M/S Kamla Construction Co vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 August, 2011
13. The Supreme Court has laid down to the same effect in
Som Datt Builders Limited vs. Union of India (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 49 (1.14 seconds)Jai Vardhman Industries vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 April, 2020
In support of the
contention, learned counsel relied upon decisions of the Supreme
Court in the matters of "V.P.Pithupitchai vs. Special Secretary to
the Government of Tamil Nadu", AIR 2003 SC 2455 and "Som
Datt Builders Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.", (2010) 1 SCC
311, which deals with judicial interpretation of expression
'mineral'. Learned counsel submitted that product of the
petitioners has a distinct and separate marketable commodity
which has the characteristic of mineral but it cannot be treated to
be mineral as such. It is submitted that the impugned notification
has been issued by the State Government with the presumption
(Downloaded on 16/04/2020 at 08:30:06 PM)
(25 of 51) [CW-4101/2019]
that the product manufactured i.e. feldspar grain continue to be
mineral whereas, it does not. Learned counsel submitted that
power of the State Government to regulate the grant of mining
leases and quarry license and purposes connected therewith does
not extend to the manufacturing activities undertaken by the
manufacturers, who have nothing to do with the excavation of the
mineral as such. Learned counsel submitted that in the
notification issued, it is mentioned that the restriction is being
imposed pursuant to the recommendation of the Department of
Industries but no recommendation if any made, are placed on
record. Learned counsel submitted that it is not even clear as to in
respect of which industries, the recommendations were made by
the Department of Industries. Learned counsel urged that if the
impugned notification issued is allowed to stand, it will result in
closure of the industries run by the petitioners herein. It is
submitted that the petitioners have established the industries after
obtaining consent to operate from the Department of Industries
and Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the petitioners
have made huge investment wherein the subsidy is also granted
by the Government and thus, the Government in the garb of
protecting one industry, cannot create a situation resulting in
closure of other industries. Learned counsel submitted that such
prohibition will amount to protection of regional interest for
political and not of public interest.
Kamal Granules vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 April, 2020
In support of the
contention, learned counsel relied upon decisions of the Supreme
Court in the matters of "V.P.Pithupitchai vs. Special Secretary to
the Government of Tamil Nadu", AIR 2003 SC 2455 and "Som
Datt Builders Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.", (2010) 1 SCC
311, which deals with judicial interpretation of expression
'mineral'. Learned counsel submitted that product of the
petitioners has a distinct and separate marketable commodity
which has the characteristic of mineral but it cannot be treated to
be mineral as such. It is submitted that the impugned notification
has been issued by the State Government with the presumption
(Downloaded on 16/04/2020 at 08:30:09 PM)
(25 of 51) [CW-4101/2019]
that the product manufactured i.e. feldspar grain continue to be
mineral whereas, it does not. Learned counsel submitted that
power of the State Government to regulate the grant of mining
leases and quarry license and purposes connected therewith does
not extend to the manufacturing activities undertaken by the
manufacturers, who have nothing to do with the excavation of the
mineral as such. Learned counsel submitted that in the
notification issued, it is mentioned that the restriction is being
imposed pursuant to the recommendation of the Department of
Industries but no recommendation if any made, are placed on
record. Learned counsel submitted that it is not even clear as to in
respect of which industries, the recommendations were made by
the Department of Industries. Learned counsel urged that if the
impugned notification issued is allowed to stand, it will result in
closure of the industries run by the petitioners herein. It is
submitted that the petitioners have established the industries after
obtaining consent to operate from the Department of Industries
and Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the petitioners
have made huge investment wherein the subsidy is also granted
by the Government and thus, the Government in the garb of
protecting one industry, cannot create a situation resulting in
closure of other industries. Learned counsel submitted that such
prohibition will amount to protection of regional interest for
political and not of public interest.
