A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The case of Mineral Development Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Anr. revolves around the constitutional validity of Section 25(1)(c) of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947, and the procedural fairness followed in cancelling a mica mining license issued to the petitioner. The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the restrictions imposed under this provision were reasonable within the ambit of Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India, and whether due process, particularly the opportunity to be heard, was upheld as mandated by the second proviso to Section 25(1) of the Act.
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the provision, citing its objective and structured limitations, yet held that the State Government’s execution of the cancellation order violated principles of natural justice. The Revenue Minister’s personal bias and failure to afford adequate opportunity to respond to the charges rendered the cancellation illegal. The judgment draws heavily from precedents including State of Madras v. V.G. Row, [1952] SCR 597, and Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1959] SCR Supp. (1) 319 to establish the standards for reasonableness and quasi-judicial bias.
The decision is a cornerstone in balancing State discretion and individual liberty under Article 19, emphasizing procedural fairness even in cases of statutory powers.
Keywords: Bihar Mica Act, Reasonable Restriction, Article 19, Natural Justice, Personal Bias, Mining Licence
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title:
Mineral Development Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and Another
ii) Case Number:
Writ Petition No. 159 of 1956
iii) Judgement Date:
15 December 1959
iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum:
B.P. Sinha, C.J.; P.B. Gajendragadkar; K. Subba Rao; K.C. Das Gupta; J.C. Shah, JJ.
vi) Author:
Justice K. Subba Rao
vii) Citation:
Mineral Development Ltd. v. State of Bihar, [1960] 2 SCR 609
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
-
Article 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), 19(5), 19(6), 32 of the Constitution of India
-
Section 25(1)(c) of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947
ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None
x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Mining & Environmental Law, Industrial Regulation
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The writ petition was filed under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of a State action cancelling the mining licence of the petitioner company, which held a lease for mica extraction in over 3,000 villages for 999 years. The challenge pertained to Section 25(1)(c) of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947, which enabled the State Government to cancel licences of licensees found guilty of repeated non-compliance with statutory requirements.
The petition raised the question whether this provision imposed an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g). The case also concerned whether the cancellation order issued by the Bihar Government met the standards of natural justice, including affording a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner, Mineral Development Ltd., held a lease granted by the proprietor Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh in 1947 for mining operations in Hazaribagh district. The lease covered 3,026 villages for a term of 999 years, and the company had invested over ₹16 lakhs in establishing its operations. A licence under the Bihar Mica Act was regularly renewed until 1954.
In March 1953, the Government served a notice to the petitioner citing violations of Sections 10, 12 and 14 of the Act and called upon it to show cause why its licence should not be cancelled. Despite the petitioner requesting and receiving particulars and filing a detailed rebuttal in May 1953, the State Government remained silent for over two years. Then, in September 1955, it abruptly cancelled the licence.
The petitioner alleged that the decision was mala fide, influenced by the political rivalry between the Revenue Minister and the lessor, and claimed violation of fundamental rights and principles of natural justice.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether Section 25(1)(c) of the Bihar Mica Act imposes unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g).
ii) Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s licence by the State Government violated the principles of natural justice as required under the second proviso to Section 25(1).
F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:
Section 25(1)(c) of the Bihar Mica Act violated the right to property and trade under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) by granting excessive discretionary power to the State. They contended that the Act lacked adequate procedural safeguards and gave the Government uncontrolled authority to cancel licences. They relied on Thakur Raghubir Singh v. Court of Wards, Ajmer, [1953] SCR 1049, where such unregulated discretion was struck down as unreasonable[1].
The counsel argued that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to meet the allegations. They cited Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1959] SCR Supp. (1) 319, stating that decision-makers must act without bias and offer a hearing before passing prejudicial orders[2].
They emphasized that the Revenue Minister had a personal bias against the lessor, the Raja of Ramgarh, due to past political enmity, and that this tainted the decision-making process.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:
The Bihar Mica Act and its provisions were intended to regulate a vital national resource, and Section 25(1)(c) served a legitimate public interest. They argued that the restrictions were reasonable and in line with Article 19(5) and (6). Relying on State of Madras v. V.G. Row, [1952] SCR 597, they claimed that the test of reasonableness was met as the Act laid down clear grounds for cancellation and provided for an opportunity to be heard[3].
They denied that the order was mala fide, asserting that it was based on objective findings and the petitioner had been informed of the grounds and given a chance to reply.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i) Article 19(1)(f) and (g) – Right to property and to carry on trade or business
ii) Article 19(5) and (6) – Reasonable restrictions in public interest
iii) Article 32 – Right to constitutional remedies
iv) Section 25(1)(c), Bihar Mica Act, 1947 – Power to cancel licence for repeated failure to comply with the Act
v) Sections 10, 12, 14, Bihar Mica Act – Duties related to record-keeping and movement of mica
H) JUDGEMENT
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
i) The Court held that Section 25(1)(c) of the Act did not violate Articles 19(1)(f) or (g). The provision had a legitimate aim of regulating mica mining and included objective criteria and procedural safeguards, making it a reasonable restriction.
However, the Court held that the State failed to comply with the second proviso to Section 25(1) by not offering the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The intervention of a biased authority (the Revenue Minister) vitiated the process. The order was quashed due to violation of natural justice.
b. OBITER DICTA
i) The Court emphasized that reasonable opportunity depends on the circumstances. Even under valid laws, personal bias of decision-makers and denial of hearing will vitiate administrative orders.
c. GUIDELINES
The Court laid down the following guidelines:
-
Discretion under regulatory laws must align with natural justice.
-
Authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions must be free from bias.
-
Any person affected must be given a genuine and timely opportunity to be heard.
-
Vague or trivial allegations cannot justify drastic regulatory actions.
I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of procedural fairness in exercising statutory discretion. While upholding the validity of regulatory provisions, the Court struck down the manner of implementation where it found personal bias and denial of hearing.
This ruling serves as a landmark in Indian administrative law, reaffirming that legitimate State objectives must be pursued through just means. Even in matters involving economic regulation, due process and fairness remain paramount.
J) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
[1] Thakur Raghubir Singh v. Court of Wards, Ajmer, [1953] SCR 1049
[2] Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1959] SCR Supp. (1) 319
[3] State of Madras v. V.G. Row, [1952] SCR 597
b. Important Statutes Referred
i) Constitution of India: Articles 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), 19(5), 19(6), 32
ii) Bihar Mica Act, 1947: Sections 10, 12, 14, 25(1)(c)
