O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY, R.S.PATHAK
State Of T. N. – Appellant
Versus
Hind Stone – Respondent
Judgment
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:- Entry 23 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution is, "Regulation of mines and mineral development subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union". Entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule is "Regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest". Thus while regulation of mines and mineral development is ordinarily a subject for State legislation, Parliament may, by law, declare the extent to which control of such regulation and development by the Union is expedient in the public interest, and, to that extent, it becomes a subject for Parliamentary legislation. Parliament has accordingly enacted, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. By Section 2 of the Act it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent thereafter provided. It is now common ground between the parties that as a re
State of U. P. v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd.
followed : Atibari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam
Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan
State of U. P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya
distinguished and limited : State of Mysore v. H. Sanjeeviak
Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of orissa
State of orissa v. M. A. Tulloch and Co.
Baijnath Kedia v. State of Bihar
followed : H.C.Naraynappa v. State of Mysore
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.