It has also been mged that the Union Government had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated April 7, 1954, under r. 57 of the Rules when, in fact, no application for review by respondent No. 3 was pending before it, as the review application filed by respondent No. 3 on November 26, 1951, had been disposed of by the Union Government on September 5, 1952. The review application, however, was not in fact finally disposed of by the letter from the Union Government to the State Gov<'rnmcnt, dated September 5, 1952. That letter asked the State Government to reduce the area of tho prospecting licence granted to the appellant to iJJ · 18 acres and to throw open for re-grant Hte' r<'maining area of 32 acres. The letter convev<:>d no order nf tho Union Government about th~ way in whfrh the Union Government was disposing of t,he review application. It is clear from the sevcra 1 letters on record that the Union Government never treated the review proceedings before it to have been disposed of. Respondent ~o. 3 was informed by those letterR
