Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Raj. & Ors vs Ashok Kumar Jain on 2 April, 2018
The
State Government preferred an appeal being D.B.S.A.W.
No.962/2022 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain)
was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 02.09.2022
with liberty to file review petition and the review petition being
S.B. Civil Review Petition No.193/2022 (State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain) was dismissed while holding that
considering the fact that considering the fact that judgment of
which review has been sought, was passed in presence of another
AAG would not give any liberty to argue the matter on merits. He
also submitted that the present petitions are liable to be dismissed
on the ground of alternative and statutory remedy of revision
petition under Section 30 of the Act of 1957.
Section 10A in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
M/S. Krishna Marbles vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 8 August, 2018
"Accordingly, the present writ petitions are allowed. The
impugned orders dated 17.10.2015 and 20.10.2015 qua the
petitioners are set aside. This Court would have directed the
respondent-authorities to issue mining license in terms of
the Order dated 23.08.2017 passed in the case of M/s.
Wonder Cement Limited (supra) but this Corut is bound by
its own order dated 02.08.2017 passed in the case of M/s.
Krishna Marbles (supra) which is prior in time.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 30 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Gorkha Security Services vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 4 August, 2014
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in
pursuance of the order of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated
30.08.2017, passed in the earlier writ petition of the petitioner (in
SBCWP No.5211/2021), wherein it was directed to pass fresh
order in accordance with law after following the principles of
natural justice and examining the each case separately, issued a
communication providing the petitioners an opportunity of
personal hearing through video conferencing and in the said letter,
no violation, irregularities or ineligibility were pointed in respect of
which the petitioner was required to furnish his explanation. Thus,
the said letter cannot be termed as a show cause notice. It was
submitted that the fundamental purpose of giving a notice is to
inform about the case set up against him which he has to meet
and particulars of the penalty/action which is proposed to be
taken. Both the things were missing in the said letter. However,
though the petitioner narrated all the facts and that there is no
violation of rules in granting the LoI in favour of the petitioner,
however, the Committee passed the impugned order dated
10.02.2021, without considering any material and in hasty
manner and thus, the same is against the settled principle of law
and the entire proceedings subsequent thereto is laconic and null
and void. He placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the
case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of
Delhi) & Ors. [(2014) 9 SCC 105].
M/S Krishna Marble vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 May, 2023
Accordingly, the respondents are at liberty to pass a fresh
order in accordance with law after following the principles
of natural justice and examining each case separately by a
duly constituted committee to be constituted by the Chief
Secretary comprising of at least three senior official in
terms of the order dated 02.08.2017 passed in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.15337/2016 (M/s Krishna Marble Vs. State
of Rajasthan & ors.). However, since the mining license too
was to be issued by 11.01.2017 and much time has passed,
the said Committee shall be constituted within two weeks of
the receipt of this order. The said Committee shall decide
the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within
three months thereafter. In case, the said Committee decide
the same in favour of the petitioners, the concerned
authority shall proceed in accordance with law."
M/S Wonder Cement Limited vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 April, 2019
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the action
of the respondents in passing the impugned order dated
10.02.2021 is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner
enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was
submitted that in a similar case of M/s. Wonder Cement Ltd. Vs.
State of Rajasthan challenged the order dated 17.10.2015,
cancelling its LoI by filing revision petition before the Central
Government which was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2016 and
the matter was remanded to the State Government to take
decision as per law. But, since the State Government did not take
the decision in compliance of the order of the revisional authority,
the LoI holder preferred a writ petition before this Court (SBCWP
No.126/2017), which was allowed vide order dated 23.08.2017
with a direction to the State Government to consider the same
and grant mining lease pursuant to the LoI. It was observed
thus:-
1