Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Rajasthan’s Mineral Concession Rules Amendments – Auction Process Deemed Constitutional

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the validity of the amendments made to the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, introducing the auction process and rejecting pending applications for quarry licenses and mining leases. The judgment was delivered by a Bench of esteemed Justices on 1 August 2023.

 The apex court, in its verdict, stated,There is no fundamental right of the applicants to carry on mining operations. They have no vested right to seek a lease or a license.” The Court emphasized that the applicants’ expectations were not legitimate rights and held that the amendments were well within the scope of the law.

 The legal challenge to the amendments was brought before the Supreme Court by aggrieved parties seeking to overturn the declaration of certain Rules as unconstitutional. However, the Court held that the power conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, allowed the State Government to introduce the auction process and reject pending applications.

 The introduction of the auction process will bring transparency and efficiency in the allocation of mineral concessions,” the Court noted in its judgment. The decision is expected to streamline the allocation process and curb any potential malpractices.

 The Court further clarified that the applicants did not have a fundamental right in mining activities, and the State Government was entitled to introduce changes in the rules to promote better management of mineral resources.

 The ruling has significant implications for the mining industry in Rajasthan, as it validates the amendments aimed at improving resource allocation and promoting fair practices. The auction process is set to become the new norm for granting mineral concessions in the state.

 Industry experts have welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that it will foster a more competitive environment and attract investments in the mining sector. The judgment sets a precedent for other states to adopt similar measures in the interest of better governance and efficient utilization of mineral resources.

 With the apex court’s affirmation of the amendments’ constitutionality, Rajasthan’s mining sector is poised for a transformative shift, heralding a new era of transparency and accountability in the allocation of mineral concessions.

 D.D-1.Aug.2023

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. vs SHARWAN KUMAR KUMAWAT ETC.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/01-Aug-2023_State_Vs_Sharvan.pdf"]

Latest Legal News