http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: AJIT SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/11/1995

BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  475            1995 SCC  Supl.  (4) 224  JT 1995 (8)   182        1995 SCALE  (6)203

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                           JUDGMENT S.C. AGARWAL, J :      Leave granted.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.      This appeal relates to grant of mining lease in respect of the  minor mineral,  viz. marble, under the provisions of the  Rajasthan   Minor  Mineral   Concession   Rules,   1977 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1977 Rules’]. The facts, in brief, are as follows :      One Rajesh Vardia was granted a mining lease for marble in respect  of an  area covering  7500 sq. mts. near Village Tripura  Sundari  in  Banswara  District  in  the  State  of Rajasthan. The  said lease  was granted  for a  period of 15 years from  January 2,  1976 but  it was  cancelled by order dated October  12,  1979.  One  Babulal  Modi  submitted  an application for  grant of mining lease for an area of 10,000 sq. mts.  on December  16, 1981.  Babulal Modi was granted a lease in  respect of  7570 sq.  mts; including a part of the area covered  by the  mining lease granted to Rajesh Vardia, by order dated July 12, 1982. Babulal Modi failed to execute a formal  lease agreement  in Form  No. 8 with in the period prescribed under  the 1977 Rules and by virtue of Rule 19 of the 1977  Rules the  order for  grant of  mining lease stood revoked. Babulal  Gupta, respondent  No. 5  herein, filed an application dated  October 20,  1982 for  grant of  lease in respect of  an area  which was  overlapping the area held by Rajesh Vardia  and subsequently granted to Babulal Modi. The said application  of respondent  No. 5  was rejected  by the Mining Engineer,  Udaipur, by  order dated February 24, 1983 on the  ground that  the area for which lease was sought was not available  for grant.  Respondent No.  5  filed  another application for  grant of  mining lease for the same area on January 19,  1983. Ajit  Singh, appellant herein, also filed an application on January 20, 1983 for grant of mining lease in respect  of an  area covering  22,500 sq.  mts. By  order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

dated July  26, 1983  the Mining  Engineer, Udaipur  granted mining lease  in respect of an area covering 10,173 sq. mts. out of  the area  of 22,500 sq. mts. for which the appellant had submitted  the application  and in  pursuance  the  said order the  appellant obtained the mining lease on August 10, 1983 which  was registered  on August  18, 1983.  The second application of  respondent No.  5 dated January 19, 1983 was rejected by  the Mining  Engineer, Udaipur,  by order  dated April 19,  1983  on  the  ground  that  it  was  pre-mature. Respondent No.  5 filed two appeals against the orders dated February 24,  1983 and  April 29,  1982 and January 19, 1983 were rejected.  The  said  appeals  were  dismissed  by  the Additional Director,  Mines, Udaipur  by order  dated August 12, 1983.  The appeal  filed by respondent No. 5 against the said order  of the  Additional Director,  Mines, Udaipur was partly allowed by the State Government of Rajasthan by order dated July  3, 1984  whereby mining  lease  was  granted  in favour of  the  appellant  and  it  was  directed  that  the remaining area  other than  that granted  to  the  appellant should be  granted in favour of respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5  preferred a revision application against the order of the State  Government dated  July 3, 1984 before the Central Government under  Section  30  of  the  Mines  and  Minerals (Regulation and  Development) Act,  1957. The  said revision application o  respondent No.  5 was  allowed by the Central Government by  order  dated  March  12,  1987.  The  Central Government held  that the grant of mining lease in favour of Babulal Modi  stood revoked  on October  12, 1982  when  the period of  three months  for the execution of the lease deed lapsed and  the first  application dated  October  20,  1982 submitted by  respondent No.  5 could not be rejected on the ground that  the area  was  not  available  for  grant.  The Central Government  set aside  the order granting the mining lease to  the appellant as well the order dated February 24, 1983 passed  by the  Mining Engineer, Udaipur, and the order dated August  12, 1983  passed by  the Additional  Director, Mines and  order dated  July 3,  1982 passed  by  the  State Government and  remanded the  matter to the State Government for passing  appropriate  order  on  the  application  dated October 20,  1982 submitted  by respondent  No. 5 on merits. The Central  Government did  not go  into the question as to whether  the  second  application  dated  January  19,  1983 submitted by  respondent No. 5 was pre-mature. The appellant filed a  writ petition  (writ petition  No. 1064 of 1987) in the Rajasthan  High Court wherein he challenged the legality and validity of the order dated March 12, 1987 passed by the Central Government.  The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judgment dated April 4, 1991. The Special Appeal (D.B.  Civil Special Appeal No. 167 of 1991) filed by the appellant  against the  judgment of  the learned  single judge has  been dismissed  by the Division Bench of the High Court by  concurring judgments  (per  V.S.  Kokje  and  R.R. Yadav. JJ. ).      Two questions  broadly arise  for consideration in this appeal, viz, (i) whether the first application dated October 20, 1982  submitted by  respondent No. 5 was prematures; and (ii) whether  the second  application dated January 19, 1983 submitted by respondent No. 5 was pre-mature.      For answering  the first  question, it  is necessary to take note  of Rule 19(1) of the 1977 Rules which provided as follows :      "19. Execution of lease. - (1) Where a      lease has  been granted or renewed under      these rules, the formal lease in Form      No. 8 shall be executed within three

