Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Enactment of MMCR 2017 - The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (MMCR 2017) replaced the older Rules of 1986 and came into force from March 1, 2017. This marked a significant legal and procedural update in mineral concession regulations in Rajasthan ["Rahul Vyas S/o Shri Prakash Bhai Vyas VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 840"] ["RAHUL VYAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"].
Legal Validity and Transition Period - Courts observed that the cancellation of LOI (Letter of Intent) or lease applications prior to the expiry of one year from the enforcement of MMCR 2017 was improper. Specifically, the courts noted that the period of one year had not passed since the new rules came into force when certain orders were passed, rendering those cancellations invalid ["Rahul Vyas S/o Shri Prakash Bhai Vyas VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 840"] ["RAHUL VYAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"].
Procedural Requirements under MMCR 2017 - The rules prescribe specific procedures for deposit of amounts, renewal, and auction processes. For instance, Rule 5 (sub-rule 1) mentions premium payment, and Rule 9 provides for renewal of leases, indicating structured processes for mineral concessions ["Rahul Vyas S/o Shri Prakash Bhai Vyas VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 840"].
Auction and Bid Security Regulations - MMCR 2017 introduced comprehensive frameworks for electronic auctions, including bid security provisions. The second proviso to Rule 18(2) mandates bid security at 25% of the offered price, and the conduct of e-auctions is claimed to be transparent and in strict accordance with the rules ["ANHAD MINERARIO PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"].
Remedies and Appeals - Several cases highlight that aggrieved parties should utilize prescribed appellate procedures under Rules 43 and 47 of MMCR 2017 or 1986, such as filing appeals before the Director of Mines and Geology, rather than approaching courts directly after administrative orders ["Deewa Construction Product Industry VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"], ["ANSHUL MEHTA vs STATE MINES DEPARTMENTANR - Rajasthan"].
Renewal and Relaxation of Rules - Certain rulings discuss the relaxation of rules (e.g., Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986) under specific powers (Rule 63), and the importance of following proper legal channels for renewal or rejection of mineral leases ["ANSHUL MEHTA vs STATE MINES DEPARTMENTANR - Rajasthan"], ["ANSHUL MEHTA vs STATE MINES DEPARTMENTANR - Rajasthan"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The MMCR 2017 established a modernized, transparent framework for mineral concessions in Rajasthan, replacing the 1986 Rules. Courts have emphasized adherence to procedural timelines and appellate remedies, cautioning against premature cancellations or rejections that violate the rules' provisions. The rules also introduced detailed procedures for auctions and bid security, aiming to ensure fair and competitive bidding processes. Parties aggrieved by administrative decisions are advised to follow the prescribed statutory appeals rather than seek judicial intervention prematurely. Overall, the MMCR 2017 marks a comprehensive legal regime governing minor mineral concessions in Rajasthan, with judicial rulings reinforcing the importance of procedural compliance and proper remedy channels ["Rahul Vyas S/o Shri Prakash Bhai Vyas VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 840"] ["RAHUL VYAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"] ["ANHAD MINERARIO PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"].
If you've ever searched for I want the MMCR 2017, you're likely seeking clarity on the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (MMCR 2017). This regulatory framework governs the extraction and concession of minor minerals in Rajasthan, India. While the rules themselves outline procedures for mining leases, renewals, and allotments, courts have interpreted key aspects, emphasizing legality and strict compliance. This post breaks down core principles, drawing from judicial precedents to help stakeholders navigate these rules effectively.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on available legal documents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific cases.
The MMCR 2017 replaced earlier versions like the 1986 and 2015 rules, introducing updated provisions for minor mineral concessions. Key areas include mining lease applications (Rules 8, 9), renewals (Rule 9), relaxations (Rule 7 under Rule 63), and mandatory requirements (Rule 44(26)) PURSHOTAM LAL KANDHARI S/O SHRI DEVI DAS KANDHARI vs STATE OF RAJASTHANM/S SANGIARAI ROYALTIES vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN.
Common queries revolve around:- Validity of provisions declared illegal.- Procedural timelines for applications and notices.- Renewal and allotment processes.
Courts have clarified that while MMCR 2017 streamlines concessions, non-compliance or reliance on struck-down rules can invalidate actions Sulochna Jain VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 1608Rahul Vyas S/o Shri Prakash Bhai Vyas VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 840.
A fundamental tenet from judicial review is that provisions declared illegal by courts must be set aside. In one case, a sub-rule of the earlier Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, was struck down by a Division Bench. The court held that the appellate authority must adjudicate on merits once the illegal provision was struck down Sulochna Jain VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 1608. This principle extends to MMCR 2017: any rule found unconstitutional cannot justify rejecting applications or appeals.