Hari Ram Gurjar vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 April, 2020
In support of the
contention, learned counsel relied upon decisions of the Supreme
Court in the matters of "V.P.Pithupitchai vs. Special Secretary to
the Government of Tamil Nadu", AIR 2003 SC 2455 and "Som
Datt Builders Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.", (2010) 1 SCC
311, which deals with judicial interpretation of expression
'mineral'. Learned counsel submitted that product of the
petitioners has a distinct and separate marketable commodity
which has the characteristic of mineral but it cannot be treated to
be mineral as such. It is submitted that the impugned notification
has been issued by the State Government with the presumption
(Downloaded on 16/04/2020 at 08:30:39 PM)
(25 of 51) [CW-4101/2019]
that the product manufactured i.e. feldspar grain continue to be
mineral whereas, it does not. Learned counsel submitted that
power of the State Government to regulate the grant of mining
leases and quarry license and purposes connected therewith does
not extend to the manufacturing activities undertaken by the
manufacturers, who have nothing to do with the excavation of the
mineral as such. Learned counsel submitted that in the
notification issued, it is mentioned that the restriction is being
imposed pursuant to the recommendation of the Department of
Industries but no recommendation if any made, are placed on
record. Learned counsel submitted that it is not even clear as to in
respect of which industries, the recommendations were made by
the Department of Industries. Learned counsel urged that if the
impugned notification issued is allowed to stand, it will result in
closure of the industries run by the petitioners herein. It is
submitted that the petitioners have established the industries after
obtaining consent to operate from the Department of Industries
and Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the petitioners
have made huge investment wherein the subsidy is also granted
by the Government and thus, the Government in the garb of
protecting one industry, cannot create a situation resulting in
closure of other industries. Learned counsel submitted that such
prohibition will amount to protection of regional interest for
political and not of public interest.
Hardev Rawal vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 April, 2020
In support of the
contention, learned counsel relied upon decisions of the Supreme
Court in the matters of "V.P.Pithupitchai vs. Special Secretary to
the Government of Tamil Nadu", AIR 2003 SC 2455 and "Som
Datt Builders Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.", (2010) 1 SCC
311, which deals with judicial interpretation of expression
'mineral'. Learned counsel submitted that product of the
petitioners has a distinct and separate marketable commodity
which has the characteristic of mineral but it cannot be treated to
be mineral as such. It is submitted that the impugned notification
has been issued by the State Government with the presumption
(Downloaded on 16/04/2020 at 08:31:00 PM)
(25 of 51) [CW-4101/2019]
that the product manufactured i.e. feldspar grain continue to be
mineral whereas, it does not. Learned counsel submitted that
power of the State Government to regulate the grant of mining
leases and quarry license and purposes connected therewith does
not extend to the manufacturing activities undertaken by the
manufacturers, who have nothing to do with the excavation of the
mineral as such. Learned counsel submitted that in the
notification issued, it is mentioned that the restriction is being
imposed pursuant to the recommendation of the Department of
Industries but no recommendation if any made, are placed on
record. Learned counsel submitted that it is not even clear as to in
respect of which industries, the recommendations were made by
the Department of Industries. Learned counsel urged that if the
impugned notification issued is allowed to stand, it will result in
closure of the industries run by the petitioners herein. It is
submitted that the petitioners have established the industries after
obtaining consent to operate from the Department of Industries
and Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the petitioners
have made huge investment wherein the subsidy is also granted
by the Government and thus, the Government in the garb of
protecting one industry, cannot create a situation resulting in
closure of other industries. Learned counsel submitted that such
prohibition will amount to protection of regional interest for
political and not of public interest.