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

    months from the date of receipt of the      sanction by the applicant and if no such      formal lease is executed within the      aforesaid period, the order granting the      lease shall be deemed to have been      revoked. The competent authority shall      sign the agreement on behalf of the      Governor of  Rajasthan as required under      Article 229 of the Constitution of India      "Provided that where the State      Government or  any officer authorised by      the State Government to grant lease on      its behalf is satisfied that there are      sufficient reasons to believe that the      grantee is not responsible for the delay      in the execution of the formal lease,      the State  Government on that officer as      the case may, be may permit the      execution of formal lease within a      reasonable time  after the expire of the      aforesaid period of three months."      A perusal  of the  said provisions shows that after the grant of  the mining  lease a formal lease is required to be executed within three months from the date of the receipt of the sanction  by the  applicant and if not such format lease is executed  within the  said period,  the order grating the lease has  to be deemed to have been revoked. In the proviso to sub-rule  (1) of Rule 19 provision is made that the state Government or any officer authorised by the State Government to grant lease on its behalf, may permit execution of formal lease within  a reasonable  time after  the  expire  of  the aforesaid period  three months,  if the  State Government or such officer  is satisfied that there are sufficient reasons to believe that the grantee is not responsible for the delay in the  execution of  the formal lease. In the present case, the applicability of the proviso dies not arise and only the main part of sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 has to be considered.      The period  of three  months had to be counted from the date of  receipt of  the sanction  by the  applicant and not from the  date of  the grant  of mining  lease. The  Central Government, in  passing the  order dated March 12, 1987, has erroneously proceeded  on the basis that the period of three months has  to be  counted from  the date of grant of lease, i.e., July 12, 1982 and on that basis the Central Government has held  that the  deemed revocation  would be operative on October 12,  1982. The Central Government has also expressed the view  that for  the purpose  of revocation  of the grant under Rule  19 it  is not necessary to pass any formal order by the  State Government  since deemed revocation would take place by  operation of law after the expire of the period of three months prescribed in Rule 19.      In the High Court one of the learned Judges [V.S. Kokje J.] has  taken note  of the  fact that the intimation of the order dated  July 12,  1982 regarding  grant of mining lease was received  by respondent No. 5 on August 16, 1982 and the period of  three months,  when counted  from August 16, 1982 expired on November 15, 1982 and, therefore, the application dated October  20, 1982  submitted by  respondent No.  5 was premature. The  other Judge  [R.R. Yadav.  J] while agreeing that the period of three months prescribed under Rule 19 has to be  counted from  the date  of the  receipt of  the order granting sanction of the lease , was not inclined to disturb the order  passed by  the Central  Government for the reason that the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of  the Constitution,  would not permit the appellant to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

