Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Harish Tandon, Murahari Sri Raman
Ashoka Infracore Pvt.Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa, represented through Secretary to Government, Steel & Mines Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's dismissal of petition due to lack of merit. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
HARISH TANDON, C.J.
The proposition of law from the various provisions contained in the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (OMMC Rules”, for short) though unambiguous, is sought to be projected as ambiguous by the rhetoric of the counsel appearing for the petitioner. The eloquence in deliberation of an argument appears to be focussed in a sympathetic way than on an actual interpretation of the statutory provisions. Certain provision quoted in a prescribed format appended to the statutory Rules is argued in such fashion as if it created uncertainty in arriving at a definite decision. After extensive arguments having advanced by the petitioner and on a manifest reading of several provisions sought to be relied upon, we do not find that the action of the authorities can be tainted either with malice or arbitrary.
2. In course of hearing, serious allegation was made against the official that his action is lopsided in order to favour a blue-eyed person, but we do not find a semblance of such averment in the instant writ petition. The only allegation which we perceived from the writ petition
Timelines for compliance in mining lease applications are mandatory under the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016.
The validity of the regulatory provisions under the Mines and Minerals Act is upheld, affirming penalties for non-compliance as constitutional and enforceable.
Compliance with the specific procedures outlined in the OMMC Rules, 2016 is mandatory, and failure to adhere to these procedures may result in the dismissal of claims.
The court ruled that amendments rendering pending applications ineligible violate constitutional rights, highlighting arbitrary treatment of applicants and the State's responsibility for delays.
The competent authority has the power to grant an extension of time to the highest bidder, and no right accrues to the next highest bidder unless intimated by the authority.
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 clarified that appeals under statutory provisions must be based on 'date of communication' rather than mere knowledge, ensuring procedural fairness in adjudicating appeals.
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
