Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960

42 judgments · newest first · showing 1–42

KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 848

The petitioners, a mining leaseholder and its shareholder, challenged the explanations to Rule 38 of the Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 and Rule 45 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017, alleging that the inclusion of previously …

B.L.A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 838

B.L.A. Industries Private Limited sought relief under Article 32, contending that it had not been allocated a coal block through the illegal Screening Committee process that the Supreme Court had struck down in the Manohar Lal Sharma judgments. The petitioner had applied for a mining lease to the …

M.E. SHIVALINGAMURTHYversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BENGALURU

2020 INSC 6Dismissed

The case involved a partnership firm (AMC) whose reconstitution in 2009 led the Director of Mines and Geology of Karnataka (the appellant) to issue Mineral Dispatch Permits (MDPs) to the new partners. The Central Bureau of Investigation alleged that the appellant acted without the prior State …

COMMON CAUSEversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2017 INSC 700IA disposed

The Supreme Court examined the legality of Sarda Mines Private Limited’s (SMPL) mining operations after it received a permission on 13 July 1999 to extract 1.4 LTPA of mineral iron ore and an environmental clearance on 22 September 2004 for expanding production of iron ore (lump) to 4.0 MTPA. The …

COMMON CAUSEversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2017 INSC 700Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined a massive illegal mining scandal in Odisha involving 187 iron and manganese ore leases, many of which operated without environmental or forest clearances, exceeded mining plans, or violated statutory provisions. The Court rejected the lease‑holders' claim that the Justice …

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.versusNIRMALABEN S. MEHTA & ANR. ETC.

2016 INSC 523Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat entered into a 20‑year mining lease with the respondents for bauxite extraction. The State later de‑reserved the mining area and sought Central Government permission to impose conditions, including the establishment of a captive plant, under Rule 27(3) of the Mineral Concession …

STATE OF KERALA & ORS.versusM/S. KERALA RARE EARTH & MINERALS LIMITED & ORS.

2016 INSC 301Dismissed

The State of Kerala granted mining leases for beach‑sand minerals but later stayed them pending an environmental impact study and subsequently rejected the applications, citing its 2007 industrial policy that such minerals be exploited only by State or Central public‑sector undertakings. The …

COMMON CAUSEversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 700

The Supreme Court examined whether mining leaseholders, whose operations were suspended for lack of environmental clearances, retained a subsisting right to mine. It held that a lease remains subsisting unless a State Government order declares it lapsed, and that the lease period may be deemed …

TATA STEEL LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2015 INSC 224Disposed off

Tata Steel and its subsidiary TISCO operate captive coal mines in Jharkhand. The dispute concerned whether royalty under Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 should be levied on raw Run‑of‑Mine (ROM) coal extracted at the pit‑head or on the beneficiated coal …

COMMON CAUSEversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2014 INSC 975Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined illegal mining in Odisha where numerous leaseholders were operating without environmental or forest clearances and without renewal under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The Central Empowered Committee identified 102 non‑working leases, 29 …

BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTDversusRAJESH VERMA & ORS.

2014 INSC 308Disposed off

Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. (BPSL) entered into a 2002 MOU with the Odisha State Government, which obliged the State to recommend iron‑ore mining leases for its steel plant. The Supreme Court, in a 2012 appeal, directed the State to act on the MOU for both the Thakurani and Keora areas. While the …

GOA FOUNDATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 962Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined public‑interest petitions concerning illegal iron‑ore mining in Goa, the validity of the Justice Shah Commission report, and the status of mining leases deemed to have arisen from pre‑1961 Portuguese concessions. It held that the Commission’s report could not be quashed …

DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANOTHER

2013 INSC 837Directions issued

The cement companies, claiming to be ryotwari pattadars, challenged a Tamil Nadu Government order that required them to pay full royalty and dead rent on mining leases, arguing they were entitled to a 50% concessional rate. The High Court had partially restrained the State from demanding royalty …

THREESIAMMA JACOB & ORS.versusGEOLOGIST, DPTI. OF MINING & GEOLOGY & ORS.