place before  the Court fresh material, namely, Annexure 1-A to the  writ petition,  which showed  that the  letter dated July 12,  1982 granting  the mining  lease was  received  by Babulal Modi  on August  16, 1982.  According to  Yadav.  J. since the  said document  was not  placed before  any of the tribunals and  the matter  is to  be decided  by  the  State Government afresh  after remand  it would  not be  proper to make further  comments on the same regarding its credibility and reliability.      In view  of the  clear language used in sub-rule (1) of Rule 19,  the relevant date for counting the period of three months for  the purpose  of  execution  of  a  formal  lease agreement has  to be counted from the date of the receipt of the sanction  of the mining lease by the applicant. The case of the  appellant is  that the  sanction dated July 12, 1982 for grant of mining lease on the application of Babulal Modi was received  by him on August 16, 1982. It is no doubt true that this fact was not brought out in the proceedings before the State  Government or the Central Government. The Central Government did  not consider  it necessary  to go  into  the question of  the date  of receipt of the sanction by Babulal Modi because  it has  proceeded on the basis that the period of three months has to be counted from the date of the grant of sanction  of lease,  i.e., July  12, 1982.  The fact that this fact  was brought  out, for  the  first  time,  by  the appellant in  the writ  petition,  by  filing  the  document Annexure 1-A,  could not  stand in the way of the High Court considering the  said documents  and deciding whether on the basis of  the said  document the  said letter dated July 12, 1982 was received by Babulal Modi on August 16, 1982. Yadav. J. has  refused to rake note of the said document thought it had been  placed  on  record  with  the  writ  petition.  An additional affidavit dated September 12, 1995 has been filed by the  appellant in  this Court  and a  copy of  the letter dated December  13, 1982  from the Assistant Mining Engineer to the Mining Engineer, Udaipur has been annexed as Annexure I to  the said  affidavit. In  the said  letter it is stated that the letter dated July 12, 1982 regarding grant of lease in favour  of Babulal  Modi was  sent to  the said  party by registered A.D.  dated July  30, 1982  requesting him to get the lease  deed executed and the said letter was received by Babulal Modi in August 16, 1982 and that the period of three months had  expired on  November 15, 1982 and that the party had so  far not  completed the formalities for the execution of the  lease deed.  Along with the said affidavit a copy of the relevant  entry in  the despatch  register has also been filed which  shows that  the letter  No. ML 126/81 regarding grant of  mining lease  was sent  to Babulal Modi vide entry no. 1143  dated July  30, 1982  in the Dispatch Register and that it  was actually  sent by  registered post on August 2, 1982. There  is no reason to doubt the authenticity of these documents which  have  been  filed  by  the  appellant.  We, therefore, proceed  on the  basis that the letter dated July 12, 1982  regarding grant  of mining  lease was  received by Babulal Modi  on August  16, 1982  and the  period of  three months for the execution of the formal lease, as required by Rules 19(1),  expired on  November 15, 1982 and the grant of mining lease  in favour  of Babulal  Modi would be deemed to have been  revoked only  on November  15,  1982.  The  first application  dated   October  20,   1982  submitted  by  the respondent No.  5 was, therefore, pre-mature and was rightly rejected by  the Mining Engineer by his order dated February 24, 1983.      We may  now came  to the  question whether  the  second application dated  January 19,  1983 submitted by respondent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

