Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka 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