UNION OF INDIAversusSANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD. AND ORS.

                     [2013] 2 S.C.R. 1045


                           UNION OF INDIA                                      A
                                    v.
 SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD. AND ORS.
       (Review Petition (C) No. 739 of 2012)
                         IN
          (Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2010)                                      B
                           APRIL 23, 2013
           [P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]

      CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950                                              C
      Art. 137 - Review Petition - Held: Review proceedings are
not by way of an appeal; they have to be strictly confined to
the scope and ambit of 0.47, r. 1 CPC - In the instant case,
the error contemplated in the impugned judgment is not one                     D
which is apparent on the face of the record, rather the dispute
is wholly founded on interpretation and applicability of ss.
11(2) and 11(4) of MMDR Act - In review jurisdiction, mere
disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the
ground for invoking the same - However, the misquoted
portion of the Report, owing to clerical mistakes, is deleted                  E
from the judgment - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0.47,
r. 1 - Supreme Court Rules. 1966 - 0.40 - Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - ss. 11(2) and 11(4)
- De/ay/Laches.
                                                                               F
     The petitioner-Union of India filed the instant review
petition seeking review of the judgment and order dated
13.9.2010 passed in Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. 1
It was the case of the petitioner that it could not put forth
its view in the case for the reason that copy of the special                   G
leave petition was not served upon it and, as such, it
could not get an opportunity to be heard in the case. The
1.   Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. vs. State of Kamataka and Ors. 2010
     (11) SCR 240.
                                   1045                                        H
    1046   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A impugned judgment was mainly challenged on two
  issues (i) "that the impugned judgment has incorrectly
  reported the 'Report of the Committee to Review the Existing
  Laws and Procedures for Regulation and Development of
  Minerals'. As a consequence, the ratio of impugned
B judgment, which relies on this Expert Committee Report,
  shall stand erroneous in the eyes of law"; and (ii) that s.
  11 (2) and s. 11 (4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development
  and Regulation Act, 1957) should be applicable to both
  virgin and previously held areas.
c      Disposing of the petition, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 The details furnished in I.A. No. 1 of 2011
  filed for condoning the delay of 320 days in filing the
  review petition sufficiently prove that steps were taken at
D various levels in the Ministry of Mines. In view of the
  same, the delay is condoned. [para 6) [1050-A]
       1.2 It is true that the Expert Committee's Report has
  been misquoted to the extent of adding four lines, which
E was originally not a part of the report. Thus, this Court
  has the power to modify the impugned judgment to the
  extent of deletion of the misquoted statement under
  review jurisdiction. Therefore, the portion of para 2.1.21
  of the report which is misquoted in the impugned
F judgment owing to clerical mistake, is deleted.
  Consequently, a portion of para 51 of the impugned
  judgment is also deleted. [para 17, 19 and 20) [1053-D-E;
  1054-B-C]
       1.3 However, it cannot be said that the impugned
G judgment is erroneous on the face of law merely because
  the Expert Committee Report was misquoted. In the
  considered view of this Court, the impugned judgment
  stands good of reason even without these misquoted
  lines as well. [para 20) [1054-C-D]
H
  UNION OF INDIA v. SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON 1047
                    ORES LTD.
      Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. vs. State of A
 Kamataka and Ors. 2010 (11) SCR 240      =
                                      2010(13) SCC 1
 - referred to.
       2.1 With regard to the second issue that both s.11 (2)
  ands. 11(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
                                                              8
  Regulation) Act, 1957 should be applicable to both virgin
  and previously held areas, the same has been well
  reasoned in the impugned judgment. The error
  contemplated in the impugned judgment is not one which
  is apparent on the face of the record rather the dispute C
  is wholly founded on the point of interpretation and
  applicability of ss, 11 (2) and 11 (4) of the MMDR Act. In
  review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of
  the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the
  same. As long as the point is already dealt with and
. answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the D
  impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view
  is possible under the review jurisdi~tion. Review
  proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be
  strictly confined to the scope and ambit of 0. 47, r. 1 of
  CPC. Therefore, in review jurisdiction, the court shall E
  interfere only when there is a glaring omission or patent
  mistake or when a grave error has crept in the impugned
  judgment, which is not so in the instant case.
  [para 21, 23 and 24] [1055-C-F]
                                                              F
       Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors. 1997 (4)
                  =
  Suppl. SCR 470 (1997) 8 sec 715 - relied on.
     Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar
 Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520 - referred to.
                                                               G
     Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 - referred to.

