SC: Forfeiture of Earnest Money Impermissible When Both Buyer and Seller are at Fault  ||  Supreme Court: Gravity of Offence Cannot Defeat Speedy Trial; Pre-Trial Detention is Punishment  ||  SC: Terrorist Act under UAPA Includes Conspiracies to Disrupt Essential Supplies, Not Just Violence  ||  Supreme Court Directs Measures to Prevent False and Frivolous Complaints Against Judicial Officers  ||  SC: Mere Participation in Arbitration Doesn’t Bar Challenging Arbitrator; Waiver Must be in Writing  ||  SC: Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the Plaintiff, as Dominus Litis, Cannot be Forced to Add a Defendant  ||  SC: Law Does Not Change With a New Bench; Decisions of a Coordinate Bench are Binding  ||  Delhi HC Absence of Formal Arrest under Section 311A Crpc Does Not Bar Giving Handwriting Samples  ||  Del HC: Security Guards Performing Duties Cannot Be Prosecuted For Wrongful Restraint or Molestation  ||  Bombay HC: Housing Society Earning From Telecom Towers Isn’t An ‘Industry’; Staff Get No Gratuity    

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