Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, VIVEK JAIN
R.K.Transport And Construction Ltd. Thr. Director Chandra Prakash Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice:
1. The facts and issues involved in these petitions are same and similar, therefore, present petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The facts and annexures shall be discussed with reference to Writ Petition No.28431 of 2021, however, facts of other petitions shall not be repeated for the sake of brevity being similar.
2. The petitioners have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:
(i) To Issue a writ/orders/directions more particularly in the nature of certiorari thereby setting aside /quashing Rule 10(3) and Rule 12(5) of Madhya Pradesh Rules regarding Sand (Mining, Transportation, Storage and Trading), 2019 being without competence and being ultravires of Section. 15(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957;
(ii) To Issue a writ/orders/directions more particularly in the nature of certiorari thereby setting aside/quashing the show cause notice dated 28.10.2021 and 26.11.2021 along with the orders / letter dated 26.10.2021, 07.12.2021 and 07.12.2021 issued by the Respondent no. 4 being without authority and jurisdict
Subordinate legislation must align with the parent Act; regulations exceeding authority are invalid. Royalty payment under mining laws can only be for minerals actually removed or consumed.
Royalty is a contractual obligation distinct from taxes; amendments to regulations cannot retrospectively apply to existing contracts unless explicitly stated.
The methodology for computing royalty under the MMDR Act is a policy decision, and courts should exercise restraint in reviewing such economic policies unless they violate constitutional provisions.
Royalty, under the MMDR Act, is not a tax but a contractual consideration for mineral rights. State legislatures retain the power to tax mineral-bearing land, but this power is subject to any limita....
Point of Law : MMDR Act, 1957, though takes away power of State to make laws under Entry 23 of List II, by S.15 of MMDR Act, power to regulate quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concession....
Royalty obligations under the Assam Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2013 do not extend to private construction projects, only applying to government-related works.
The Minerals Vesting Act, 2021 is constitutional; state cannot levy royalty for self-extracted minerals by landowners prior to the Act's enforcement.
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.,....
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....
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