     2.2 Keeping in view the provisions of Art.137 of the
 Constitution, read with 0.40 of Supreme Court Rules and
 0.47, r.11 (1 ), CPC, the petitioner-Union of India has not   H
     1048     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 2 S.C.R.

A invoked any valid ground for exercising the power under
  review jurisdiction. Further, after the judgment in Sandur,
  another coordinate Bench of this Court followed the ratio
  decidendi in Monnet lspat and Energy Ltd. However, a
  further period of 4 months is granted to comply with the
B directions issued in the impugned judgment. [para 28 and
  30) [1057-B-E]

         Monnet /spat and Energy Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.
     2012 (7) SCR 644 = 2012 (11) SCC 1 - referred to.
C.                        Case Law Reference:
       2010 (11) SCR 240              referred to        para 1
       1922 PC 112                    referred to        para 13
       (1955) 1 SCR 520               referred to        para 13
D
       1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 470        relied on          para 22
       2012 (7) SCR 644               referred to        para 28
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition
E (Civil) No. 739 of 2012 in C.A. No. 7944 of 2010.

      Goolam E. Vahanvati, AG, F.S. Nariman, Mukul Rohatgi,
  D.L.N. Rao, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Krishnan Venugopal, L.N.
  Rao, P.S. Narsimhan, K.K. Venugopal, Devdatt Kamat,
F Anoopam Prasad, Anandh Kannan, Mohd. Nizam Pasha, Tara
  Narula, D.S. Mahra, Sunil Gogra, M.P. Shorawala, S.K.
  Kulkarni, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Vishal Gupta, Kumar Mihir,
  Sidhartha Singh, Rajat Jasiwal, Sanjeev Kumar, (for Khaitan
  & Co.), Anitha Shenoy, Vishruti Vijay, Uday Tiwary, A.
G Raghunath for the appearing parties.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This review-petition has been filed
     by the Union of India, Ministry of Mines, seeking review of the
H
 UNION OF INDIA v. SAN DUR MANGANESE & IRON 1049
        ORES LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
judgment and order dated 13.09.2010 passed in Sandur                    A
Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & Others,
2010 (13) SCC 1 {Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2010 and Civil
Appeal Nos. 7945-54 and 7955-61 of 2010).

     2. In Sandur {supra), this Court had interpreted various           8
provisions of the Mines 1and Minerals {Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short "the MMDR Act") and the
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (in short "the MC Rules")
framed thereunder. It is the grievance of the petitioner herein
that this review is instituted since the Ministry of Mines,             C
Government of India, could not put forth its view on the
interpretation of the provisions of the MMDR Act in Sandur
(supra) for the reason that the copy of the special leave petition
was not served upon the review petitioner which is a necessary
and relevant party to the subject-matter in issue/dispute and the
review petitioner did not get an opportunity of being heard.            D

     3. It is also brought to our notice that vide notification dated
30.01.2003, the Ministry of Coal and Mines was bifurcated into
separate Ministries since the petitioners in various SLPs
furnished the name of the Ministry as "Ministry of Coal and             E
Mines" in all the matters and according to them, it was not
noticed by the Department concerned, namely, the Department
of Mines.

