spinner

Allahabad HC: Refund allowed when mining halted due to litigation - UP Minor Minerals Rules 41(H).

Last Updated: 26-10-2023 10:01:53am
Allahabad HC: Refund allowed when mining halted due to litigation - UP Minor Minerals Rules 41(H).

Allahabad HC stated: Under Rule 41(h) of UP Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2023 (Rules, 2021), one can claim a refund during mining litigation-related stoppage.

Justices Siddhartha Varma and Manoj Bajaj, in their ruling, affirmed that the petitioner's situation aligns with Rule 41(h) of UP Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021, allowing a refund request.

The Petitioner was represented by Advocates Swati Singh and Birendra Singh, while the Respondents were represented by Additional Chief Standing Counsel Sandeep Singh.

The Petitioner applied for a license/permit following an advertisement for E-tenders under Rule 23(2)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concessions) Rules, 1863. The Petitioner's bid was approved, and they received a six-month permit upon making a specified payment.

An individual raised concerns about the petitioner's lack of an environmental clearance certificate with the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The NGT, after reviewing the case, instructed the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to reevaluate the environmental clearance. Following this, the petitioner obtained the required environmental clearance. However, the District Magistrate initially allowed the petitioner to continue working for the remaining five months and twenty-one days, considering the permit issued on May 9, 2022, which the Magistrate later revoked. In response to this withdrawal, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in court to challenge the decision.

The Court recognized that the petitioner's situation falls within the scope of Rule 41(h) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 (Rules, 2021), enabling them to request a refund for the period when they couldn't work. Furthermore, the Court ordered the Respondent to refund the royalty amount for the inactive period with an interest rate of 6% per year. However, the Court did not intervene in the Withdrawal Order that prohibited the petitioner from further mining activities.

Therefore, the Court granted partial relief to the Petition.

TAGS: Petitioner National Green Tribunal Environmental clearance District Magistrate Rule 41(h).


Latest Posts

Karnataka High Court Upholds BDA Land Acquisition, Dismisses Petition Filed 53 Years Later

Karnataka High Court Upholds B...

Supreme Court Upholds Prisoners' Right to Legal Aid in Landmark Ruling

Supreme Court Upholds Prisoner...

Supreme Court’s Verdict in Lalta Prasad Vaish & Sons vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court’s Verdict in L...

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Structure for Artificers in Indian Navy

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Stru...

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against HDFC Bank in Locker Operation Dispute

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Agai...

Supreme Court Ruling on Corporate Insolvency Proceedings: Vidyasagar Prasad vs UCO Bank

Supreme Court Ruling on Corpor...

Supreme Court Ruling on Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode's Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court Ruling on Yashod...

Supreme Court Resolves Lease Dispute between Central Warehousing Corporation and Sidhartha Tiles

Supreme Court Resolves Lease D...