Courts Update Meghalaya HC dismisses PIL seeking a declaration of provisions...

Meghalaya HC dismisses PIL seeking a declaration of provisions of Mines Act ultra-vires

-

Shillong, Oct 29 (ILNS) The Meghalaya High Court on October 26, while observing that Section 10A(2)(b) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is not applicable to the State of Meghalaya dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), filed seeking a declaration that Section 10A(2)(b) of the said Act as ultra vires of the Constitution of India.

The PIL filed by N.D. Rumnong sought the following reliefs: 
“ To Declare the first proviso newly inserted in Section 10A(2)(b) of the Act, vide Section 13(i) of the Amendment Act, 2021, as ultra vires of the Constitution of India for being discriminatory and manifestly arbitrary on the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and against the public interest, and/or 
To save the said first proviso from being rendered unconstitutional, this Hon’ble Court may please expound the scope of the same in such manner in the public interest so that apart from pending applications, it would also nullify and render void all such Orders which had allowed pending applications saved by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10A and grant a prospecting licence or a mining lease prior to the commencement of the said Amendment Act, 2021, but a licence is yet to be issued or a mining lease deed is yet to be executed and registered as per the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016.”

The petitioner has approached the High Court in the interest of the general public of Meghalaya and of most people who are affected by the impugned order/notification who are unable to approach the High Court for personal reasons.

Advocate General A.Kumar challenged the maintainability of the  PIL in Meghalaya High Court on the ground that Section 10A (2)(b) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is not applicable in the State of Meghalaya by virtue of the provision of Section 10 (Application for prospecting licences or mining leases) of the said Act.

He also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal named State of Meghalaya vs. All Dimasa Students Union, Dima-Hasao District Committee and Ors. with connected appeals (2019) 8SCC 177.

The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice  Ranjit More and Justice H.S.Thangkhiew having perused the provision of Section 10 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957  coupled with the decision of the Apex Court in State of Meghalaya (supra),  are of the view that Section 10A(2)(b) is not applicable to the State of Meghalaya, and dismissed the Public Interest Litigation.

It is pertinent to note that in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act Act, 2021 section 13 reads-“In section 10A of the principal Act, in sub-section (2),— 
(i) in clause (b), the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:— “Provided that for the cases covered under this clause including the pending cases, the right to obtain a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease or a mining lease, as the case may be, shall lapse on the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2021: Provided further that the holder of a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence whose rights lapsed under the first proviso, shall be reimbursed the expenditure incurred towards reconnaissance or prospecting operations in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.”; 
(ii) after clause (c), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:— “(d) in cases where the right to obtain licence or lease has lapsed under, clauses (b) and (c), such areas shall be put up for auction as per the provisions of this Act: Provided that in respect of the minerals specified in Part B of the First Schedule where the grade of atomic mineral is equal to or greater than the threshold value, the mineral concession for such areas shall be granted in accordance with the rules made under section 11B.”./ILNS/SS/SNG/

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest news

Meghalaya HC dismisses PIL seeking a declaration of provisions of Mines Act ultra-vires

Shillong, Oct 29 (ILNS) The Meghalaya High Court on October 26, while observing that Section 10A(2)(b) of...

Plea in Delhi HC seeking removal of the protesting foreign nationals from the locality of Vasant Vihar and for settling them at appropriate dwellings...

New Delhi, Oct 29, (ILNS) The Delhi High Court, on Friday, sought the response from the Centre,...

Supreme Court dismisses anticipatory bail plea of man accused of raping woman several times

New Delhi, Oct 29 (ILNS) The Supreme Court today dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a man...

Delhi HC asks parties to settle matter in suit filed by families of victims of 2016 Dhaka terror attack

New Delhi, Oct 29 (ILNS) The Delhi High Court asked the parties to amicably settle the matter...

Allahabad High Court grants anticipatory bail to tanker owner accused of selling fake diesel

Allahabad, Oct 29 (ILNS) The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Jitendra Pratap Chand, accused of...

Must read

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you