NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

Coromandel Mining & Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. - (High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh) (11 Sep 2015)

Telangana and AP High Court upholds amendments to mining law

MANU/AP/0643/2015

Constitution

The Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected petitions that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 was unreasonable and arbitrary. Assessing legislative intent, the court was of the opinion that Parliament had passed the amending act increasing the lease tenure of those engaged in mining operations in response to a shortage of raw materials for industry. It also upheld provisions of the amending act by which applications submitted prior to amendment were ineligible. Petitioners could not have a vested right in the grant of a prospecting licence, despite delay by authorities, as applications prior to amendment were explicitly made ineligible. Finally, challenge against constitutionality of legislation for vagaries in procedure adopted was dismissed by for not satisfying either of the two accepted grounds, lack of legislative competence or violation of fundamental rights; “There is no third ground”, the Court reminded.

Relevant : J.S. Yadav v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0435/2011 State of Tamil Nadu vs. Hind Stone and Ors. MANU/SC/0394/1981 Section 10 Mine and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 Act Article 39 Constitution of India Act

Tags : MINING   APPLICATION   ELIGIBILITY   CONSTITUTIONALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved