R.P.MISRA, A.P.SAHI
Satyendra Kumar Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P – Respondent
( 1 ) THE challenge in the present writ petitions is to the 26th and 27th amendment Rules introduced in the year 2004 in Uttar Pradesh Minor mineral (Concession) Rules 1963, whereby preferential rights have been created under the said Rules in favour of the persons belonging to socially and educationally backward classes and traditionally engaged in the profession of excavating sand and morrum for their livelihood. Since all these writ petitions relate to the same subject matter, the same are being heard together and the present order shall govern all these connected writ, petitions.
( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience and for appreciating the controversy, we find it appropriate to quote the 2 amendments namely the 26th and 27th amendments brought into by the State Government. These amendments which are presently under challenge, have been introduced in Rule 9 of the U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules 1963. By the 26th amendment, Rules 9-A and 53-A, as they then existed, were completely repealed and omitted. The 26th Amendment dated 22-6-2004 is as follows :-Column I Column II existing rule9. Preferential right of certain persons. Rule as hereby substit9. Preferent
REFERRED TO : P.Rajendran v. State of Madras
Kumari K.S.Jayasree v. The State of Kerala
The Quarry Owners Association v. The State of Bihar
Charanjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India
Hamdard Dawakhana v. The Union of India
Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills case
P.Kannadasan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Prem Nath Sharma v. State of U.P.
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.