Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, AMITABH KUMAR RAI
Manjeet Chawla – Appellant
Versus
State of U P – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claims regarding dmf contributions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. respondent's argument on the petitioner's awareness of dmf. (Para 11 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. court's consideration of the evidence and facts. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 4. interpretation of royalty and its context in the mmrd act. (Para 35 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 69 , 70 , 74 , 76 , 77) |
| 5. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 120 , 121 , 122) |
JUDGMENT :
(Delivered by Hon’ble Saral Srivastava,J)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri RajeshwarTripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed forthe following relief:-
“(a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter of intent dated 04.05.2018 bearing nos.343/Mining/2018 & 344/Mining/2018 to the extent that a demand for contribution towards DMF has been raised.
(b). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash para-6 of the letter dated 21.05.2018 to the extent demand is raised forcompulsory contribution towards DMF.”
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, re
The court ruled that DMF contributions are mandatory from auction participants engaged in mining operations, interpreting 'royalty' as the auction bid price within the MMRD Act's definition.
The demands raised by the Deputy Director of Mines were found to be unsustainable in the eye of law, in view of the law laid down in National Mineral Development Corporation Limited v. State of M.P.,....
Mining operations are deemed illegal without valid Environmental Clearances, and compliance with ecological regulations is essential, especially in sensitive areas straddling state borders.
The court ruled that additional conditions in mining lease agreements can be imposed without central government approval, as they pertain to third-party claims and do not conflict with the interests ....
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.
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
