Part-Time Workers Serving For Decades Entitled To Regularization; 'Uma Devi' Ruling Cannot Be Weaponized To Deny Legitimate Claims: Rajasthan High Court Order Rejecting Or Allowing To Register FIR U/S Section 156(3) CrPC Application Is Not Interlocutory; Criminal Revision Is Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Default Bail | Failure To Produce Accused During Hearing For Extension Of Remand Time Is Gross Illegality, Violates Article 21: Andhra Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act Liability Of Directors Subsists Despite Initiation Of Liquidation Proceedings Against Company: Supreme Court Purchaser Of Property For Valuable Consideration Cannot Be Accused Of Cheating Original Owner If Title Document Is Forged: Supreme Court Appointment Of Minor To Public Post Is Per Se Illegal, Void Ab Initio: Allahabad High Court Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Abdicate Duty To Decide Limitation Objection Merely Because High Court Appointed Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court Deemed Conveyance Cannot Be Restricted To Building Footprint; Must Include Appurtenant Open Spaces Required By Planning Law: Bombay High Court Mere Discovery Of Accused's Presence At A Location Not A 'Fact Discovered' Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Delhi High Court Acquits Official In 1989 Bribe Case Section 307 IPC Is Not A 'Minor Offence' To Section 324 IPC; Accused Cannot Be Convicted For Attempt To Murder If Only Charged With Voluntarily Causing Hurt: Delhi High Court Landowners Under National Highways Act Entitled To 15% Interest On Enhanced Compensation; Denial Is Discriminatory: Punjab & Haryana HC Omission Of Village Name In Gazette Notification No Bar To Laying Transmission Lines If Area Falls 'Around' Notified Route: Orissa High Court NBFCs Cannot Use Force For Vehicle Repossession; Coercive Debt Recovery Violates Right To Livelihood Under Article 21: Uttarakhand High Court Non-Candidates Cannot Be Impleaded As Parties In Election Petitions Even If Allegations Of Impropriety Are Made: J&K&L High Court Lowest Bidder Has No Vested Right To Contract; Budgetary Constraints Valid Ground To Cancel Tender: Jharkhand High Court Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: 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