Charbhuja Mines vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 April, 2020
In support of the
contention, learned counsel relied upon decisions of the Supreme
Court in the matters of "V.P.Pithupitchai vs. Special Secretary to
the Government of Tamil Nadu", AIR 2003 SC 2455 and "Som
Datt Builders Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.", (2010) 1 SCC
311, which deals with judicial interpretation of expression
'mineral'. Learned counsel submitted that product of the
petitioners has a distinct and separate marketable commodity
which has the characteristic of mineral but it cannot be treated to
be mineral as such. It is submitted that the impugned notification
has been issued by the State Government with the presumption
(Downloaded on 16/04/2020 at 08:30:02 PM)
(25 of 51) [CW-4101/2019]
that the product manufactured i.e. feldspar grain continue to be
mineral whereas, it does not. Learned counsel submitted that
power of the State Government to regulate the grant of mining
leases and quarry license and purposes connected therewith does
not extend to the manufacturing activities undertaken by the
manufacturers, who have nothing to do with the excavation of the
mineral as such. Learned counsel submitted that in the
notification issued, it is mentioned that the restriction is being
imposed pursuant to the recommendation of the Department of
Industries but no recommendation if any made, are placed on
record. Learned counsel submitted that it is not even clear as to in
respect of which industries, the recommendations were made by
the Department of Industries. Learned counsel urged that if the
impugned notification issued is allowed to stand, it will result in
closure of the industries run by the petitioners herein. It is
submitted that the petitioners have established the industries after
obtaining consent to operate from the Department of Industries
and Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the petitioners
have made huge investment wherein the subsidy is also granted
by the Government and thus, the Government in the garb of
protecting one industry, cannot create a situation resulting in
closure of other industries. Learned counsel submitted that such
prohibition will amount to protection of regional interest for
political and not of public interest.
Federation Of Mining Associations Of ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 April, 2020
In support of the
contention, learned counsel relied upon decisions of the Supreme
Court in the matters of "V.P.Pithupitchai vs. Special Secretary to
the Government of Tamil Nadu", AIR 2003 SC 2455 and "Som
Datt Builders Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.", (2010) 1 SCC
311, which deals with judicial interpretation of expression
'mineral'. Learned counsel submitted that product of the
petitioners has a distinct and separate marketable commodity
which has the characteristic of mineral but it cannot be treated to
be mineral as such. It is submitted that the impugned notification
has been issued by the State Government with the presumption
(Downloaded on 16/04/2020 at 08:29:56 PM)
(25 of 51) [CW-4101/2019]
that the product manufactured i.e. feldspar grain continue to be
mineral whereas, it does not. Learned counsel submitted that
power of the State Government to regulate the grant of mining
leases and quarry license and purposes connected therewith does
not extend to the manufacturing activities undertaken by the
manufacturers, who have nothing to do with the excavation of the
mineral as such. Learned counsel submitted that in the
notification issued, it is mentioned that the restriction is being
imposed pursuant to the recommendation of the Department of
Industries but no recommendation if any made, are placed on
record. Learned counsel submitted that it is not even clear as to in
respect of which industries, the recommendations were made by
the Department of Industries. Learned counsel urged that if the
impugned notification issued is allowed to stand, it will result in
closure of the industries run by the petitioners herein. It is
submitted that the petitioners have established the industries after
obtaining consent to operate from the Department of Industries
and Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the petitioners
have made huge investment wherein the subsidy is also granted
by the Government and thus, the Government in the garb of
protecting one industry, cannot create a situation resulting in
closure of other industries. Learned counsel submitted that such
prohibition will amount to protection of regional interest for
political and not of public interest.
Your Micron Llp vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 April, 2020
In support of the
contention, learned counsel relied upon decisions of the Supreme
Court in the matters of "V.P.Pithupitchai vs. Special Secretary to
the Government of Tamil Nadu", AIR 2003 SC 2455 and "Som
Datt Builders Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.", (2010) 1 SCC
311, which deals with judicial interpretation of expression
'mineral'. Learned counsel submitted that product of the
petitioners has a distinct and separate marketable commodity
which has the characteristic of mineral but it cannot be treated to
be mineral as such. It is submitted that the impugned notification
has been issued by the State Government with the presumption
(Downloaded on 16/04/2020 at 08:30:57 PM)
(25 of 51) [CW-4101/2019]
that the product manufactured i.e. feldspar grain continue to be
mineral whereas, it does not. Learned counsel submitted that
power of the State Government to regulate the grant of mining
leases and quarry license and purposes connected therewith does
not extend to the manufacturing activities undertaken by the
manufacturers, who have nothing to do with the excavation of the
mineral as such. Learned counsel submitted that in the
notification issued, it is mentioned that the restriction is being
imposed pursuant to the recommendation of the Department of
Industries but no recommendation if any made, are placed on
record. Learned counsel submitted that it is not even clear as to in
respect of which industries, the recommendations were made by
the Department of Industries. Learned counsel urged that if the
impugned notification issued is allowed to stand, it will result in
closure of the industries run by the petitioners herein. It is
submitted that the petitioners have established the industries after
obtaining consent to operate from the Department of Industries
and Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the petitioners
have made huge investment wherein the subsidy is also granted
by the Government and thus, the Government in the garb of
protecting one industry, cannot create a situation resulting in
closure of other industries. Learned counsel submitted that such
prohibition will amount to protection of regional interest for
political and not of public interest.
