Patna HC: Disciplinary Authority Cannot Impose Major and Minor Penalties in a Single Order  ||  Calcutta HC: Landlord Decides His Residential Needs; Courts Cannot Set Living Standards in Eviction  ||  Orissa HC: Second Marriage During Subsistence of First Remains Invalid Even After First Wife's Death  ||  Karnataka HC: Appeals Against Acquittal in Bailable Offences Lie Only Before High Court  ||  Supreme Court: Stamp Duty on an Agreement to Sell is Leviable Only if Possession is Transferred  ||  SC: Motive Becomes Irrelevant When Direct Evidence Such as a Dying Declaration is Available  ||  Supreme Court Issues Directions to CoC in Builder Insolvency Cases To Protect Homebuyers’ Interests  ||  MP High Court: Women Retain Reservation Benefits After Marriage if Caste is Recognized in Both States  ||  Allahabad HC: Police Must Prosecute Informants of False Firs, and IOs May Face Contempt if They Fail  ||  MP HP: Over-Age Candidate Cannot Claim Age Relaxation Due to Delay in Earlier Recruitment    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved