SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 866

K. RAMASWAMY, M. N. VENKATACHALIAH
State of A. P. – Appellant
Versus
Anupama Minerals – Respondent


Advocates:
G.Prabhakar, K.Madhava Reddy, S.V.TAMBWEKAR

(1) LEAVE granted in Special Leave Petition No. 1457 of 1986.

(2) THE respondents were granted mining leases under Rule 31 of the A.P. Mining Rules, 1966. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short the central Act) had come into force on 25/10/1980. Subsequently in terms of the grant of the lease the respondents applied for renewal. The State government refused to grant renewal in view of the prohibition contained in Section 2 of the Act. The respondents filed the writ petitions in the High court and the division bench in the impugned judgment dated 9/6/1982 directed to consider the renewal of leases of the respondents and seek approval of the central government under Section 2 of the Act. Calling in question the legality of the directions issued by the High court these appeals by special leave have been filed. In some of the cases the application for renewal has been filed after the Act had come into force but on the question of law it does not make much difference. The point raised is no longer res Integra. This court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat held that when a public authority is vested with the power, the expression may has been construed as sha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top