     4. We are conscious of the fact that the principles of
natural justice guarantee every person the right to represent his/      F
her case in the court of law, wherein the final verdict of the court
would adversely affect his/her interest. Considering the above
principle, this Court, vide order dated 04.10.2012, granted the
opportunity to the Union of India to represent its case.
                                                                        G
     5. Before considering the claim of the Union of India about
acceptability or otherwise of various conclusions in the
impugned judgment, we have to consider whether the petitioner
has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 320 days.
                                                                        H
    1050     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A        6. The details furnished in I.A. No. 1 of 2011 filed for
    condoning the delay in filing the above review petition
    sufficiently prove that steps were taken at various levels in the
    Ministry of Mines, accordingly, we accept the reasons furnished
    therein. In view of the same, the delay is condoned.
B
       7. Taking note of the reasons stated for the delay and the
  stand of the Department that the Ministry concerned, namely,·
  Department of Mines was not duly projected and represented ·
  before this Court, we heard Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned
C Attorney General for the review petitioner, on merits, particularly,
  with reference to the points formulated for consideration and
  ultimate conclusion arrived therein and Mr. Fali S. Nariman, Mr.
  Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. AM. Singhvi, Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Mr.
  l.N. Rao, learned senior counsel for the contesting
  respondents and Ms. Anita Shenoy, learned counsel for the
D State of Karnataka.

       8. Now, let us consider whether the review petitioner has
  made out a case for reviewing the judgment and order dated
  13.09.2010 and satisfies the criteria for entertaining the matter
E in review jurisdiction.

    Review Jurisdiction
         9. Article 137 of the Constitution of India provides for
    review of judgments or. orders by the Supreme Court which
F   reads as under:

         "Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament
         or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court
         shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or
G        order made by it."

       . 10. Further, Part VIII Order XL of the Supreme C.ourt Rules,
    1966 deals with the review and consists of four rules. Rule 1 is
    important for our purpose which reads as under:
H        "The Court may review its judgment or order, but no ·
UNION OF INDIA v. SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON 1051
       ORES LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    application for review will be entertained in a civil          A
    proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVll
    Rule 1 of the Code and in a criminal proceeding except
    on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the
    record."
    11. Order XLVll, Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure,     B
1908 provides for an application for review which reads as
under:
    "Any person considering himself aggrieved-
    a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed,       C
    but from which no appeal has been preferred,
    b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed,
    or
    c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small          D
    Causes,
    and who, from the discovery of new and important matter
    or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was
    not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him
    at the time when the decree was passed or order made,          E
    or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the
    face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason,
    desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order
    made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to
    the court which passed the decree or made the order."          F
     12. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of
review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
     i)     Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
            which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not    G
            within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be
            produced by him;
     ii)    Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
     iii)   Any other sufficient reason
                                                                   H
    1052    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A      13. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been
  interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and
  approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs.
  Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR
  520, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least
B analogous to those specified in the rule". With the above
  statutory provisions, let us discuss the claim of the petitioner-
  Union of India.
    Discussion
C      14. The respondent - Company (Sandur Manganese &
  Iron Ores Ltd.) by filing S.L.P.(C) No. 22077 of 2009 (converted
  into Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2010) challenged before this
  Court the final judgment and order dated 05.06.2009 passed
  by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal
  No. 5084 of 2008 and allied matters wherein the High Court
D dismissed the appeals and held that the decision of the State
  Government in not recommending mining lease to the Sandur
  Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. and instead preferring two other
  Companies for grant of mining lease does not suffer from any
  irregularity, illegality, discrimination, arbitrariness,
E unreasonableness or violative of principles of natural justice.
       15. This Court, in Sandur(supra), allowed the appeal filed
  by Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. and quashed the
  impugned order dated 05.06.2009 passed by the Division
F Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No. 5084
  of 2008 etc. etc. as well as the decision of the State
  Government dated 26/27.02.2002 and the subsequent decision
  of the Central Government dated 29.07.2003 and directed the
  State Government to consider all applications afresh in light of
G this Court's interpretation of Section 11 of the MMDR Act and
  Rules 35, 59 and 60 of the MC Rules in particular, and make
  recommendation to the Central Government within a period of
  four months.
      16. Consequently, the UOI has raised main.ly two issues
H on merits of the case, thereby challenging the impugned
 UNION OF INDIA v. SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON1053
        ORES LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
judgment. They are:-                                                A
      (1)   Firstly, that the impugned judgment has incorrectly
            reported the 'Report of the Committee to Review
            the Existing Laws and Procedures for Regulation
            and Development of Minerals'. As a consequence,
            the ratio of impugned judgment, which relies on this    8
            Expert Committee Report, shall stand erroneous in
            the eyes of law.
      (2)   Secondly, Section 11 (2) and Section 11 (4) should
            be applicable to both virgin and previously held        c
            areas.
Now we shall discuss tbe above mentioned issues respectively.
First Contention:
      17. The first contention of learned Attorney General is two   D
fold viz., that the Expert Committee's Report was misquoted and
as a result the impugned judgment which relies on the same,
shall stand erroneous on the face of law. We accede to the
above contention partially. It is true thatthe Expert Committee's
Report has been misquoted to the extent of adding four lines,       E
which was originally not a part of the report. Thus, this Court
has the power to modify the impugned judgment to the extent
of deletion of the misquoted statement under review jurisdiction.
    18. The Report of the Committee to Review the Existing
Laws and Procedures for Regulation and Development of               F
Minerals, referred in the impugned judgment reads as under:
    Para 2.1.21 of the Report:
    "49 ...... The concept of first-come, first-serve has become
    necessa,.Y in view of the fact that the Act does not provide    G
    for inviting applications through advertisement for grant of
    PL/Ml in respect of virgin areas. No doubt, there is
    provision in Rule 59 of the MC Rules for advertisement of
    an area earlier held under PL/Ml with provision for
    relaxation. In this background. the Committee                   H
    1054    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 2 S.C.R.

