SALIGRAM KHIRWAL versus UNION OF INDIA
The claim of legal heirs must be adjudicated upon based on their own qualifications and entitlement; the writ petition did not survive the death of the applicant, so the High Court order substituting legal heirs and considering the applications afresh was erroneous.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: Saligram Khirwal; Respondent: Union of India; Respondent: Legal representatives of Dr. Sarojini Pradhan (private respondents)
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 09 September 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orissa High Court Decision Dated 23.2.93 in O.j.c. No. 1269 of 1982
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
- Legal Topics
- Mining Lease Application, Survival of Right to Sue, Legal Heirs and Entitlement, Application Procedure Under Mines Act
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Saligram Khirwal
Appellant
Union of India
Respondent
Legal representatives of Dr. Sarojini Pradhan (private respondents)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orissa High Court Decision Dated 23.2.93 in O.j.c. No. 1269 of 1982
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the right to sue survive to the legal heirs of an unsuccessful applicant for mining lease after the applicant's death?
- 2 Is Rule 25A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, clarificatory and applicable retrospectively?
- 3 On what basis should entitlement to mining lease be determined when applicant dies during proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi
The claim of legal heirs must be adjudicated upon based on their own qualifications and entitlement; the writ petition did not survive the death of the applicant, so the High Court order substituting legal heirs and considering the applications afresh was erroneous.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
Orders
- Any prayer for renewal of lease made hereafter shall be treated as an application for fresh grant.
- Private respondents or any other person entitled to apply for grant and oppose grant in favour of the appellant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment