Claims For Recovery Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Supported By Probable Evidence; Exaggerated Claims Unsafe: Kerala High Court Naib Tahsildar Performing Quasi-Judicial Duties Is A 'Judge', Protected From Disciplinary Action For Bonafide Errors: Madhya Pradesh High Court Purchaser Estopped From Refusing Delivery Or Payment Of Statutory Taxes After Participating In Machinery Trial Runs: Madras High Court Presumption Of Marriage From Aadhaar, Passports Is Rebuttable; Long Silence Dislodges Marital Claim: Kerala High Court Government Cannot Deny Promotional Benefits To Employee Who Assumes Charge On The Date Of Superannuation: Karnataka High Court Disproportionate Assets 608% More Than Salary Establish 'Proceeds Of Crime' Prima Facie; No Mini-Trial At Discharge Stage: Jharkhand High Court Decree Based On 'Evasive Denial' Improper If Defendant Raises Specific Defenses Going To Root Of Case: J&K & Ladakh High Court Trial Courts Cannot Adjourn Ad-Interim Injunction Petitions For Months While Ordering 'Urgent Notice': Andhra Pradesh High Court Agent Of Court Receiver Who Breaches Undertaking On Nature Of Business Not Entitled To Occupy Premises Without Paying Royalty: Bombay High Court Criminal Antecedents Of A Witness Do Not Operate As Disqualification, Testimony To Be Assessed With Caution Not Suspicion: Calcutta High Court Bar On Raising Benami Defense Under Section 4 Applies To All Suits Filed After 1988 Act, Even For Past Transactions: Allahabad High Court Article 21 Can Trump UAPA Bail Restrictions In Cases Of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Activist Khuram Parvez Mere Possession Of Jihad Literature Not An Offence; Cannot Be Tagged With Terrorism Without Evidence Of Criminal Act: Telangana High Court

Karnataka High Court Declares Clause in Mining Rules Unconstitutional – "Rights Cannot Be Built on Unconstitutional Acts"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Karnataka High Court today ruled against a contentious clause in the Karnataka (Prevention of Illegal Mining and Storage of Minerals) Rules, 2011, emphasizing that "rights cannot be built on unconstitutional acts." The Hon'ble Mr. Prasanna B. Varale, Chief Justice, and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna S. Dixit presided over the case.

The petitioner, M/S Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram Narasingdas Private Limited, challenged the constitutional validity of Clause (b) of Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 4, which pertained to the levy of royalty charges at the processing plant rather than the mine head. The company, represented by Advocate Sri. Lakamapurmath Chidanandayya, argued that this clause contradicted Section 23-C of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.

In a notable observation, the Court cited the words of Thomas M. Cooley, a renowned jurist, stating, "Where a Statute is adjudged to be unconstitutional, it is as if it had never been. Rights cannot be built up under it..." This powerful statement underlined the judgment's impact, indicating the Court's firm stance on the unconstitutionality of legislative actions that contradict established laws.

The case also referenced a similar decision in W.P.No.19773/2018 (M/S. MSPL LTD vs STATE OF KARNATAKA), where the High Court previously struck down the same rule. The petitioner sought a similar judgment based on the principle of parity. The Court agreed, extending the same relief to the petitioner that was granted in the MSPL LTD case.

The judgment is significant as it emphasizes the Court's role in ensuring that the legislation aligns with constitutional mandates. The ruling, described as a judgment in rem, is not limited to the parties involved but extends its implications to the wider public. This decision is expected to have far-reaching consequences in the mining industry, particularly in terms of how royalty charges are levied and collected.

Date of Decision: 14th December 2023

M/S RAI BAHADUR SETH SHREERAM NARASINGDAS PRIVATE LIMITED VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

 

Latest Legal News