A        recommended the introduction of the proviso to S.
       . 11 (2) permitting calling for applications by way of a
         notification. There is a distinction between virgin
         areas and areas covered under Rule 59 and s. 11 (2)
         ought to be interpreted to cover virgin areas alone."
B        19. Hence, the above underlined portion of the report which
    is misquoted in the impugned judgment owing to clerical
    mistake requires to be deleted, accordingly, we do so.
       20. However, we are not in agreement with learned
C Attorney General that the impugned judgment is erroneous on
  the face of law merely because the Expert Committee Report
  was misquoted. In our considered view, the impugned judgment
  stands good of reason even without the'se misquoted lines as
  well. Hence, mere deletion of these lines along with removal of
  certain portion of para 51 of the impugned judgment will clarify
0 the mistake.
    Portion of Para 51 of Sandur (supra) to be deleted:
         "51 ..... The analysis of the Report makes it clear that the
         main provision in Section 11 (2) applies to "virgin areas".
E        It further makes it clear that to the extent that an area that
         is previously held or reserved would require a notification
         for it to become available."
    Thus the first contention is considered as per the above terms.
F Second Contention:
       21. With regard to the second contention that both Section
  11 (2) and Section 11 (4) should be applicable to both virgin and
  previously held areas, the same has been well reasoned in the
  impugned judgment and the mere fact that different views on
G the same subject are possible is no ground to review the earlier
  judgment passed by this Bench.
          22. It has been time and again held that the power of review
    jurisdiction can be exercised for the correction of a mistake and
    not to substitute a view. In Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi
H
 UNION OF INDIA v. SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON 1055
        ORES LTD. IP. SATHASIVAM, J.]
& Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715, this Court held as under:-                   A
     "9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open
     to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent
     on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident
     and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can
     hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the         B
     record justifying the court to exercise its power of review
     under Order 47 Rule I CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction
     under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an
     erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A
     review petition, it must be remembered has a limited              C
     purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in
     disguise".
     23. This Court, on numerous occasions, had deliberated
upon the very same issue, arriving at the conclusion that review
proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly        0
confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
      24. In the present case, the error contemplated in the
impugned judgment is not one which is apparent on the face
of the record rather the dispute is wholly founded on the point        E
of interpretation and applicability of Section 11 (2) and 11 (4) of
the MMDR Act. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with
tpe view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the
same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered,
the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment
                                                                       F
in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the
review jurisdiction. Hence, in review jurisdiction, the court shall
interfere only when there is a glaring omission or patent mistake
or when a grave error has crept in the impugned judgment,
which we fail to notice in the present case.
                                                                       G
      25. For the above reasons, the second ground for review
petition is liable to be rejected.
    26. Further, the contention regarding MoU entered into by
the State Government and investments made thereunder is
concerned, this Court has noticed this fact and rejected the           H
    1056    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2013] 2 S.C.R.

