Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(38) The third contention of Shri Chatterjee was that according to the provision in Article 66(2) of the Portuguese Mining Laws, the validity of a title of manifest expires after a period of one year from the date of issue, if no concession or extension has been applied for, or when the terms of Articles 73(6) have not been complied with, that the four titles of manifest possessed by the petitioner were issued on 5th September, 1958, that the period of their validity would expire on 5-9-1959 unless applications for concessions had been made prior to the date, that though the petitioner filed applications for concessions on 4th September, 1959, they were not valid applications in that they were not accompanied by certain documents as required under Article 91 of the Portuguese Mining Laws, and that, therefore, the titles of manifest must be regarded to have expired on 5th September, 1959. He also contended that the terms of Article 73 also were not complied with and the titles of manifest became invalid for that reason also. As regards the first part of the contention, it is true that Article 66(2) provides that the validity of a title of manifest expires after a period of one year from the date of issue, if no concession or extension has been applied for. It is also true that the four titles of manifest were issued to Shri V..L Keny on 5th September, 1958, and their validity would expire on 5th September, 1959. But, the petitioner applied for the grant of mining concessions on the basis of the said titles of manifest on 4th September, 1959 i.e. within one year. The argument of Shri Chatterjee was that although the petitioner filed the applications for the grant of concessions on 4th September, 1959, within the period of one year mentioned in Article 66(2), the said applications were invalid applications, in that the provisions in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (e) of Article 91 of the Portuguese Mining Laws were not complied with. The relevant portion of the said Article is as follows :- "91.The application for concession shall be made at the Headquarters of the Government of the District within a year from the date of the title of manifest........... the application shall always be accompanied by the following documents :- (a) An authentic copy, or the proper original of the title of manifest. When this has been endorsed the original is required. (b) Certificate of having paid the respective Government Treasury Office a sum of 3 $000 reis for each claim for precious stones or precious metals applied for, or of 10031)000 reis when the claim is for any other mineral substance. (c) A receipt of the sum paid under the terms of Article 73. (d) ** ** ** ** (e)A declaration of having relinquished national rights (model 'D') if the applicant, being a foreigner, possesses a title of manifest by virtue of endorsement. (f) ** ** ** ** (39) A perusal of the applications, dated 4th September, 1959, shows that the original titles of manifest were filed along with the applications as required by clause (a). The certificates mentioned in clauses (b) and (c) were also filed along with the applications. It was stated in the applications that the petitioner would produce the remaining documents demanded by law within 30 days. Then, on 17th September, 1959, he filed four applications along with certain documents praying that they may be attached to the earlier applications. The documents so sought to be attached were the declaration mentioned in clause (e) and some challans. Thus, some of the documents mentioned in Article 91 were filed along with the applications, dated 4th September, 1959, and the others were filed on 17th September 1959. Shri Chatterjee argued that the provisions of Article 91 are mandatory, that if the applications for mining concessions were not accompanied by the documents mentioned in the various clauses of Article 91, they would be invalid applications, and that since the applications filed by the petitioner on 4th September, 1959, were not accompanied by all the documents mentioned in Article 91, they must be regarded as invalid and, therefore, incapable of extending the validity of the titles of manifest. He also argued that even though the remaining documents were filed on the 17th with a prayer for attaching the same to the earlier applications, there is no provision in the Portuguese Mining Laws for condoning the delay in filling the documents, that it would, therefore, follow that the applications for concessions have to be regarded to have been filed only on 17th September, 1959, when the provisions in Article 91 were fully complied with, and consequently there were no valid applications for grant of mining concessions filed prior to 5th September, 1959. We are unable to agree with the said arguments of Shri Chatterjee. No doubt, there does not seem to be an express provision in the Portuguese Mining Law empowering the concerned authority to condone the delay in the filling of the documents mentioned in Article 91. But, Article 66(2) itself refers to the extension of the period of validity of a title of manifest. It clearly means that the concerned authority has a power to extend the period of validity. If that is so, the power to extend the period of validity implies the power to condone the delay in filing the necessary documents along with an application for the grant of mining concessions. The petitioner filed the applications for the grant of mining concessions on 4th September, 1959, within the period of one year from the date of issue of the titles of manifest along with some of the documents required to be filed under Article 91, and then filed the remaining documents on 17th September, 1959, praying that they may be accepted and attached to the earlier application. Whether the authority would accept or reject the documents so filed subsequently is a different question. It has the power to accept the documents and, therefore, the applications filed on 4th September 1959, cannot be regard as invalid applications as the remaining documents were filed subsequently along with a prayer that they may be accepted and attached to the applications filed on 4th September, 1959. The first part of the third contention of Shri Chatterjee cannot, therefore, be accepted.

