IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K.AGRAWAL, SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT
JSW Steel Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions clubbed for common disposal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of petitioner's mining lease application. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments from the state regarding jurisdiction issues. (Para 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. arguments asserting the legality of the notice. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. analysis of statutory provisions under mmdr act. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. examination of lapsing provisions in mining leases. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. consequences of unlawful mining operations discussed. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 8. legislative purpose of preserving rights under amended act. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. court reconciles statutory injunction against mining operations. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 10. final determination on jurisdiction regarding mining lease. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 11. impact of decision on future applications and jurisdiction upheld. (Para 33 , 34 , 36) |
| 12. conclusion drawn with specific relief granted. (Para 37 , 38) |
ORDER :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in both the writ petitions, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioner herein has filed these writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Cons
State of Assam and others v. Om Prakash Mehta and others
Goa Foundation v. Union of India and others
Common Cause v. Union of India and others
Common Cause v. Union of India and others
Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others
Babaji Kondaji Garad v. Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and others
Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India and another
Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India and another
MD, Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd.
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others
No lapsing of a mining lease occurs where operations are statutorily restrained until requisite environmental clearances are obtained, making provisions inapplicable until such clearances are availab....
The State Government's order revising the commencement date of renewal of the mining lease was illegal, absurd, and a colourable exercise of power by the State violating the Petitioners' rights under....
The court established that the statutory provisions of the MMDR Act limit the duration of mining leases to 50 years, and acceptance of lease terms precludes claims for additional time based on interr....
Mining Lease approvals were revoked due to the petitioners' failure to comply with statutory requirements, rendering prior approvals void.
Failure of lessee - Rule 29 of rules provide for payments to be made under said rules – Rule 29 lays down conditions subject to which quarrying leases are to be granted.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and harmonious construction of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the Kerala Minor Mineral Conce....
The principle of harmonious construction was applied to reconcile conflicting provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 and the Rules of 2016, ensuring that no provision was rendered ineffective....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.