Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Keshkal G.N. India Bauxite Mines and Minerals Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
(A) Relief sought:-
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to decide the application submitted by respondent No. 2/Chhattisgarh Mineral Development Corporation Limited (for short “the Corporation”) before 27.03.2023 regarding grant of mining lease to the Corporation. The petitioner has also prayed that in the eventuality the respondent fails to decide the application for grant of mining lease in favour of the Corporation, the application submitted by them shall not be treated ineligible and their application be remained alive for consideration in view of bar contained in Section 17(A)(2a) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short “the MMDR Act, 1957”). The petitioner has also prayed for declaring that the area which was reserved in the year 1981 for public sector undertaking for mining of Bauxite by the State Government under the Act, 1957 remains reserved for public sector undertaking even after amendment in the MMDR Act, 1957.
(B) Facts:-
2. (A) The Government of Madhya Pradesh issued a notification on 19.06.1981 (Annexure P/1) reserving the right of mining
The court found that a petitioner lacks standing to challenge mining lease rejections when the applicant's prior applications have become ineligible under the amended MMDR Act.
A party must demonstrate a specific legal interest adversely affected by an action to establish locus standi; executive guidelines can clarify laws but do not override statutory provisions.
The court ruled that a recommendation by the State does not constitute a vested right or letter of intent under the MMDR Act, and the amended provisions apply prospectively.
There cannot be a collateral challenge to an order by a respondent in a writ proceeding instituted by a petitioner for implementation of such order.
The court ruled that additional conditions in mining lease agreements can be imposed without central government approval, as they pertain to third-party claims and do not conflict with the interests ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasoned decisions based on relevant facts, the importance of providing an opportunity of personal hearing, and the need to rec....
Court affirmed that governmental compliance with judicial orders is mandatory, but eligibility for mining leases can be affected by subsequent legislative amendments.
The court affirmed that a petitioner has a vested right to a mining lease under Section 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, provided all conditions of prior approval are met.
The issuance of a mining lease without affording adequate opportunity for a hearing violates principles of natural justice.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