                                             •
A contention made by the respondents in Sandur (supra). It is
  relevant to point out that the State of Karnataka is stated to
  have committed to JSW Steels Limited on 11.10.1994 for grant
  of mining leases but the same has been invoked by JSW Steels
  after a lapse of 8 years and more precisely, after 5 years of
B commencing commercial operations in its steel plant by making
  an application on 24.10.2002. Once an area is notified for re-
  g rant and applications are invited from the mining public for
  grant of mining lease, the applications must be disposed of in
  terms of the provisions of the MMDR Act and the MC Rules
C and not de hors. In para 80 of Sandur Manganese (supra),
  this Court has held as follows:
        "80. It is clear that the State Government is purely a
        delegate of Parliament and a statutory functionary, for the
        purposes of Section 11 (3) of the Act, hence it cannot act
D       in a manner that is inconsistent with the provisions of
        Section 11 (1) of the MMDR Act in the grant of mining
        leases. Furthermore, Section 2 of the Act clearly states that
        the regulation of mines and mineral development comes
        within the purview of the Union Government and not the
E       State Government. As a matter of fact, the respondents
        have not been able to point out any other provision in the
        MMDR Act or the MC Rules permitting grant of mining
        lease based on past commitments. As rightly pointed out,
        the State Government has no authority under the MMDR
F       Act to make commitments to any person that it will, in
        future, grant a mining lease in the event that the person
        makes investment in any project. Assuming that the State
        Government had made any such commitment, it could not
        be possible for it to take an inconsistent position and
        proceed to notify a particular area. Further, having notified
G
        the area, the State Government certainly could not
        thereafter honour an alleged commitment by ousting other
        applicants even if they are more deserving on the merit
        criteria as provided in Section 11 (3).

H
UNION OF INDIA v. SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON 1057
.      .ORES LTD. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Hence, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-argue the very       A
same point.
     27. Regarding the issue of Mineral Policies, this Court has
already held in Sandur (supra) that in view of the specific
parliamentary declaration as discussed and explained by this
Court in various decisions, there is no question of the State        B
having any power to frame a policy de hors the MMDR Act a.nd
the MC Rules.
       28. In view of the above, the petitioner-Union of India has
not invoked any valid ground for exercising the power under          C
review jurisdiction. In addition to the same, after the judgment
in Sani:Jur (supra), another coordinate Bench of this Court
followed the ratio decidendi in ·Monnet /spat and Energy Ltd.
vs. Union of India & Ors., 2012 (11) SCC 1.
     29. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to accept          D
any of the contentions raised by Learned Attorney General,
therefore, the review petition is disposed of by deleting the
misquoted lines in the Expert Committee Report.
     30. In view of the above order and the directions issued
by us in para 98 of Sandur (supra), we grant a further period        E
of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order to
comply with the same.
    31. In view of the dismissal of the review petition filed by
the Union of India, the impleadment applications stand
dismissed.
                                                                     F

R.P.                               Review Petition disposed of.