Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Common Cause VS Union of India...
Common Cause VS Union of India - 2017 6 Supreme 104 : The legal documents establish that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in mining cases. This is demonstrated through the application of Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which provides for recovery of price of illegally mined minerals as a compensatory, not penal, measure. The documents emphasize that such recovery under Section 21(5) is not precluded by other actions under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (e.g., Rule 2(ii a)), and that the State is entitled to compensation regardless of other remedies. Furthermore, the documents clarify that even where violations involve environmental or forest clearances (EC/FC), only one set of compensation is payable under Section 21(5), and prior payments toward NPV or afforestation do not negate this liability. This confirms that the availability of alternative remedies (such as environmental or forest clearances) does not bar the State from seeking compensation under Section 21(5), thus affirming that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in mining cases.Checking relevance for Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. State of Karnataka VS State of Karnataka...
Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. State of Karnataka VS State of Karnataka - 2019 8 Supreme 741 : The legal documents establish that the existence of an alternative remedy does not constitute an absolute bar to invoking constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, particularly when the tribunal lacks jurisdiction altogether (i.e., ''''lack of jurisdiction'''' rather than ''''wrongful exercise of available jurisdiction''''). This is explicitly affirmed in Paragraph 24, which states that the distinction between lack of jurisdiction and wrongful exercise of available jurisdiction must be taken into account by High Courts when invoking Article 226 to bypass a statutory alternative remedy. Furthermore, Paragraph 45 confirms that when the NCLT exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law (as in the case of directing the Government of Karnataka to execute supplemental lease deeds under mining laws), it acts coram non judice, thereby justifying the High Court''''s intervention under Article 226. Thus, while alternative remedies are generally preferred, they are not an absolute bar when the forum lacks jurisdiction, especially in matters involving public law and administrative action, such as those arising under the MMDR Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.Checking relevance for OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX...
Checking relevance for Jai Singh VS Union Of India...
Jai Singh VS Union Of India - 1976 0 Supreme(SC) 453 : The legal document explicitly addresses the principle that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in mining cases. While the High Court had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had an alternative remedy, the appellate court acknowledged that this was a factor but did not treat it as an absolute bar. The court emphasized that the appellant could not pursue two parallel remedies simultaneously, but this does not negate the principle that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar—only that courts must exercise caution in allowing writ relief when alternative remedies exist. This directly supports the proposition in the user''''s query that ''''alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in mining cases''''.Checking relevance for Goa Foundation VS Union of India...
Goa Foundation VS Union of India - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 752 : In mining cases, the failure to remove excavated mineral ore within six months after extraction results in forfeiture to the State Government, and the lessee is only entitled to an approximate cost of extraction. The Court has held that the alternative remedy of claiming the ore or selling it independently is not available, and the State Government is competent to sell the forfeited ore at auction. This establishes that the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, as the State''''s right to auction the ore and the lessee''''s limited entitlement to cost of extraction are legally recognized and enforceable outcomes under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, and judicial precedent.Checking relevance for Goa Foundation VS Sesa Sterlite Ltd. ...
Goa Foundation VS Sesa Sterlite Ltd. - 2018 3 Supreme 617 : The legal documents establish that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in mining cases. Specifically, the judgment clarifies that while competitive bidding or auction is a preferable method for allocation of natural resources when the purpose is profit maximization, it is not constitutionally mandatory. The court held that the State is not under any constitutional obligation to grant fresh mining leases through competitive bidding or auction. Furthermore, the decision not to auction—such as granting a second renewal instead—may be justifiable if it serves a social, public, or welfare purpose. This indicates that even if an alternative remedy (like renewal without auction) is available, it is not an absolute bar to the grant of mining rights, provided the decision is not arbitrary and is grounded in public or social good. The court emphasized that such decisions are subject to limited judicial review under Article 14, and the absence of auction does not automatically render the action illegal if justified by public interest.
