HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Keshri Industries Through Its Partner Satya Prakash Son of Shiv Basant Kumar Keshri – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition for renewal of mining lease. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's application for lease renewal and grounds for rejection. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. state's reliance on auction provisions for lease grants. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. key issues for consideration regarding lease renewals. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. statutory implications of lease renewal provisions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. judicial consideration of prior judgments affecting lease provisions. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. the principle of per incuriam in prior judgments. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 8. court's interpretation regarding application of the rules. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 9. legal standards for issuing a writ of certiorari. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 10. final judgment and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 54 , 55) |
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliefs: -
“For issuance of an appropriate Writ/Writs, direction/ directions, order/ orders for quashing the order dated 20.08.2014 passed by the Mines Commis

Goa Foundation Vrs. Union of India and Ors.
State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty
Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.