Lycon Microns Llp vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 April, 2020
In support of the
contention, learned counsel relied upon decisions of the Supreme
Court in the matters of "V.P.Pithupitchai vs. Special Secretary to
the Government of Tamil Nadu", AIR 2003 SC 2455 and "Som
Datt Builders Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.", (2010) 1 SCC
311, which deals with judicial interpretation of expression
'mineral'. Learned counsel submitted that product of the
petitioners has a distinct and separate marketable commodity
which has the characteristic of mineral but it cannot be treated to
be mineral as such. It is submitted that the impugned notification
has been issued by the State Government with the presumption
(Downloaded on 16/04/2020 at 08:30:22 PM)
(25 of 51) [CW-4101/2019]
that the product manufactured i.e. feldspar grain continue to be
mineral whereas, it does not. Learned counsel submitted that
power of the State Government to regulate the grant of mining
leases and quarry license and purposes connected therewith does
not extend to the manufacturing activities undertaken by the
manufacturers, who have nothing to do with the excavation of the
mineral as such. Learned counsel submitted that in the
notification issued, it is mentioned that the restriction is being
imposed pursuant to the recommendation of the Department of
Industries but no recommendation if any made, are placed on
record. Learned counsel submitted that it is not even clear as to in
respect of which industries, the recommendations were made by
the Department of Industries. Learned counsel urged that if the
impugned notification issued is allowed to stand, it will result in
closure of the industries run by the petitioners herein. It is
submitted that the petitioners have established the industries after
obtaining consent to operate from the Department of Industries
and Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the petitioners
have made huge investment wherein the subsidy is also granted
by the Government and thus, the Government in the garb of
protecting one industry, cannot create a situation resulting in
closure of other industries. Learned counsel submitted that such
prohibition will amount to protection of regional interest for
political and not of public interest.
Radha Krishna Minerals vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 April, 2020
In support of the
contention, learned counsel relied upon decisions of the Supreme
Court in the matters of "V.P.Pithupitchai vs. Special Secretary to
the Government of Tamil Nadu", AIR 2003 SC 2455 and "Som
Datt Builders Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.", (2010) 1 SCC
311, which deals with judicial interpretation of expression
'mineral'. Learned counsel submitted that product of the
petitioners has a distinct and separate marketable commodity
which has the characteristic of mineral but it cannot be treated to
be mineral as such. It is submitted that the impugned notification
has been issued by the State Government with the presumption
(Downloaded on 16/04/2020 at 08:29:59 PM)
(25 of 51) [CW-4101/2019]
that the product manufactured i.e. feldspar grain continue to be
mineral whereas, it does not. Learned counsel submitted that
power of the State Government to regulate the grant of mining
leases and quarry license and purposes connected therewith does
not extend to the manufacturing activities undertaken by the
manufacturers, who have nothing to do with the excavation of the
mineral as such. Learned counsel submitted that in the
notification issued, it is mentioned that the restriction is being
imposed pursuant to the recommendation of the Department of
Industries but no recommendation if any made, are placed on
record. Learned counsel submitted that it is not even clear as to in
respect of which industries, the recommendations were made by
the Department of Industries. Learned counsel urged that if the
impugned notification issued is allowed to stand, it will result in
closure of the industries run by the petitioners herein. It is
submitted that the petitioners have established the industries after
obtaining consent to operate from the Department of Industries
and Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the petitioners
have made huge investment wherein the subsidy is also granted
by the Government and thus, the Government in the garb of
protecting one industry, cannot create a situation resulting in
closure of other industries. Learned counsel submitted that such
prohibition will amount to protection of regional interest for
political and not of public interest.