IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Anil Kumar Agrawala – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant writ petitioner has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief(s):
“A. For the issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order contained in letter No. 1043 dated 07.05.2019 (Annexure-9) issued under the signature of Respondent- Director, Mines whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for grant of Mining Lease over an area of 11.21 Hect. at village Charghara and Khedawara in the District of Giridih for granite which had been discovered under the prospecting license/area of the petitioner has been cancelled.
B. For the issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of Mandamus for a direction upon the Respondent authorities to take a decision on the application of the petitioner for mining lease of Granite, a minor mineral with reject stone etc. dated 25.8.2016 while considering the fact that in terms of letter No.9 dated 03.01.2018 issued under the signature of the then Director, Mines, the petitioner has deemed prospecting licence of Granite in terms of Rule-14(1)(5) of the Mineral Concessions R


Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others
Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Escorts Farms Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & others
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Ors.
Rights under mining law cannot be claimed without compliance to submission procedures; failure to submit in required format negates any accrued rights.
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....
The court emphasized the necessity of fair procedures and proper consideration of facts in administrative decisions regarding mining licenses.
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.
There was a specific notification issued on 10th June 2011 by the Director of Mines and Geology in exercise of the powers under Section 5 read with Section 8 of the said Act of 1957 of grant of minin....
Point of law: Rule 12 (5) (b) of APMMC Rules, 1966 provides relaxation to the authorities to consider applications on the priority basis, by recording any special reasons
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 that the entitlement to mining lease and the transfer of prospecting license must comply with the requirements of the Mineral Concession Rules, 196....
The issuance of a mining lease without affording adequate opportunity for a hearing violates principles of natural justice.
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....
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.