No. 5  was pre-mature.  The answer  to this  question  would depend upon  the question  whether on  January 19,  1983 the area in  question was available for grant. The appellant has placed reliance  on the provisions of Rules 56 and 57 of the 1977 Rules in this regard. The said Rules provide as under :      "Rule 56.  Availability of the areas for      re-grant to be signified an entry in the      register for mining lease and rent-cum-      royalty lease :- No area which was      previously held under mining lease or      rent-cum-royalty lease  shall be treated      as available for regrant unless an entry      to this effect has been made in the      register of mining lease or rent-cum-      royalty lease and 15 days have elapsed      from the date of such entry. The      aforesaid entry in the register of      mining lease shall be made at least 3      months before the date of expire of      original lease or with in 15 days from      the receipt of determination order, as      the case may be. In case of rent-cum-      royalty lease the entry shall be made on      the date  of the notification under rule      27(4). In the case of mining lease for      area of 1 sq. km. or above the date from      which it shall be treated as available      for re-grant shall be notified in the      Rajasthan Gazette at least 30 days in      advance. The  notification shall mention      the relevant  rule under which the grant      shall be made either by auction or by      application.      Note :- (a) for the purpose of this      rule, the register required to be      maintained under rules 10(2) and 24(2)      shall be deemed to be the register for      entry under this rule.      (b)  In case of a renewal application      for mining lease the entry in the said      register shall be made within 15 days of      the rejection of renewal application.      Rule 57. Premature application : -      Application for grant of mining lease in      respect of areas which have been      previously held under a Mining lease but      in respect of which there is no entry in      the register as provided for in the      foregoing rule, shall be deemed to be      premature and shall be disposed of by      the Government accordingly and the      application fee paid shall be refunded."      The Central Government has expressed the view that Rule 56 is  not applicable in this case inasmuch as the said Rule governs declaring  an area available for grant if held under a mining  lease and  an area  cannot be  held under a mining lease unless the mining lease is executed and the possession is taken by the person to whom the area is granted under the mining lease.  The learned  single  Judge  appears  to  have proceeded  on  an  erroneous  impression  that  the  Central Government has  held that  the provisions of Rules 56 of the Rules have  not been complied with in the present case. Both the learned  judges on  the Division Bench of the High Court have, however,  held that  Rule 56  has no  application in a case where  the person  to whom  the lease  has been granted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

fails to  execute a  formal lease under Rule 19 and there is deemed revocation  of sanction.  Yadav J. has, however, held that no  extract of  entry from the register of mining lease has been  filed to  show the  date on which the entry in the said register  was made  and that the alleged admission that an entry  was made  and that  the alleged  admission that an entry was  also  made  in  the  register  of  mining  leases maintained at the office of Mining Engineer, Udaipur was not sufficient to  confer right  on the  appellant to obtain the lease of  the disputed  mining area  on  the  basis  of  his application dated  January 20,  1983 while  respondent No. 5 had also  moved an application for grant of the said area on January 19,  1983. According  to the  learned judge  if  the entry was  made in  the register  on  January  4,  1983,  in pursuance  of   order  dated   January  4,   1983  then  the application of  respondent No.  5 dated January 19, 1983 and the application  of the  appellant dated  January  20,  1983 would be  mature and  that if  the entry in the register was made on any subsequent date, then it is to be decided by the State Government  as to  whether these two applications were mature or pre-mature.      Shri Arun Jaitley, the learned senior counsel appearing for the  appellant, has  submitted that  Rule  56  serves  a useful  purpose   inasmuch  as   it  curbs   corruption  and favoritism by  fixing the date on which a particular area is available for  grant of mining lease and thereby enables all applicants to  have an equal opportunity of submitting their applications for  grant of  lease. The  submission  of  Shri Jaitley is  that keeping  in view the said object underlying Rule 56, it should be applied in all cases where lease is to be regranted  including cases where the grant of a lease has been revoked  under Rule  19 on the ground of failure on the part of  the applicant  to execute  the  formal  lease  deed within the  prescribed period.  Shri jaitley  has urged that otherwise applicants  would try to obtain secret information from the  office about  the dates of dispatch and receipt of the letter  regarding  grant  of  sanction  and  this  would encourage corruption.  The said  contention of Shri Jaitley, though attractive,  cannot be  accepted. Rule  56 refers  to regrant of  mining lease  in respect  of an  area which  was previously held  under a  mining lease.  In a  case where an order for  grant of  mining lease  has been  passed  but  no formal lease deed is executed by the applicant and the grant stands revoked under Rule 19(1) of the 1977 Rules, it cannot be said  that the  area was  previously held  under a mining lease. Merely because there is a practice of making an entry in the register of mining leases maintained under Rule 10 of 1977 Rules  in respect of grant of mining lease which stands revoked, it  cannot be held that Rule 56 is applicable. Shri Jaitley has also placed reliance on Rule 57 which prescribes that an  application for grant of mining lease in respect of areas which  have been  previously held under a mining lease but in  respect of  which there  is no entry in the register has to  be treated  as pre-mature. Rules 57, in our opinion, also Lalks of areas previously held under a mining lease and covers the  same field  as that  covered by Rule 56. Rule 57 does not  widen the  scope of  Rule  56  and  it  cannot  be construed to  mean that Rule 56 is applicable in cases where mining lease  has been  sanctioned but  no formal lease deed has been  executed and  as a  result the  order granting the mining lease stands revoked under Rule 19(1).      In this  context, it  may  be  mentioned  that  in  the Rajasthan Minor  Mineral Concession  Rules, 1986 this lacuna has been  removed and in Rule 59(1) of the 1986 Rules, which contains provisions  similar to those that contained Rule 56

