Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: serajuddin in Serajuddin And Co. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 7 September, 1973Matching Fragments
"In view of the advice given by the Law Department there could be no objection to issue an order revoking the grant of the mining lease to Messrs. Serajuddin and Co., in respect of the area of 99 acres in Keon-thar District relating to which he filed a writ petition and which has since been dismissed. The Collector may also be directed to ask the party to slop working the mines immediately and to intimate the date of stoppage of working the mine thereafter. Further action to be taken will depend on the information to be made available by the Collector".
24. It appears from the note quoted above, which is claimed to be the order of revocation, that it records that there would be no objection to issue an order revoking the grant of the mining lease to Messrs. Serajuddin and Co. It is apparent that this is not the order itself and it contemplates an order to be made for the purpose and records that there would be no objection to the issue of such an order. Counsel for the respondent, however, claimed that the note quoted above is the order itself and should be treated as such. We are unable to accept this contention. We have no doubt in our mind that the note signed by Sri P. Tripathi, Deputy Secretary, on April 3, 1962, and by Sri D. L. Purakayastha, Secretary, on April 4, 1962, cannot be treated to be the order of revocation. This note is an office note by the Deputy Secretary of Mining and Geology Department, for consideration by the Secretary of that Department. In this note the words :-- "There could be no objection to issue an order revoking the grant of mining lease" make it clear that a separate and independent order is contemplated by the note, and that the note is not the order itself. If this is the order of revocation itself, to be communicated to the party concerned as such, it would be altogether meaningless and irrelevant. What is still more significant, however, is that in the note of the Legal Remembrancer printed at pp. 109-110 of the paper book, the office note has been set out verbatim at the bottom of the Legal Remembrancer's note and thereafter the following note appears: "Therefore, orders revoking the grant order for execution of the lease may now be obtained so that the Col-