SC: DRT Auction Sale Valid Despite Failure to Serve Order XXI Rule 22 Notice  ||  SC: Legal Representatives Entitled to Motor Accident Compensation without Financial Dependency  ||  SC: Re-Employed Officers May be Classified Differently from Regular Officers  ||  Supreme Court Questions Union's Opposition to Global Food Package Labelling Norms  ||  SC: S.42 NDPS Act Compliance Need Not be Absolute When Immediate Seizure is Required  ||  SC Clarifies Whether Tenancy Ends after Landlord-Tenant Execute Agreement to Sell  ||  SC Levies Rs. 10 Lakh Cost on Reliance Industries for Hindering 20-Year-Old NTPC Suit  ||  P&H HC: Authorities Obligated to Act if Protests Escalate into Violence  ||  Allahabad HC: Allottee Aware of Reduced Lease Area Not Entitled to Full Zero-Period Benefit  ||  Delhi HC: 2015 Commercial Courts Act Applicable to Suits Instituted Before its Enactment    

Common Cause v. Union of India and others - (Supreme Court) (04 Apr 2016)

Mining leases do not lapse automatically for lack of activity, non-renewal

Mines and Minerals

Mining activities having not been conducted for consecutive years and the absence of an order by the State Government accepting renewal of the mining will not lead to an automatic lapse of the mining lease. Before the court was a follow-up application to its earlier decision that had restrained over 100 mining leaseholders from carrying on mining activity till all clearances and permissions were obtained from the government. As leaseholders approached the court to indicate compliance with the order, they faced a government claiming their leases to have lapsed automatically, either for non-activity or for lack of renewal. The court rejected the government’s arguments for automatic lapse of leases. It provided instead a clear formula for determining if a mining leaseholder had retained its rights, or if its rights were actually abrogated.

Tags : MINING LEASE   AUTOMATIC LAPSE   RENEWAL  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved