SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(MP) 98

B.M.LAL, J.S.VERMA
HIRALAL RAMESHWAR PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M P – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.P.Tare, S.L.SAXENA, S.S.RAY, Y.S.Dharmadhikari,

JUDGMENT :

( 1. ) THIS order shall also dispose of Misc. Petitions nos. 864 83. 973/83, 1027/83, 1297/83. 1334/83, 1421/83, 1756/83, 2581/83, 2582/83, 70/84. 284/84, 708/84. 2119/84, 2837/84, 2882/84, 644/85, 696/85, 919/85, 920/85, 1811/85, 2951/85 and 4045/85.

( 2. ) THE challenge made in these petitiones is to the constitutional validity of the impostion of Mineral Area Development cess by section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh karadhan Adhiniyam, 1982 (Act No. 15 of 1982) as amended by M. P. Act No. 15 of 1983 and M. P. Act No. 13 of 1985. Section 9 has to be read with section 8 of the Act containing definitions which form Part IV of the Principal Act and together deal with the imposition called "mineral areas development cess". This imposition is payable by the person holding the mining lease for a major mineral on the land held under a mining lease for undertaking the mining operations. The challenge is on the ground of want of legislative competence of the State legislature to enact such a law. The petitioners in all these petitions being holders of mining lease for a major mineral are required to pay the mineral areas development cess under these provisions. Hence this challenge by




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top