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

of the 1977 Rules, it has been provided :      "No area  which has been previously held      under a mining lease or in respect of      which order of grant has been made but      the same has been revoked shall be      treated as  available for regrant unless      an entry  to this effect has ben made in      the register of mining lease, the area      has been  notified as ‘free area’ on the      notice boardi of Mining  Engineer      Assistant Mining Engineer and 15 days      have elapsed from the date of such i      notification and entry in the register."                          [emphasis supplied.]      It must,  therefore, be  held that  Rule 56 of the 1977 Rules has  no  application  in  the  present  case  and  the application dated  January 19,  1983 submitted by respondent No. 5  cannot be  said to  be pre-mature on the basis of the provisions of Rule 56.      The non-applicability  of Rule  56 of  the  1977  Rules would mean  that there is no provision in the 1977 Rules for specifying the date on which an area in respect of which the grant of mining lease stands revoked under Rules 19(1) would be available  for regrant.  Yadav J.  has expressed the view under Rule  19 of the 1977 Rules the area would be available for regrant  immediately after  the expire  of three  months which is  to be computed from the date of receipt of receipt of the sanction by the applicant and that no formal order of revocation of  the sanction is required. It is no doubt true that in  view of  the expression ‘deemed revocation’ in Rule 19(1) of  the 1977  Rules. revocation  of  the  sanction  is automatic on  the expire  of  the  period  of  three  months prescribed under Rule 19(1) except in cause where the period for execution  of mining lease is extended under the proviso to sub-rule  (1) of  Rule 19.  Such  a  revocation  has  two consequences. In  the first place it terminates the right of the  grantee  of  mining  lease  flowing  from  such  grant. Secondly it  enables another person to obtain a mining lease in respect  of the  area covered  by the  grant which stands revoked. The  first cosequence  is confined to the applicant who was  granted the  mining lease  and whose  grant  stands revoked. The  other consequence  involves third  parties who wish to  apply for  grant of  mining lease in respect of the area covered by the grant which stands revoked.      So far  as the  applicant in  whose favour the grant of mining lease  was made which grant stands revoked under Rule 19(1), the  revocation takes  effect from  the date when the period of  three months  prescribed under Rule 19 (1) or the extended period under the proviso to Rule 19 (1) expires and the right  that had  accrued to  the said  applicant in  the basis of  the grant comes to an end. But in respect of third parties the  matter regarding  availability of  the area  in question for  regrant cannot  be  allowed  to  rest  on  the internal communications  between the  concerned officials of the State  Government and the applicant for the mining lease the relevant  facts regarding  which would  not be  known to public and  are only  contained in  the office  files. Since grant of  mining lease  involves grant of a privilege by the State, every  applicant for  such mining  lease must have an equal opportunity  to  apply  for  the  same.  This  can  be achieved only  if  a  public  notice  is  issued  about  the availability of  the area  for regrant  so that an intending applicant knows about the availability of the area for grant and can submit his application for that purpose.      It appears  that the  Directorate, Mines and Minerology

