Disposed

Hindustan Zinc Limited v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC9 Dec 2019CW/17553/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hindustan Zinc Limited challenged a 2015 amendment to the MMDR Act. The Court held that the writ application was infructuous due to the Supreme Court's directions in Bhushan Power & Steel Limited, which mandated that pending applications be treated under specific procedures. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ as infructuous while leaving the core issues open before the Tribunal and the l

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of as infructuous; issues left open before the Single Judge.

Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs Union of India — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17553/2018

¶3

Hindustan Zinc Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Yashad Bhawan, Swaroop Sagar, Udaipur Through- Shree Vineet Bose Son Of Shri S.c. Bose, Aged About 38 Years, General Manager (Legal), Hindustan Zinc Limited, Udaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Mines, Government Of India.

¶7

Department Of Mines, Govt Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Jaipur- 302001.

¶8

Deparmtent Of Mines And Geology, Through Director, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Raj.)- 313001.

¶9

Revisional Authority, Joint Secretary, Ministry Of Mines, Government Of India.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Dr.Sachin Acharya. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Shah, AAG. Mr.Nrapen Shanker Acharya on behalf of Mr. Sanjeet Purohit

¶12

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Judgment

¶14

09/12/2019

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to preliminary submissions made by Union of India and in particular to what was asserted in para-2 thereof.

¶17

Our attention was also drawn to para-5 of its preliminary reply by Union of India pleading that all pending applications are not made per-se ineligible. Sub-section (2) makes several categories of applications eligible. While drawing our attention to

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-17553/2018]

¶20

para-5, learned counsel for the petitioner further drew our attention to the fact that pending disposal of the writ application, the application moved by the petitioner came to be rejected by the State and he further submits on instructions that challenge there to was made before the Tribunal constituted under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short ‘MMDR Act’ ahead) and having failed therein challenge has been made before this Court and the matter is pending before learned Single Judge.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this writ application challenge was made to the amendment carried out in 2015 to the MMDR Act. Pending this challenge, the Hon`ble Apex Court in the case of Bhushan Power and Steel Limited Vs. S.L. Seal and Ors., reported in 2017(2) SCC 125 dealt with the consequences of the amendment and interpretation thereof and have issued necessary directions of the manner in which pending applications were to be treated. Consequently, we are of the view that the question of validity of the amendment act need not be gone into by this Court since the rejection of petitioner’s application is separately under adjudication before the learned Single Judge.

¶22

In view of the developments noted hereinabove and keeping in mind the directions of Hon`ble Supreme Court in Bhushan Power & Steel Limited (supra), we find that nothing survives in this writ application at this stage.

¶23

Accordingly, we dispose of this writ application as infructuous while at the same time leaving the issues open raised by the petitioner in so far as writ application pending before learned Single Judge. Nothing stated herein shall have any impact or

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-17553/2018]

¶26

consequence on the rights of the petitioner or of the State or of the Union of India.

¶27

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶28

(INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

¶29

44 Sanjay/-

Hindustan Zinc Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Zinc Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs M/S Trinetra Cement Ltd.

The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., Vs Manju Lunker

Karan Mal Dani Vs State of Rajasthan

Rasheed Car Jeep Repairing Works, Vs Imran Modi

Parasmal Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Vs Vijay Ram