Holding

A decision that has attained finality between the parties cannot be revisited by a later court; thus the High Court's order was set aside and the earlier Supreme Court directions were restored.

Summary

The Government of Goa appealed against a Bombay High Court order that directed the respondents, M/s A.H. Jaffar and Sons, to dispose of the Government's application for a mining lease within six weeks and imposed exemplary costs. The respondents had earlier filed a writ petition in 1993 seeking the quashing of orders and grant of a mining lease, which the High Court eventually directed to be decided on merits. The Supreme Court observed that a prior judgment of this Court in State of Goa v. Mis. A.H. Jaffar and Sons (AIR 1995 SC 333) involving the same parties and identical issues had attained finality, and therefore the High Court could not issue contrary directions. It also noted that the respondents improperly approached the Central Government's Revisional Tribunal despite a stay order, rendering that step improper. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and reinstated the directions of the earlier Supreme Court decision, holding that once a decision attains finality it cannot be revisited by another court.

Issues considered

Whether the Bombay High Court could direct the parties to dispose of the mining lease application after a prior Supreme Court judgment on the same parties and issues had attained finality.
Whether the respondents' approach to the Revisional Tribunal was permissible despite the stay order issued by this Court.
Whether an administrative order granting a mining lease can be reviewed by the State Government under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

Legislation cited

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960s. Rule 54
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957s. 30

Subjects

Mining leaseFinality of judgmentRevisional TribunalStay orderAdministrative reviewMines and Minerals Act

Judgment

[2008) 5 S.C.R. 516

A THE GOVERNMENT OF GOA
v.
MIS. A.H. JAFFAR AND SONS AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2536 of 2001)
MARCH 26, 2008
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)

Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation Act,
1957; s.30/Mineral Concession Rules, 1960; r. 54:
c Grant of mining lease - Order of authorities challenged
by filing an appeal -Filing of writ petition during pendency of
the appeal - High Court directing authorities to dispose of the
application for grant of lease on merit - Correctness of - Held:
Incorrect - High Court failed to notice that by the time Writ
D petition was disposed of by it, Supreme Court already decided
~
the pending matter between the same parties on identical ~

issues - Once a decision rendered intra parties attains finality, .
no different view could be taken - Hence, the impugned order
of the High Court set aside and directions contained in Para 3
E of the said order shall operate so far as this Court is concerned
- Directions issued.
Administrative Order - Review of - Held: It could be
reviewed by the State Government.

F Respondents filed a writ petition before the Bombay
High Court for directions for quashing order passed by
the appellant authorities and for grant of mining lease over
certain area in their favour. High Court noticed that the
matter on the issue was pending for over 16 years and
the authorities did not address themselves to the main
G
issue compelling the respondents to approach the Court
every now and then, and directed the appellant to dispose
of the application of the respondents for grant of mining I
~
lease. Hence the present appeal.

H 516
THE GOVERNMENT OF GOA v. M/S. A.H. JAFFAR 517
AND SONS AND ANR.
....... Appellant-State contended that a dispute of similar A
nature involving the parties in the present appeal was
before this Court in State of Goa and Ors. vs. Mis. A.H. Jaffar
and Sons AIR (1995) SC 333; and that it had attained finality
between the parties, under the circumstances, High Court
could not have given the impugned directions. B
ii Respondents 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 c
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read
with Rule 54 of the Mineral concession Rules, 1960. The
Revisional Tribunal of the Central Government by its final
order dated 13.5.2002 has already decided the matter in
favour of the respo11dents. D
>' r
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Notwithstanding stay order passed by this
Court, the respondents pursued their remedies before the
Revisional Tribunal.. That certainly was not proper and E
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 by that time the decision of this
Court in the earlier case between the same parties had
been decided in a particular way. The High Court did not F
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's order. (Para - 6) [520-G-H; 521-A]

,,
State of Goa and Ors. vs. Mis. A.H. Jaffar and Sons AIR G
(1995) SC 333 - referred to.
1.2 In the circumstances, the impugned order of the
High Court is set aside and directions contained in
paragraph 3 of the earlier. decision shall operate so far as
H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 5 S.C.R.

A 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.
(Para - 7) (521-B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON : Civil Appeal
B No.2536 of 2001.

From the final Jucfgment and Order dated 01.03.2000 of
the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 41 of
1993.
C H.L. Agrawal, Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis and B. Sunita
Rao for the Appellant.
Anis Suhrawardy, Shamama Anis, S. Mehdi Imam and
Tabrez Ahmed for the Respondents.
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
E 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's application for mining lease over an area of
34.68 hectares situated at two different villages in Ponda Taluka
F 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:
G "18. 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
H issue involved in the matter, and considering all the
THE GOVERNMENT OF GOA v. MIS. A.H. JAFFAR 519
AND SONS AND ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

+· observations made hereinabove, we are compelled to A
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 B
addressing themselves to the main issue involved in the
t +
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
c
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 absolute in above terms."
D

.l· 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. Mis. A.H. Jaffar and Sons (AIR 1995 SC 333). It E
was, inter alia, held as under:
7i,
"3. 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 F
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 G
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,·· H
-t'

J.
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S. C.R.

·-+
A 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
B Court bona fide, it would be sufficient cause to condone
the delay and we trust the revision if preferred within four • f
weeks from today shall not be dismissed as being barred
by time."

4. Therefore, it is submitted that when the matter had •
c 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
D
respondents on 3rd July, 2000, and they had moved the
Revisional Tribunal of the Central Government in terms of ·J
Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short the 'Act') read with Rule 54 of '"""
the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (in short the 'Rules'). The 1-
E Revisjo.i:ial 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
F 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

,
G
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 by that time the deci!lfon_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
H
,-
l

~
lo-
THE GOVERNMENT OF GOA v. M/S. A.H. JAFFAR 521
AND SONS AND ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

that also. It needs no reiteration that once the decision is A
rendered intra parties and attains finality, a different view cannot
be taken, more so, when finality is attached by this Court's 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 8
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 301h March, 2001. C
8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no'
order as to costs.
S.K.S. Appeal partly allowed.
D

l