  the High Court ultimately directed as follows:          

\02318. Considering the fact that the matter is  pending over 16 years, as the Respondents  were without addressing themselves to the  main issue involved in the matter, virtually  compelling the Petitioner to approach the  Court every now and then to make the  Respondents realize about the main issue  involved in the matter, and considering all the  observations made hereinabove, we are  compelled to direct the Respondents to dispose  of the application of the Petitioner on merits  within the period of six weeks from today.  The  Respondents should be careful in disposing  the matter bearing in mind the observations  made therein and should pass a reasoned  Order addressing themselves to the main issue  involved in the matter after considering all the  materials placed on record.  In the facts and  circumstances of the case, we are constrained  to impose exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- to be  paid by the Respondents to the Petitioner.  The  costs to be paid within six weeks from today.   The Respondents shall furnish to the  Additional Registrar of this Court a copy of the  Order to be passed in accordance with the  directions issued herein within two weeks from  the date of passing such Order.  Rule made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

absolute in above terms.\024                     

3.      Though various points were urged in support of the  appeal, Mr. H.L. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel, submitted  that a dispute of similar nature involving the parties was  before this Court and issues involved were identical in State of  Goa and Ors. v. M/s. A.H. Jaffar and Sons (AIR 1995 SC 333).   It was, inter alia, held as under:      

\0233.  The appeal has been argued at length.   Sri Siraj Sait has attempted to support the  judgment with industry and precision.  But it  does not appear necessary to decide whether  the finding recorded by the High Court that the  order of Commissioner being administrative in  nature it could be reviewed by the State  Government nor it is necessary to decide  whether the Minister could exercise any power  where the grant of lease is regulated by the  Statute as in our opinion the remedy of  revision having been provided by Sec.30 of the  Act, the proper course for the respondent was  to approach the Central Government and not  the High Court. Learned counsel for the  respondent expressed apprehension that the  period for limitation provided in Rule 54 of the  Minerals Concessions Rules, 1960 having  expired, the revision might not be entertained.   The proviso to the rule, however, empowers the  revising authority to condone delay if it is  satisfied that the revision could not be  presented for sufficient cause within time.  Since the respondent was pursuing its remedy  in High Court bona fide, it would be sufficient  cause to condone the delay and we trust the  revision if preferred within four weeks from  today shall not be dismissed as being barred  by time.\024             4.      Therefore, it is submitted that when the matter had  attained finality between the parties, and the High Court could  not have given the impugned directions.

5.      Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand  submitted that much prior to the hearing of the matter by this  Court, order dated 30th June, 2000 was served on the  respondents on 3rd July, 2000, and they had moved the  Revisional Tribunal of the Central Government in terms of  Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and  Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short the \021Act\022) read with Rule 54 of  the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (in short the \021Rules\022).  The  Revisional Tribunal of the Central Government by its final  order dated 13.5.2002 has already decided the matter in  favour of the respondents.   

6.      It is to be noted that notice was issued in the SLP on  18.8.2000 and stay was granted.  Subsequently, leave was  granted on 30.3.2001 and the stay was directed to continue.   Much before that date the respondents were represented by  counsel before this Court.  It is surprising that  notwithstanding stay order passed by this Court, the  respondents pursued their remedies before the Revisional  Tribunal.  That certainly was not proper and desirable.  To add  to the vulnerability it needs to be noted that the writ petition  though filed in 1993 was disposed of on 1st March, 2000, and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

by that time the decision of this Court in the earlier case  between the same parties had been decided in a particular  way.  Unfortunately, the High Court did not notice that also.   It needs no reiteration that once the decision is rendered intra  parties and attains finality, a different view cannot be taken,  more so, when finality is attached by this Court\022s order.      7.      In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of  the High Court and directions contained in paragraph 3 of the  earlier decision shall operate so far as this case is concerned.  If any decision has been taken by the State Government or the  Central Government in the present dispute, the same shall be  of no consequence because of the stay order of this Court,  while issuing notice on 18.8.2000 and order granting leave on  30th March, 2001.   

8.      The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no  order as to costs.