Back
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Swadeshi Cement Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Secretary (Mines) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.12.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby appellants’ petition seeking directions not to interfere in the mining activities of appellant No.1 over the land ad-measuring 5.45 sq. kms. in Village Kuzotu, Mohanpura, Jodhpura in Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur, as also the prayer for issuance of direction for transfer and assignment of the lease to appellant No.1 along with the prayer to prohibit respondent No.3 from interfering with the mining activities as also the direction for immediate removal of operations of respondent No.3 from the subject land, has been dismissed.
Relevant factual matrix of the case:
2. The relevant facts, necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved in the present appeal, are that vide order dated 29.06.1984, the Government of Rajasthan granted mining lease for mining of limestone in favour of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘RIICO’) over the area comprising 554 hectares in Village Kojota, Mohanpura, Jodhpura in Tehsil Kotputli. The lease was granted with the condition that RIICO would
The court established that rights to mining leases cannot be claimed based on vague representations or unfulfilled promises, especially when a company is declared sick and winding up proceedings are ....
The State cannot take advantage of its own wrong, and a wrongdoer should not be permitted to make a profit out of their own wrong.
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 cancellation of the mining lease was found to be in accordance with the statutory provision of Rule 25(5) of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
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 affirmed that the authority to grant relaxation in mining lease transfer is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a right, emphasizing the binding nature of prior rejection orders.
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 upheld that parties lacking legitimate claims or authority cannot disrupt lawful mining operations, affirming pre-existing rights granted under legislated provisions.
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
