J&K&L HC: Bail is Not Absolute For Juveniles in Heinous Cases and Can be Denied to Serve Justice  ||  Delhi HC: Expired Driving Licenses Do Not Enjoy Deemed Continuity After 2019 MV Act Amendment  ||  MP High Court: Ex-Gratia Payments are Dependents’ Last Hope and Rules Should be Applied Liberally  ||  Orissa HC: SC’s Mihir Rajesh Shah Directive on Written Arrest Grounds Applies Prospectively  ||  Delhi HC: Tenant Liable For Possession Through Family; Non-Residence Claim Doesn’t Excuse Liability  ||  Allahabad High Court: Muslims Can Use Guardians and Wards Act Provisions to Seek Minor’s Custody  ||  Delhi High Court: Earlier Buyer Can Seek Cancellation of a Later Sale; Prior Rights Prevail  ||  Madras HC: 'Geetham' Restaurants Did Not Infringe 'Sangeetha' Trademark But Liable For Passing Off  ||  Bombay High Court: Disabled Employee Shifted Cadre Can’t Claim Past Service Seniority  ||  Supreme Court: Person Accepting a Section 28A Award May Seek Enhancement Via Appeals    

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