Smt. Budhwant Kaur vs Rawat Singh And Ors. on 29 April, 1986
With respect, the learned Judge has failed to
notice that the case was with regard to transfer of a mining
[11]
lease and not with regard to the refund of the security
deposited by the appellant's husband Sardar Singh. Merely
because security has to be deposited with the State
Government for the purpose of enjoying the rights of a
mining lease, would not bring a mining lease within the
definition of the term "security" as defined in Section 370(2)
of the Act. In the humble opinion of this Court, definition
of "security" given in the abovementioned provision could
not be enlarged so as to bring licences for which securities
needs to be deposited within the said term. For, to do so
would amount to enlarging the definition given by the
legislature. Moreover, since a mining licence or a saw mill
licence has not been declared to be a security by the State
Government under Section 270 (2) (e) of the Act, obviously
the same could not be included in the term "security" as
defined in Section 370(2) of the Act. Therefore, the said
judgment is against the tenor of Section 370 of the Act.
Hence, the said judgment is per incuriam. Thus, the said
judgment is not binding on this Court.