NCLAT: Consideration of Debt Restructuring by Lenders Doesn’t Bar Member from Initiating Proceedings  ||  Delhi High Court: In Matters of Medical Evaluation, Courts Should Exercise Restraint  ||  Delhi HC: Any Person in India Has Right to Legally Import Goods from Abroad and Sell the Same  ||  Delhi HC: Waiver to Section 12(5) of Arbitration Act to be Given Once Tribunal is Constituted  ||  Supreme Court Has Asked States to Regularise Existing Court Managers  ||  SC: Union & States to Create Special POSCO Courts on Top Priority  ||  SC Upholds Authority of CERC to Award Compensation for Delays  ||  SC: Arbitral Tribunal Has Discretion to Include in Sum Awarded, Interest at Rate as it Deems Reasonab  ||  SC: Cannot Use Article 142 to Frame Guidelines on Judicial Recusal  ||  SC: Satisfaction Recorder in One EP Won’t Affect Subsequent EPs for Future Breaches    

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