For instance:- Challenges to Rule 9 (renewals) note that the existing leases would stand under MMCR 2017, but only if not invalidated PURSHOTAM LAL KANDHARI S/O SHRI DEVI DAS KANDHARI vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN.- Courts have rejected applications based on outdated or illegal criteria, directing fresh consideration on merits LAL SINGH vs STATE MINES DEPARTMENT ORSNAND KISHORE SAINI vs STATE MINES DEPARTMENT ORS.
Key Takeaway: If a provision of MMCR 2017 faces judicial scrutiny and is deemed illegal, authorities must disregard it in decisions Sulochna Jain VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 1608.
MMCR 2017 demands strict adherence to timelines and conditions for valid notices, applications, and leases. Failure to comply—such as depositing required amounts within stipulated periods—results in lost rights or invalidated actions Rahul Vyas S/o Shri Prakash Bhai Vyas VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 840.
Relevant examples:- Rule 44(26) is mandatory for competent authorities, as affirmed where counsel agreed it is mandatory to follow it M/S SANGIARAI ROYALTIES vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN.- Mining lease rejections under Rules 8 and 9 were upheld due to non-compliance with Rule 7 relaxations or Rule 11 vacant area norms ASHOK JAIN vs STATE MINES DEPARTMENT ORSJARNAIL SINGH vs STATE MINES DEPARTMENT ORS.- In brick earth mining, grants under MMCR confer only excavation rights, not land use changes, justifying revenue demands for conversion charges R. P. Bricks Industries VS State - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 164.
Courts stress: The validity of legal notices and applications depends on compliance with prescribed conditions and timelines Rahul Vyas S/o Shri Prakash Bhai Vyas VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 840. Deviations often lead to appeals under Rules 43 or 63 NAND KISHORE SAINI vs STATE MINES DEPARTMENT ORS.
MMCR 2017's Rule 9 governs renewals, stating provisions for existing leases PURSHOTAM LAL KANDHARI S/O SHRI DEVI DAS KANDHARI vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Applications under Rules 8 and 9 require evaluation of delineated plots and vacant areas per Rule 11 LAL SINGH vs STATE MINES DEPARTMENT ORS. Government powers under Rule 63 allow relaxations of Rule 7, but rejections stand if material supports them JARNAIL SINGH vs STATE MINES DEPARTMENT ORS.
In practice:- Post-2015 notifications amended Rules 12 and 13, impacting applications EICL Limited, Represented By Its Deputy General Manager (Mines) R. Chandrasekharan VS Circle Inspector of Police - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 640.- Illegal mining without environmental clearance attracts penalties, equating violators to unauthorized extractors under Section 21(5) EICL Limited, Represented By Its Deputy General Manager (Mines) R. Chandrasekharan VS Circle Inspector of Police - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 640.
Stakeholders must ensure applications align with these rules to avoid dismissal.
While principles are broad:- Unchallenged provisions remain enforceable.- Procedural lapses invalidate actions, but substantive rules hold unless struck down Sulochna Jain VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 1608Rahul Vyas S/o Shri Prakash Bhai Vyas VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 840.- Context matters: e.g., Army Public School writs are unrelated but highlight general withdrawal rights; mining-specific rules prevail here RAJU RANJAN VS CHAIRMAN, ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY - 2018 Supreme(Raj) 285.
Note: Documents do not provide the full MMCR 2017 text; principles are derived from interpretations Sulochna Jain VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 1608Rahul Vyas S/o Shri Prakash Bhai Vyas VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 840.
To navigate MMCR 2017:1. Verify Provision Legality: Challenge suspect rules via judicial review Sulochna Jain VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 1608.2. Meet Deadlines: Deposit fees and submit within timelines to preserve rights Rahul Vyas S/o Shri Prakash Bhai Vyas VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 840.3. Document Applications: Reference specific rules (e.g., 8, 9, 44(26)) for leases M/S SANGIARAI ROYALTIES vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN.4. Seek Relaxations: Apply under Rule 63 if needed LAL SINGH vs STATE MINES DEPARTMENT ORS.5. Address Land Use: Pay conversion charges for non-agricultural mining on agri-land R. P. Bricks Industries VS State - 2013 Supreme(Raj) 164.
Understanding MMCR 2017 goes beyond rules—it's about applying court-tested principles on legality and compliance. Whether applying for leases or challenging rejections, prioritize merits-based adjudication and procedural rigor. For those asking I want the MMCR 2017, this framework ensures informed action.
Key Takeaways:- Struck-down provisions are unenforceable Sulochna Jain VS State of Rajasthan - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 1608.- Timely compliance is non-negotiable Rahul Vyas S/o Shri Prakash Bhai Vyas VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 840.- Judicial precedents guide renewals and allotments.
