Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, BIBHU DATTA GURU
Keshkal G.N. India Bauxite Mines And Mineral Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Mines And Minerals Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background and context of mining lease applications. (Para 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding locus standi and legal rights. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. points framed by the learned single judge for consideration. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. application of guidelines to the case. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. executive instructions supplement statutory provisions. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. definition of 'person aggrieved' and locus standi. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. conclusion regarding the single judge's order. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1.Heard Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate with Shri Priyanshu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri Praveen Das Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State, Shri Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSGI, for Union of India/Respondent No. 3.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1142/2023, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court.
3. (a) The case of the petitioner is that the Government of Madhya Pr
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 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.
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.
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 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....
The issuance of a mining lease without affording adequate opportunity for a hearing violates principles of natural justice.
Rights under mining law cannot be claimed without compliance to submission procedures; failure to submit in required format negates any accrued rights.
Mining Lease approvals were revoked due to the petitioners' failure to comply with statutory requirements, rendering prior approvals void.
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
