High Court of Karnataka Allows Petitioner's Challenge Against Rejection of Prospecting Licence Application Under Section 10-A of Mines and Minerals Act. Application Filed Before Amendment Not Rendered Ineligible as It Was Pending When Amendment Came Into Force.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Accused
  • 52
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, M/s J K Cement (Western) Limited, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 10 June 2020 passed by the State of Karnataka (Respondent No.1) rejecting its application for a prospecting licence. The petitioner had applied on 16 June 2011 for a prospecting licence over 2,400 acres for lime stone under Rule 9(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The application was pending when the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 was amended by Act 10 of 2015, inserting Section 10-A which required applications to be made through auction. The State rejected the application on the ground that it was rendered ineligible by Section 10-A(1). The High Court held that the application was made before the amendment came into force on 12 January 2015 and was pending, thus it was not affected by Section 10-A. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the State to consider the application afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by Section 10-A.

Headnote

A) Mines and Minerals - Prospecting Licence - Section 10-A of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Application made on 16 June 2011 for prospecting licence - Held that the application was pending before the amendment and was not rendered ineligible by Section 10-A as the amendment came into force on 12 January 2015 - The order of rejection dated 10 June 2020 was quashed (Paras 2-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the application for prospecting licence made on 16 June 2011 was rendered ineligible by sub-section (1) of Section 10-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10 June 2020 (Annexure-A) is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application for prospecting licence afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by Section 10-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

Law Points

  • Section 10-A of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act
  • 1957
  • Rule 9 of Mineral Concession Rules
  • 1960
  • Prospecting Licence
  • Pending Application
  • Amendment Act 10 of 2015
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (KAR) (02) 19

WRIT PETITION NO.13674 OF 2020 (GM-MM-S)

2021-02-08

ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

SHRI. D.L.N. RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE; SHRI. I. TARANATH POOJARY, AGA

M/S. J K CEMENT (WESTERN) LIMITED

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging rejection of prospecting licence application

Remedy Sought

Quashing of order dated 10 June 2020 rejecting the application and direction to consider the application afresh

Filing Reason

The petitioner's application for prospecting licence made on 16 June 2011 was rejected by the State on the ground that it was rendered ineligible by Section 10-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

Previous Decisions

The Director of Mines and Geology passed an order on 9 January 2015 (Annexure-H) which is not detailed in the judgment.

Issues

Whether the application for prospecting licence made on 16 June 2011 was rendered ineligible by sub-section (1) of Section 10-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the application was made before the amendment inserting Section 10-A came into force and was pending, hence not affected. The respondents argued that the application was rendered ineligible by Section 10-A.

Ratio Decidendi

An application for prospecting licence made before the amendment inserting Section 10-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 came into force and pending on the date of the amendment is not rendered ineligible by Section 10-A.

Judgment Excerpts

The main issue which arises for consideration is whether the application made by the petitioner for grant of prospecting licence on 16th June 2011 was rendered ineligible in view of sub-section(1) of Section 10-A of the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The application was made on 16th June 2011. The amendment inserting Section 10-A came into force on 12th January 2015. The application was pending on that date. Therefore, the application was not rendered ineligible by Section 10-A.

Procedural History

The petitioner made an application for prospecting licence on 16 June 2011. The Director of Mines and Geology passed an order on 9 January 2015 (Annexure-H). The State passed an order on 10 June 2020 (Annexure-A) rejecting the application. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date. The High Court heard the matter on 8 February 2021 and allowed the petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: 10-A
  • Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: 9(1)
  • Constitution of India: 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Petitioner's Challenge Against Rejection of Prospecting Licence Application Under Section 10-A of Mines and Minerals Act. Application Filed Before Amendment Not Rendered Ineligible as It Was Pending When Amendment Came ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Insurance Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Reduces Compensation Due to Contributory Negligence of Deceased Driver. Claimants' Cross-Objection for Enhanced Compensation Dismissed as Deceased's Own Negligence Was Established.