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

Department, Government  of Rajasthan  has issued  a circular dated December 10, 1976 in respect of applications for lease of mining of minerals or lease of rent-cum-royalty. In paragraph 4 of the said Circular, it is stated :      "4. Who has been granted lease of mining      or   rent-cum-royalty under Non-      Principal Minerals Concessions Rule,      1959 and he does not execute contract in      the prescribed tome as per Rules then on      expire of prescribed period for      execution of contract, the order of      sanction deemed to be considered as      revoked and that area should be notified      as free zone according to Rules is      appropriate time i.e. if the area is      more than one mile than it should be      published in the gazette and if the area      is less  than one mile then it should be      notified on the Notice Board of the      office for the period of 15 days."      Paragraph 4  of the said Circular envisages a situation where grant  of the  lease  stands  revoked  on  account  of failure on  the part of the applicant to whom lease has been granted to execute formal lease deed as per the Rules and it requires that  the areas  should be  notified as  free  zone according to  Rules in  appropriate time  and if the area is more than  one mile  than it  should  be  published  in  the gazette and  if it  is less  than one  mile,  it  should  be notified on  the notice  board of the office for 15 days. It is no  doubt true  that the  said Circular  was issued under Non-Principal Minerals  Concession Rules,  1959 prior to the 1977 Rules,  but the guide lines contained in paragraph 4 of the said  Circular appear  to have  been followed even after the coming  into force  of the 1977. Rules because after the revocation of  the sanction  of mining  lease for  marble in area 150  x 50  meters in  favour of  Rajesh Vardia a notice dated October 18, 1979 was issued declaring the said area as a vacant  area after  15 days  from the date of issue of the said notice excluding the date of issue. As regards the area in question  in the present case. The following office order was issued by the Mines Engineer, Udaipur on January 4, 1983      "That Shri  Babu Lal Modi s/o Shri Ganga      Lal r/o  Ratarbagh was sanctioned mining      lease near village Tripuratu District      Banswara vide office order No.      Udaipur/illegible/MR/ML 23182/2495 dated      12.7.82 for 10/5 years. The applicant      has not  completed necessary formalities      for execution of contract within the      fixed period of three months for      execution of contract.      Therefore the  said sanction order dated      12.7.82 is  revoked and the said area is      declared for re-allocation after 15 days      excluding the day of publication of this      order."      We have  not been shown any provision in the 1977 Rules which prescribes  that in a case where the grant of a mining lease stands revoked under Rule 19(1) of the 1977 Rules, the area is  available for regrant immediately after such deemed revocation. The  1977 Rules  are silent  in this  aspect. It would, there,  be permissible  to  issue  an  administrative order fixing  the date on which the area in respect of which a grant  had been  made and which grant stands revoked under Rule 19(1)  on  account  of  failure  on  the  part  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

applicant  to   execute  a  formal  lease  deed  within  the prescribed period  of three  months, would  be available for regrant. Such  an administrative  order would be permissible since it would not be inconsistent with the Rules. The order dated January  4, 1983  is such  an administrative order. It cannot be considered to be in consistent with the 1977 Rules and effect  can be  given to  the said order. The said order when it says that ‘the sanction order dated July 12, 1982 is revoked only  means that  the  said  sanction  order  stands revoked on  the expire  of the  period  prescribed  for  the execution of a formal lease deed under Rule 1991 of the 1977 Rules. No fault can be found in the said order dated January 4, 1983  when it  says that  ‘the area  is available  for re allotment after  15 days excluding the day of publication of the said  order’. This  would  mean  that  the  area  became available  for   regrant  only  on  January  20,  1983.  The application dated  January 19,  1983 submitted by respondent No. 5  before  the  expire  of  15  days  from  the  day  of publication  of   the  order  dated  January  4,  1983  has, therefore, to be considered as pre-mature with regard to the area covered  by the  area for  which mining  lease had been earlier granted to Babulal Modi.      Since  we   have  come   to  the  conclusion  that  the application dated  October 20,  1982 and  January  19,  1983 submitted by  respondent No. 5 were both pre-mature the same were liable  to be  rejected and  the order  of the  Central Government dated  March 18,  1987 as  well as judgment dated April 4,  1991 of  the learned Single Judge and the impugned judgment of  the Division Bench of the High Court dated July 18, 1994  cannot be  upheld and  have to  be set  aside. The order  of  the  State  Government  dated  July  3,  1984  is restored.      In the result the appeal is allowed and the order dated March  18,  1987  passed  by  the  Central  Government,  the judgment dated  April 4,  1991 passed  by the learned single judge in  Writ Petition  No. 1064  off 1987 and the judgment dated July  18, 1984  passed by  the Division  Bench in D.B. Special Appeal  No. 167  of 1991 are set aside and the order dated July  8,  1984  passed  by  the  State  Government  is restored. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.