IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Bharat Poddar, Son Of Shri Basant Poddar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand, Department Of Mines & Geology – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for prospecting license details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments regarding application processing. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. respondent's counterarguments on application ineligibility. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. court's reasoning and analysis of legal provisions. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed. (Para 108) |
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for the following reliefs:
(I) For a direction upon the concerned Respondents to forthwith grant prospecting mining lease to the Petitioner under Section 10 (3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in respect of the Application dated
P. Mahendran and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Kusumam Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors.
Chairman Railway Board and Ors. v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Ors.
State of M.P. and Ors. v. Yogendra Shrivastava
N.C. Singhal v. Armed Forces Medical Services
K.C. Arora v. State of Haryana
T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana
Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others
Goa Foundation v. Union of India and Others
Geomin Minerals and Marketing Private Limited v. State of Orissa and Ors.
Howrah Municipal Corporation and Ors. Vs. Ganges Rope Company Limited and Ors.
Legislative amendments to the Mines and Minerals Act render pending applications ineligible, emphasizing transparency and auction processes for mineral concessions, with no retrospective applicabilit....
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.
(1) Lease of Government Land – There is no right vested over application made which is pending seeking lease of a Government land or over minerals beneath soil in any type of land over which Governme....
Point of law: An application for the renewal for a prospecting licence shall be disposed of by the State Government before the expiry of the period of prospecting licence and if the application is no....
Mining Lease approvals were revoked due to the petitioners' failure to comply with statutory requirements, rendering prior approvals void.
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....
An application for a mining lease requires prior approval from the Central Government, and those received before the Amendment Act of 2015 become ineligible, except when restored under certain provis....
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.