Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Banarsi Das Mittal S/o Shri Dhanpat Rai – Appellant
Versus
Respondent – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been preferred, claiming the following reliefs:
“It is, therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and:-
(a) By an appropriate writ, Order or direction, the 3rd proviso to Rule 16(2) of the Mining Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 may Kindly be struck down.
(b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Order dated 20.09.2017 (Annexure-5) imposing penalty of Rs. 15,11,824/- may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to carry out the mining operation without insisting upon the payment of penalty.
(c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(d) costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to petitioner.”
2. Before delving into the adjudicatory pursuit, pertaining to the reliefs claimed herein, it is pertinent to note that the statutory framework under the Min
The validity of the regulatory provisions under the Mines and Minerals Act is upheld, affirming penalties for non-compliance as constitutional and enforceable.
Point of law: State Government have not so far issued any notification in terms of Section 17A, the Industrial Policy–2007 of the Kerala State Government does not have the effect of making a valid re....
Merely because Rule 15(1) and its proviso of 2017 Rules was mentioned in the order of the Commissioner would not make the Rule applicable. Wrong mention of a provision cannot make the provision appli....
The court validated the authority of the state to impose penalties for unauthorized quarrying, establishing compliance with statutory rules as per the MMDR Act.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in administrative actions, particularly the right to a hearing and jurisdictional limits post-mineral classification changes.
The court reaffirmed the authority of state governments to impose penalties under minor mineral concession rules, emphasizing that such penalties are lawful per Sections 14, 15, and 21 of the MMDR Ac....
The court ruled that amendments rendering pending applications ineligible violate constitutional rights, highlighting arbitrary treatment of applicants and the State's responsibility for delays.
Subordinate legislation must align with the parent Act; regulations exceeding authority are invalid. Royalty payment under mining laws can only be for minerals actually removed or consumed.
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
