Short Term Permit For Extraction Of Minor Minerals Can Be Granted On Application Made To Competent Authority, Public Auction Not Required: Bombay HC

Short Term Permit For Extraction Of Minor Minerals Can Be Granted On Application Made To Competent Authority, Public Auction Not Required

Case: Shrikrupa Stone Crusher v State of Maharashtra and ors.

Coram: Justices A.S. Chandurkar and M.S. Jawalkar

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 4588/2019

Court Observation: “it was not the intention of the State that short term permit for minor minerals should be granted by way of public auction. The mode of granting such permit on an application made has been retained.”

“On a plain reading of the aforesaid Rules, it is obvious that the procedure for grant of quarry lease under Rule 9 as amended is distinct from the procedure for grant of short term permit under Rule 59. The Forms prescribed under the Rules of 2013 are also distinct. Moreover, Rule 59(1) states that “notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing rules,…….” Rule 59 (1) thus is intended to operate notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing rules including Rule 9,”

“Having found that short term quarry permit under Rule 59(1) of the Rules of 2013 can be granted on an application being made to the Competent Authority, we find that the application made by the petitioners herein are not in accordance with Form P. Rule 61(1) of the Rules of 2013 prescribes the nature of application to be made for grant of quarry permits and therefore if the petitioners seek quarry permit they would be required to apply as per the provisions of Rule 61(1) of the Rules of 2013 and Form P thereof. However rejection of the application as made by the petitioners is for the reason that grant of quarry permits has to be as per public auction which reason has been found to be incorrect. Incidentally, we may observe that holding of public auction would always be preferable than any grant being made on the basis of an application. However, for that purpose there ought to be some statutory provision in that regard which is however absent in Rule 59 of the Rules of 2013.”

Previous Posts

SARFAESI Rajasthan HC Imposes 2Lac Cost For Misrepresentation, Not Availing Alternative Remedy, Not Impleading Necessary Parties & For Keeping Court In Dark

Non Placing & Non Consideration Of Bail Order Vitiates Detaining Authority Subjective Decision: Tripura HC Sets Aside Detention Order

Preventive Detention Not Tenable When Other Penal Laws Sufficient to Deal with the Situation: Gujarat High Court

Writ Petition to Initiate In-House Inquiry against Judges Alleging Misconduct Not Maintainable: Kerala High Court

Can’t Upset Concurrent Findings on Facts Unless There Is Any Illegality, Infirmity or Error of Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court

Suppression of Information about Criminal Case by Candidate in Selection Process Can Be Ignored In Certain Situations: Supreme Court

Claimants Can’t Be Allowed to Take Double Benefit of Two Claims Filed under Two Different Statutes i.e. Motor Vehicle Act & Workmen Compensation Act, Rajasthan HC

Nothing On Record To Even Remotely Suggest That The Act Was Consensual: Supreme Court Upholds Rape Conviction Download Judgement

Keywords

Extraction ,Minor Minerals