9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 11(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. 2. Validity of the order granting mining lease by the State Government. 3. Judicial review of the Central Government's order. 4. Compliance with legal criteria in granting mining leases. The judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, delivered by Judges Gopal Rao Ekbote, C.J., and P. Chennakesav Reddi, JJ., addresses the appeal against an order related to the grant of mining leases. The case involved conflicting applications for mining lease over certain land. The State Government initially refused to convert a prospecting license application to a lease application but later treated it as such. The Central Government intervened, seeking comments from both parties. The Central Government affirmed the continued validity of Section 11(2) of the Act, despite a prior High Court declaration of its ultra vires nature. The State Government subsequently granted a lease to one of the parties, prompting a writ petition challenging the decision. The High Court analyzed previous judgments on the interpretation of Section 11(2) and emphasized that the State Government must consider all lease applications under Section 10(3) before applying Section 11(2) preferences. The Court found that the State Government's decision to grant the lease mechanically based on application submission dates was legally flawed. The Court rejected arguments that challenging the Central Government's order was a prerequisite for questioning the State Government's decision, asserting the right to judicial review. The Court criticized the Central Government's approach, highlighting its misinterpretation of legal principles and failure to consider the State Government's recommendations. The judgment emphasized the obligation to strike down illegal orders and ensure compliance with legal provisions. Referring to a previous decision, the Court directed the State Government to reconsider the lease applications in accordance with the legal criteria established by the Court's previous rulings. In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the State Government's order granting the lease, and directed the State Government to expedite the disposal of the lease applications in line with the established legal principles. The parties were left to bear their own costs, and advocate fees were specified. The judgment underscored the importance of upholding legal standards in granting mining leases and the necessity of judicial oversight in ensuring compliance with statutory provisions.
|
