Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 5 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M.P. State Agro Industries Development ... vs Jahan Khan on 5 September, 2007
30. The highly competent senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that if the first respondent's impugned order had been passed after conducting a comprehensive enquiry, then the petitioner can file a revision petition under Rule 57 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules. In this case, the respondent had violated the principles of natural justice since they had not conducted any domestic enquiry before passing the said order. In order to rectify the same, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India. The highly competent senior counsel had cited a judgment in (2007) 10 SCC 88 (M.P.State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., v. Jahan Khan, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; where there is failure of principles of natural justice or where the orders of proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged, an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar. In the instant case, all the three points are squarely applicable, therefore, the impugned order does not warrant execution.
Section 11 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Satwati Deswal vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 6 November, 2009
The highly competent senior counsel has cited another judgment in Satwati Deswal v. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 1 SCC 126, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court pointed out that if there had been a violation of a principle of natural justice, in the instant case, the first respondent did not give any opportunity to the petitioner and passed the impugned order which is absolutely partisan. The first respondent mentioned in the impugned order that most of the technical points are not complied with. If the first respondent provides an opportunity, the petitioner may comply with the same. Further, the petitioner has not violated any legal points and therefore, he is entitled to receive renewal of the mining scheme.
Masilamani vs Murugesan on 16 April, 2004
The other judgment cited by the highly competent senior counsel, which is reported in 2004(4) CTC 727 (Masilamani Vs. Murugesan), wherein, the learned Judge pointed out that the respondent cannot pass cyclostyled orders without an appropriate application of mind. Further, Rule 22(6) reads that a mining plan once approved shall be valid for the entire duration of the lease, but the scheme of mining is valid for only 5 years since the petitioner's mining leases are valid for 20 years. As per Rule 12 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules provides that before the expiry of the scheme in mining, a fresh scheme of mining should be submitted and approval sought. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted a scheme of mining for approval prior to the mandated expiry of 120 days. The respondents have adopted a back door method and passed the impugned order, which does not portend to be required justice. In the instant case, the following are noted while going through the Act and Rules:-
1