A Will That Silences Legal Heirs Without Cause Cannot Speak the Truth of the Testator’s Intent: Orissa High Court Rejects Solemnity of Registered Will Conviction Can Be Set Aside Even in Non-Compoundable Offences If Parties Settle: Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Inherent Power under Section 482 CrPC Mere Absence of Ticket or Station Report Not Fatal to Claim: Bombay High Court Says Railway Claims Can Be Proved by Circumstantial Evidence Judgment of Acquittal Cannot Be Reversed Merely Because A Different View Is Possible, Unless It’s Perverse Or Ignores Material Evidence: Himachal High Court Courts Cannot Reopen Admissions Once Deadline Expires: Orissa High Court Rejects SEBC Nursing Aspirants' Plea Filed Post Cut-Off A Sketchy Allegation of Corrupt Practice Can’t Be Cured Later Through Amendment: Bombay High Court Rejects Election Petition Against Shiv Sena MLA Delay in FIR, If Plausibly Explained, Cannot Vitiate Claim: Madras High Court Enhances Compensation to ₹3.26 Crores for Fatal Accident Involving Pillion Rider Failure to Videograph Search Violates BNSS: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail, Slams Police for Ignoring Procedural Mandates No Customs Duty Without Clear Authority Of Law: Supreme Court Quashes Levy On SEZ Electricity Supplied To Domestic Tariff Area Owner's Admission Cannot Be Brushed Aside to Deny Compensation: Supreme Court Reinstates ₹3.7 Lakh Award to Family of Deceased Driver Benefit Of Doubt Must Prevail Where Eyewitness Testimony Is Infirm And Contradict Medical Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Double-Murder Convict A Mere Error in Bail Orders Cannot Tarnish a Judge’s Career: Supreme Court Quashes Dismissal of Judicial Officer for Granting Bail under Excise Act Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | A Necessary Party is One Without Whom No Order Can Be Made Effectively: Supreme Court Readiness and Willingness Must Be Proven—Mere Pleading Is Not Enough For Specific Performance: Supreme Court Returning Expired Stamp Papers Is No Refund in Law: Supreme Court Directs State to Pay ₹3.99 Lakhs Despite Limitation under UP Stamp Rules Supreme Court Distinguishes ‘Masterminds’ from ‘Facilitators’: Bail Denied to Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam, Granted to Gulfisha Fatima & Others: Supreme Court Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court Under Section 41 Does Not Extinguish Arbitration Clause in Leave and License Agreements: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Unilateral Appointment Void Ab Initio; Participation in Proceedings Does Not Constitute Waiver: Supreme Court Section 21 Arbitration Act Is Not a Gatekeeper of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ₹2 Crore Arbitral Award Against Kerala Government

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