Stay updated on amendments and consult experts. This general overview empowers but does not replace tailored advice.
#MMCR2017 #MiningRules #LegalCompliance
The Rules of 1986 were repealed and new set of rules known as the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MMCR’) came to be promulgated w.e.f. 01.03.2017. 6. ... The petitioner had been intimated by the respondent no. 5 vide communication dated 30.03.2017 to deposit the requisite amount, whereafter again a notice dated 21.08.2017 was sent calling upon the petitioner to comply with the conditions of communication dated 30.03.2017 within a month. ... T....
The Rules of 1986 were repealed and new set of rules known as the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MMCR’) came to be promulgated w.e.f. 01.03.2017. 6. ... This Court is, therefore, of the view that the petitioner’s LOI could not have been cancelled for such reason as on the date of passing the impugned order (13.11.2017) period of one year had not passed from the date when the MMCR was brought into force. ... The petitioner had been intimated by the respondent ....
has no substance as the MMCR came into force in the year 2017, Submissions have also been made that in Rule 9 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 ... (‘MMCR’), the provision for renewal is that the existing leases would stand The plea raised based on provisions of Rule 9 of MMCR also p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding:0;top:411pt;left:108pt
relax rule 7 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession October, 2008 in the exercise of its powers under Rule 63 of 5 and other relevant material rejected the mining lease delineated plots and the available vacant area in terms of rule 11 of the MMCR
of Rule 43(2) and Rule 47 of MMCR Rules, 1986. ... Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the conversion factor of 1.4 tonnes for each M3 as indicated in the schedule I of MMCR Rules, 1986 is relevant only for the determination of payment of royalty in terms of Rule 18(1)(b) of MMCR Rules, 1986 and cannot entail a determination of the volume ... The petitioner on its part should in these circumstances avail the remedy under Rule 43(1) of MMCR Rules, 1986 and lay an appeal against the order dated 24.01.2012, p....
relax rule 7 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession October, 2008 in the exercise of its powers under Rule 63 of for allotment of these plots the Government had already the mining lease application of the petitioner in terms of 6 the petitioner was an appeal under Rule 43 of the MMCR
R.R.Kanwar, learned GC had no option but to agree that as per Clause 44(26) of the MMCR, 2017, it is mandatory to 2017. ... ku gSA vr% jktLFkku viz/kku [kfut fj;;r fu;ekoyh 2017 ds fu;e 44 ¼14½ o Rule 44(26) of the MMCR reads as below: and urged that it is mandatory for the competent authority to p style="position:absolute;white-space
By the notification aforesaid, an amendment was introduced in rule 4(10) of the MMCR 1986. ... It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties that sub-rule (10) of rule 4 of the MMCR 1986 has already been declared illegal and as such set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in DBCWP No. 4241/2013, decided on 31st July 2013. ... In view of the provision aforesaid, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal without entering into merits on the count that even in the event of examining merits no useful purpose would be served in the light of ....
4 October, 2008 in the exercise of its powers under Rule 63 of the mining lease application of the petitioner in terms of against the order dated 20.05.2009 the remedy available to the application of the petitioner in terms of Rules 8 and 9 of the MMCR
relax rule 7 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession October, 2008 in the exercise of its powers under Rule 63 of against the order dated 20.05.2009 the remedy available to Mining Engineer, Bharatpur for rejecting of the application and other relevant material rejected the mining lease application of the petitioner in terms of Rule 8 of the MMCR
Then came Notifications dated 19.05.2015 and 05.10.2015; in quick succession, first amending the proviso to R.12 of MMCR of 2015 and then substituting it and R.13.
Further learned counsel for the appellant does not want to press I.A. No. 9811 of 2017 seeking suspension of sentence for the present. Accordingly I.A. No. 9811 of 2017 is dismissed as not pressed.
The I.A. is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed. JUDGMENT KURIAN, J. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press I.A. No.108566/2017.
We all developed a sense of faith, dedication and trust among ourselves. I wanted to look out for better opportunities but I realized that the last approx 5 years I had spent in this institution building up a team are invaluable. I realize that my resignation may have caused inconvenience and wish to apologize for that. I want to withdraw my resignation dated 24th January, 2017 from the post of PGT CS in Army Public School, Jodhpur.
In fact, the very grant of mining leases by Mining Department to the present petitioners, is the beginning point and the very basis for initiation of proceedings by the revenue authorities for demanding the conversion charges from the present petitioners for putting the agricultural land into use for nonagricultural purposes. The grant of mining leases under MMCR is only a right to excavate the minor mineral i.e. brick earth and nothing beyond that is either envisaged under MMCR nor the mining authorities could grant it. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, t....
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