2013 INSC 447Disposed off

The petitioners, holders of jenmi rights in Malabar, Kerala, challenged the State's demand for royalties on minerals extracted from their lands, arguing that they owned the sub‑soil. The Kerala High Court held that the minerals belonged to the State and dismissed the writ petitions. On appeal, the …

M.P. STATE MINING CORPORATION LTD.versusSANJEEV BHASKAR & ORS.

2013 INSC 416Appeal(s) allowed

The original mining lease granted to Rajendra Nath Bhaskar was revoked after 13 years. Bhaskar died during the pendency of his challenge, and no substitution petition was filed by his heirs. The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the revocation but the lease expired, and the heirs later sought to …

K. GURUPRASAD RAOversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 397Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard a public‑interest writ petition seeking the cancellation of a mining lease and a ban on mining within one kilometre of the 16th‑century Jambunatha Temple, a protected monument in Karnataka. The petition challenged mining activities that were alleged to have caused structural …

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusHINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. & ANR.

2013 INSC 149Disposed off

The State of Rajasthan leased land to Hindustan Zinc Ltd. for extracting lead and zinc under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The State issued notices demanding additional royalty, arguing that royalty should be payable on all metal extracted, including that remaining …

STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.versusM/S MESCO STEELS LTD. & ANR.

2013 INSC 138Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Orissa granted a mining lease to MESCO Steels Ltd. for iron ore, but later a Director of Mines issued an intra‑departmental communication recommending reduction of the lease area due to overlapping claims and forest land. The State then issued a show‑cause notice to MESCO, which the …

M/S. KALINGA MINING CORPORATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2013 INSC 83Dismissed

M/s Kalinga Mining Corporation (appellant) challenged the grant of a mining lease to the legal heirs of the deceased Dr. Sarojini Pradhan (respondent No.10). The High Court had earlier allowed the substitution of the legal heirs, dismissed an SLP against that order, and later upheld the lease grant. …

MONNET ISPAT & ENERGY LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2012 INSC 305Dismissed

The appellants, companies engaged in iron and steel production, entered into Memorandums of Understanding with the State Government of Jharkhand for mining leases of iron ore in the Ghatkuri area. The State Government recommended their applications to the Central Government for prior approval. …

BHUSHAN POWER AND STEEL LTD. AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

2012 INSC 131Appeal(s) allowed

Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. (appellant) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the State of Orissa on 15 May 2002, wherein the State agreed to recommend iron‑ore mining leases for the appellant’s integrated steel plant. After restructuring of the Bhushan group, the State claimed the …

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2011 INSC 715Appeal(s) allowed

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., the lessee of a limestone mining lease granted by the Government of Maharashtra on 12‑Feb‑1980, challenged demand notices for Zilla Parishad (ZP) cess and Gram Panchayat (GP) cess for the years 1987‑1992. The appellant argued that Section 151(1) of the Maharashtra Zilla …

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2009 INSC 750Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined extensive illegal mining in the Aravalli Hills of Haryana, where numerous mines operated without environmental clearances, rehabilitation plans, or compliance with statutory reclamation requirements, causing severe groundwater depletion and ecological damage. The Court …

M/S. S.S. & COMPANYversusORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED

2008 INSC 421Dismissed

The Orissa Mining Corporation issued a series of Notice Inviting Tenders (NITs) for raising, calibration and transport of iron ore. In NIT‑85 the corporation amended eligibility clause 8(vii) by removing a six‑month overlapping margin and clause 8(i) by excluding experience with minor minerals. Two …

THE GOVERNMENT OF GOAversusM/S. A.H. JAFFAR AND SONS AND ANR.

2008 INSC 408Case Partly allowed

The Government of Goa appealed against a Bombay High Court order that directed the respondents, M/s A.H. Jaffar and Sons, to dispose of the Government's application for a mining lease within six weeks and imposed exemplary costs. The respondents had earlier filed a writ petition in 1993 seeking the …

ADHUNIK STEELS LTD.versusORISSA MANGANESE AND MINERALS PVT. LTD.

