Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)
M/S. Balaji Metal And Sand Manufacturer ... vs The Asst. Director Of Mines And Geology ... on 2 March, 2022 cites

Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998

Another contention raised by the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable as against the show cause notice is concerned, even though the nomenclature of the said letter is mentioned as 'show cause notice', the contents in effect direct the petitioner to stop all mining activities till the ESZ is demarcated. A bare reading of the said letter discloses that the respondent authority has made up his mind and directed the petitioner to stop the work. There is no absolute bar that the show cause notice cannot be challenged in a Writ Petition. If it is shown that the authority does not have the jurisdiction to issue the impugned order or acted in excess of jurisdiction or that the same is issued 19 AAR,J W.P.Nos.5786 and 12395 of 2021 contrary to the well established principle of law or without any legal basis, then the High Court can definitely step-in and set aside the impugned order. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks4, Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise v. Sushil and Company5 and M/s.Siemens Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra6. The respondents cannot blow hot and cold at the same time, the authorities without demarcating the ESZ and identifying as to whether the land leased to the petitioner is falling within that area, cannot direct the petitioner to stop the mining activity, more so, when the lease is valid and subsisting. The letter of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kamareddy, dated 31.12.2020, is also bad in law as the mining lease is still in subsistence. As long as the mining lease issued in favour of the petitioner is in subsistence, the authorities cannot direct the petitioner to stop the mining operations, more particularly, on the basis of the letter addressed by the officials of the Forest Department. The mining authorities having granted the mining lease to the petitioner in 4 (1998) 8 SCC 1 5 (2016) 13 SCC 223 6 (2006) 12 SCC 33 20 AAR,J W.P.Nos.5786 and 12395 of 2021 accordance with the Rules, regulations and procedure prescribed, cannot straight away direct the petitioner to stop the mining activity based on the letter written by the Forest Department. The letter issued by the Mining Department is one without any independent application of mind and the same is issued simply at the behest of the Forest Department and merely reiterating the contents of the letter issued by the Forest Department. Therefore, the same is also liable to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 2032 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

The Dy. Commnr. Central Excise vs Sushil & Company on 13 April, 2016

Another contention raised by the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable as against the show cause notice is concerned, even though the nomenclature of the said letter is mentioned as 'show cause notice', the contents in effect direct the petitioner to stop all mining activities till the ESZ is demarcated. A bare reading of the said letter discloses that the respondent authority has made up his mind and directed the petitioner to stop the work. There is no absolute bar that the show cause notice cannot be challenged in a Writ Petition. If it is shown that the authority does not have the jurisdiction to issue the impugned order or acted in excess of jurisdiction or that the same is issued 19 AAR,J W.P.Nos.5786 and 12395 of 2021 contrary to the well established principle of law or without any legal basis, then the High Court can definitely step-in and set aside the impugned order. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks4, Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise v. Sushil and Company5 and M/s.Siemens Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra6. The respondents cannot blow hot and cold at the same time, the authorities without demarcating the ESZ and identifying as to whether the land leased to the petitioner is falling within that area, cannot direct the petitioner to stop the mining activity, more so, when the lease is valid and subsisting. The letter of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kamareddy, dated 31.12.2020, is also bad in law as the mining lease is still in subsistence. As long as the mining lease issued in favour of the petitioner is in subsistence, the authorities cannot direct the petitioner to stop the mining operations, more particularly, on the basis of the letter addressed by the officials of the Forest Department. The mining authorities having granted the mining lease to the petitioner in 4 (1998) 8 SCC 1 5 (2016) 13 SCC 223 6 (2006) 12 SCC 33 20 AAR,J W.P.Nos.5786 and 12395 of 2021 accordance with the Rules, regulations and procedure prescribed, cannot straight away direct the petitioner to stop the mining activity based on the letter written by the Forest Department. The letter issued by the Mining Department is one without any independent application of mind and the same is issued simply at the behest of the Forest Department and merely reiterating the contents of the letter issued by the Forest Department. Therefore, the same is also liable to be set aside.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory ... on 8 October, 2021

Another contention raised by the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable as against the show cause notice is concerned, even though the nomenclature of the said letter is mentioned as 'show cause notice', the contents in effect direct the petitioner to stop all mining activities till the ESZ is demarcated. A bare reading of the said letter discloses that the respondent authority has made up his mind and directed the petitioner to stop the work. There is no absolute bar that the show cause notice cannot be challenged in a Writ Petition. If it is shown that the authority does not have the jurisdiction to issue the impugned order or acted in excess of jurisdiction or that the same is issued 19 AAR,J W.P.Nos.5786 and 12395 of 2021 contrary to the well established principle of law or without any legal basis, then the High Court can definitely step-in and set aside the impugned order. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks4, Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise v. Sushil and Company5 and M/s.Siemens Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra6. The respondents cannot blow hot and cold at the same time, the authorities without demarcating the ESZ and identifying as to whether the land leased to the petitioner is falling within that area, cannot direct the petitioner to stop the mining activity, more so, when the lease is valid and subsisting. The letter of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kamareddy, dated 31.12.2020, is also bad in law as the mining lease is still in subsistence. As long as the mining lease issued in favour of the petitioner is in subsistence, the authorities cannot direct the petitioner to stop the mining operations, more particularly, on the basis of the letter addressed by the officials of the Forest Department. The mining authorities having granted the mining lease to the petitioner in 4 (1998) 8 SCC 1 5 (2016) 13 SCC 223 6 (2006) 12 SCC 33 20 AAR,J W.P.Nos.5786 and 12395 of 2021 accordance with the Rules, regulations and procedure prescribed, cannot straight away direct the petitioner to stop the mining activity based on the letter written by the Forest Department. The letter issued by the Mining Department is one without any independent application of mind and the same is issued simply at the behest of the Forest Department and merely reiterating the contents of the letter issued by the Forest Department. Therefore, the same is also liable to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 80 - Cited by 23 - I Banerjee - Full Document
1   2 Next