Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns a batch of writ petitions challenging the validity of Rule 8(1)(a) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016, to the extent it restricts the transfer of mining leases to minerals 'not specified in the First Schedule to the Act'. The petitioners, including Smt A V Shakuntala and M/s Bharathkumar P Bora, sought quashing of this provision as being inconsistent with Section 10A(2)(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as amended in 2015. The court, comprising Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee and Justice Budihal R B, heard arguments from Senior Advocates Sajan Poovayya and S Ganesh for the petitioners, and Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj for the Union of India, and Additional Advocate General Dr Aditya Sondhi for the State of Karnataka. The core legal issue was whether a delegated legislation can impose restrictions not found in the parent Act. The court held that Section 10A(2)(c) permits transfer of mining leases for all minerals without any restriction based on the First Schedule. Rule 8(1)(a) introducing such a restriction is ultra vires the parent Act. The court allowed the petitions and quashed the impugned portion of Rule 8(1)(a).
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Delegated Legislation - Ultra Vires - Rule 8(1)(a) of Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 - Section 10A(2)(c) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - The court examined whether a rule framed under the Act can restrict the transfer of mining leases to minerals not specified in the First Schedule when the parent Act allows transfer of all mining leases. Held that the rule is ultra vires the parent Act as it adds a restriction not found in Section 10A(2)(c) (Paras 1-10). B) Mining Law - Transfer of Mining Leases - Section 10A(2)(c) MMDR Act - Rule 8(1)(a) of 2016 Rules - The court considered the scope of Section 10A(2)(c) which permits transfer of mining leases for all minerals, and found that Rule 8(1)(a) impermissibly limits this to minerals not specified in the First Schedule. Held that the rule is inconsistent with the parent Act and therefore invalid (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 8(1)(a) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016, to the extent it restricts transfer of mining leases to minerals 'not specified in the First Schedule to the Act', is ultra vires Section 10A(2)(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as amended in 2015.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned portion of Rule 8(1)(a) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 to the extent it restricts transfer to minerals 'not specified in the First Schedule to the Act'.
Law Points
- Ultra vires
- Delegated legislation
- Rule cannot override parent Act
- Section 10A(2)(c) MMDR Act
- Rule 8(1)(a) Minerals Concession Rules 2016
- Transfer of mining leases
- First Schedule