(40) As regards the second part of the third contention of Shri Chatterjee, reference has to be made to a few other provisions of the Portuguese Mining Laws. Articles 49 to 70 in Chapter Iii of the said Mining Laws deal with the "manifest of mines and rights and obligations of manifestor". Chapter Iv, which contains Articles 71 to 87, deals with" recognition and demarcation of mineral claims." Article 71 provides that "recognition of the deposit is made after the preparation of the plan or at the time of making it. The plan may be prepared by the Government Engineer of Mines or whoever acts for him, or by some authorised surveyor." Article 72 specifies the authorised surveyors. Then, Article 73 provides that "recognition and demarcation shall be made by the Mining Engineer or by one who acts for him, within a period of three months from the date of request for demarcation or concession." Clauses (1) to (8) of Article 73 require the manifestor to make certain payments. Article 73(4) in particular provides that the manifestor can apply for the final recognition and demarcation at any time during the term of validity of his manifest irrespective of application for concession. The argument of Shri Chatterjee was that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner complied with the requirements of Article, 73 and, therefore, the validity of the titles of manifest possessed by him should be regarded to have expired as provided in Article 66(2). This contention is not tenable. A reading of Article 66(2) shows that it provides that the validity of a title of manifest expires (1) after a period of one year from the date of issue, if no concession or extension has been applied for; or (2) when the terms of Article 73(6) have not been complied with. The second part of Article 66(2) has nothing to do with the expiry of a period of one year from the date of issue of the title of manifest. In other words, Article 66(2) consists of two parts. Under the first part, the validity of a title of manifest expires after a period of one year from the date of issue if no concession or extension has been applied for. We have already pointed out that the titles of manifest in the present case did not expire after the period of one year as the petitioner had applied within the period for the grant of mining concessions. As regards the second part of Article 66(2), there is no question of complying with Article 73 within the period of one year. A perusal of the provisions in Article 73 shows that no particular period of time has been prescribed for compliance with the said provisions, and there is nothing in the said provisions which compels the petitioner to make the payments mentioned in the said Article within any particular period. Even the provision in Article 73(4) is only permissive and not obligatory.

(41) The period of three months mentioned in Article 73 is a period within which the Mining Engineer has to make the recognition and demarcation, and it does not relate to what the manifestor has to do under the said Article. There is thus no force in the second part of the third contention of Shri Chatterjee.

(42) The fourth contention of Shri Chatterjee was that the provisions in Articles 73 read with Article 89 are a condition precedent for the filing of an application for concessions, and that in the present case the petitioner had not complied with the said provisions, and consequently his applications for concessions filed on 4th September, 1959, were not valid applications. This contention also cannot be accepted. We have already referred to the provisions in Article 73. The Article itself states that recognition and demarcation shall be made by the Mining Engineer within a period of three months from the date of the request for demarcation or concession. Thus, recognition and demarcation were to be made subsequent to the application for concession, and were not a condition precedent for the filing of an application for concession. Similarly, compliance with the provision in Article 89 is not a condition precedent for the filing of an application for concession. The argument of Shri Chatterjee was based on the translation of Article 89 as contained in a printed book of the Portuguese Colonial Mining Laws published by "LIVRARIA Singbal, Larco Da Igreja, CIDA-DE De GOA". It runs as follows :- "AFTERthe existence of the useful mineral substances has been recognised and verified by the Engineer of Mines in the manifested area, an application for concession in accordance with the terms of this Article can be made."