Right Of Private Defence Not Available To Aggressors Who Create Situations Of Peril: Allahabad High Court National Security Concerns Outweigh Right To Bail In Espionage Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Relief To Navy Sailor Accused Of Spying For Pakistan Wives Are Not Deemed Maids, Marriage Is A Partnership Of Equals: Bombay High Court Rejects Household Chores As Ground For Cruelty Divorce Economic Offences Affect Financial Fabric Of Society; Custodial Interrogation May Be Necessary: Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Anil Tuteja's Bail In Mahadev App Case Municipalities Are 'Persons' Under WB Highways Act; Can't Build On PWD Land Without Permission: Calcutta High Court Sale Of Secured Asset At Reserve Price Requires Borrower’s Consent; Authorised Officer Cannot Confirm Sale Unilaterally: Andhra Pradesh High Court Procedural Safeguards Mandatory Even In National Security Cases: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail Over Non-Supply Of Written Grounds Of Arrest Compassionate Appointment Not A Ladder For Career Growth; Second Claim For Higher Post Not Permissible: Allahabad High Court High Court Can't Invoke Inherent Powers To Allow 'Backdoor Entry' For Second Revision Unless Gross Injustice Is Established: Delhi High Court Court Cannot Presume Unsound Mind Merely Because Of Hearing & Speech Disability; Inquiry Under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC Mandatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act: Technical Omission In Complaint Filed By POA Holder Cured If Original Complainant Testifies During Trial; Kerala High Court Direct Evidence Of Sexual Intercourse Not Always Possible; Circumstantial Evidence Of Proximity Sufficient To Prove Adultery: Madras High Court 21 Years Service Is Not Temporary: Orissa HC Directs Regularization Of Drivers, Says State Can’t Exploit Workers Through Perennial 'Ad-Hocism' Reinstatement Not Automatic For Section 25-F ID Act Violations; Punjab & Haryana HC Awards ₹1 Lakh Per Year Compensation To Superannuated Workman Section 82 CrPC Requirements Mandatory; Order Declaring Person Proclaimed Vitiated If Fresh Proclamation Not Issued Upon Adjournment: Punjab & Haryana HC Stay On Blacklisting Order Does Not Efface Underlying Fact; Bidder Must Make Candid Disclosure: Delhi 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