2007 INSC 742Disposed off

O.M.M. Private Limited, holder of a mining lease, terminated its contract with Adhunik Steels Ltd., alleging violation of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Adhunik filed a Section 9 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking an interim injunction to restrain …

M/S INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 986Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined multiple appeals concerning the allocation of chromite mining leases in Orissa. The State Government had recommended, under Section 17A(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, that a block of 436.295 hectares be reserved for exploitation by the …

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD.versusSTATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 542Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh enhanced the royalty payable on coal and sought recovery of the differential amount from South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (the Coalfields) and the ultimate consumers. The Coalfields, bound by their mining lease and Mineral Concession Rules, were required to pay simple …

SALIGRAM KHIRWALversusUNION OF INDIA

2003 INSC 463Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was granted a mining lease in 1980, while the late Dr. Sarojini Pradhan, who had also applied for a lease, filed a writ petition challenging the grant. Dr. Pradhan died during the pendency of the petition and her legal heirs were allowed to substitute her. The Orissa High Court set …

M/S INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 543Disposed off

The dispute concerned the legality of the Orissa State Government's recommendation to grant a mining lease of 84.881 hectares of chromite to Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. (respondent ‘N’) and the subsequent approval of that recommendation by the Central Government. The appellant, Indian Charge …

K.M. CHINNAPPA IN T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 452IA disposed

The Supreme Court considered an interlocutory application filed by a wildlife trustee seeking an injunction to stop mining by Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. in Kudremukh National Park, a area declared a national park under the Wildlife Protection Act. The company argued that its mining lease, expiring …

VERIGAMTO NAVEENversusGOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

2001 INSC 447Case Partly allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh had granted mining leases to its corporation and, with its permission, sub‑leases to private parties. The State later withdrew permission for the sub‑leases, leading the sub‑lessees to file writ petitions alleging illegal cancellation and seeking compensation. The High …

FERRO ALLOYS CORPN. LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1999 INSC 124Dismissed

Ferro Alloys Corp. Ltd (FACOR) sought a mining lease for chromite in Sukinda Valley after the Central Government, following a high‑power expert committee (Sharma Committee), reduced the area previously granted to Tata Iron & Steel Co. (TISCO). The Committee assessed the needs of all claimants, …

DHARAMBIR SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 1081Dismissed

Dharmabir Singh applied for a prospecting licence and mining lease for limestone deposits in Haryana, claiming a preferential right under Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957. The State Government notified the area under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, …

STATE OF ORISSAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

1994 INSC 600Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Orissa, owner of mineral resources, issued a notification for regranting a mining area. Applications for mining leases were filed but not disposed of within the 12‑month period prescribed by Rule 24 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, and were therefore deemed refused. The applicants …

CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

1994 INSC 603Dismissed

Central Coalfields Ltd. constructed office buildings and staff quarters in the Singrauli area without obtaining permission from the Special Areas Development Authority (SADA) under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. SADA ordered the demolition of the structures under section …

INDIA CEMENT LTD.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU ETC.

1989 INSC 322Appeal(s) allowed

India Cement Ltd., a cement manufacturer, obtained a mining lease for limestone and kankar under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The lease required payment of royalty fixed by the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957. The Tamil Nadu government, invoking sections 115 and 116 of …

JANAK LALversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

1989 INSC 242Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a resident of Bazargaon village in Nagpur district, challenged the grant of a mining lease to respondent No. 4 over land that had been reserved for Nistar (grazing) purposes. The earlier application for a mining lease had been rejected because of this reservation, but the lease was …

VINODKUMAR SHANTILAL GOSALIAversusGANGADHAR NARSINGDAS AGARWAL & ORS.

1981 INSC 150Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant obtained a prospecting licence and later a mining lease for an area in Goa after the territory was annexed by India. Respondent 1 had purchased four Portuguese "Titles of Manifest" before annexation and had applied for mining concessions, which were later deemed to have lapsed by the …