Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 45 (0.37 seconds)Section 23 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957
Manohar Lal (D) By Lrs vs Ugrasen (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 3 June, 2010
14. The present was thus a clear case of exercise of power on the basis of
external dictation. That the dictation came on the prayer of the DSP will not
make any difference to the principle. The DSP did not exercise the jurisdiction
vested in him by the statute and did not grant approval to the recording of
information under TADA in exercise of his discretion
Manohar Lal (dead) by Lrs v. Ugrasen (dead) by Lrs. And
others9
Therefore, the law on the question can be summarised to the effect that
no higher authority in the hierarchy or an appellate or revisional authority can
exercise the power of the statutory authority nor the superior authority can
mortgage its wisdom and direct the statutory authority to act in a particular
manner. If the appellate or revisional Authority takes upon itself the task of the
statutory authority and passes an order, it remains unenforceable for the reason
that it cannot be termed to be an order passed under the Act.
Section 5 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Coastal Container Transporters ... on 26 February, 2019
Subsequently as directed by this Court, the authorities have supplied the
alert note, as well as the Government memo also. Despite the same, the
petitioners have not submitted their explanation so far. Hence left with
no option consequential orders were passed by the authorities. It is not
in dispute that as per section 23(b) of M.M.D.R.Act any gazetted officer
of the Central or State Government authorized by the Central
35
Government in this behalf by general or special order has reason to
believe that any mineral has been raised in contravention of provisions of
this Act or Rules, he may search for such mineral document or thing and
the provisions of section 100 of CPC. Accordingly the Vigilance and
Enforcement officers have every power as per the said section to inspect
and conduct investigation. Hence the inspection conducted on
23.11.2019 and 24.11.2019 by the Assistant Geologist, O/o the Assistant
Director, Mining in the presence of mining manager of the petitioner and
based on the statements issued, the employees of the petitioner's
company the report has been submitted by the Vigilance and
Enforcement Department, through alert note, to the Government and
based on the same, the Government has requested the 2nd respondent to
initiate action. Hence there is no specific directions by the Government
to the 2nd respondent, it is only a request to take appropriate action as
per rules. Further the learned Additional Advocate General has
submitted that when, there is an alternative remedy, against the show
cause notice, the writ petition is not maintainable and to support his
contention he relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union
Bank of India & others v Coastal Container Transporters
Association & others11
Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji on 23 November, 1951
12. Reference may be made in this connection to Commr. of Police v.
Gordhandas Bhanji, in which the action of Commissioner of Police in cancelling
the permission granted to the respondent for construction of cinema in Greater
Bombay at the behest of the State Government was not upheld, as the rules
concerned had conferred this power on the Commissioner, because of which it
28
was stated that the Commissioner was bound to bear his own independent and
unfettered judgment and decide the matter for himself, instead of forwarding an
order which another authority had purported to pass
Section 3 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
D. Ramesh Sinha vs Cadre Authority For Key Personnel Of ... on 19 June, 2001
D.Ramesh Sinha v. Cadre authority for Key Personnel
of Co-operative Central Banks/Apex Bank4
Having regard to the aforementioned notings in the records, we
have no doubt whatsoever that the impugned orders of suspension have
been passed pursuant to and in furtherance of the directions issued by
the State Government. Power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against
an employee or place him under suspension emanates from a statute.
While exercising such statutory power, the competent authority, must
therefore, apply its mind independently as to whether the conditions
precedent for exercising such power exist. It is now trite that if a
statutory authority acts at the behest of some other authority, however
high he may be, who has no statutory role to play in the matter, then
such action/or any order passed by him, would be a nonest in the eye of
law. It is also well settled that while passing an order, if the statutory
authority ignores the relevant factors or takes into considerations, factors
not germane for the passing of the order, then such action or the order
flowing from such action, would be vitiated in law. Equally well settled is
the principle that the statutory authority while exercising statutory
powers, must pose correct questions so as to apply correct legal principles
and arrive at correct conclusions basing on the actual and exact state of
2
(1998) 8 SCC 1
3
(2008) 1 SCC 728
4
2001 SCC OnLine AP 1206
21
affairs, and if he fails to do so, the same would amount to misdirection in
law.