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

1996 Supreme(SC) 1024

SUPREME COURT OF INIDA
BHUPATRAI MAGANLAL JOSHI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Decided on : July 9, 1996

Permissibility of reservation of land for mineral exploitation in the public sector under the relevant laws.

Headnote:

reservation - mineral resources - The court upheld the reservation of land for exploitation of mineral resources in the public sector under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 read with the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

Fact of the Case:

The High Court considered the permissibility of reserving land for mineral exploitation in the public sector under relevant laws and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant based on a previous Division Bench judgment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no grounds to interfere with the judgment relied upon by the High Court and agreed with its reasoning and conclusions, ultimately dismissing the appeal with no costs awarded.

Issues: Permissibility of land reservation for mineral exploitation in the public sector under relevant laws.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the reservation of land for mineral exploitation in the public sector based on the interpretation of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, as supported by the previous Division Bench judgment.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

( 1 ) THE question before the High Court was whether the reservation of land for exploitation of mineral resources in the public sector was permissible under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) act, 1957 read with the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Relying upon an earlier Division Bench judgment, the High Court answered the question in the affirmative and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. We have gone through the judgment relied upon by the High Court and find no ground to interfere. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached in the said judgment.

( 2 ) THE appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

( 3 ) NO costs.

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 Back to top