TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Affirms Jurisdiction Limits on High Court in Mining Lease Dispute</h1> The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 226 as the final order on a mining lease application was issued by the ... Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting application for grant of a mining lease for manganese ore over an area comprising 5400 acres situated in the district of Keonjhar on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter under Art. 226 as the final order in the case was passed by the Central Government which was located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court? Held that:- The High Court was right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to issue a writ under Art. 226 in the present case as the final order in this case was that of the Central Government which was not situate within the territories over which the High Court has jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 in cases where the final order is passed by an authority located outside its territorial jurisdiction.Analysis:The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the Orissa High Court's judgment regarding a mining lease application. The appellant applied for a mining lease in 1949, but the State Government decided to grant the lease to another party. The Central Government rejected the recommendation to grant the lease to the other party in 1957. The appellant challenged this decision through a review petition, which was also rejected. The appellant then approached the High Court under Article 226, but the High Court held that it had no jurisdiction as the final order was passed by the Central Government, located outside its territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the High Court's power under Article 226 is limited to its territorial jurisdiction and the authority must be amenable to its jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the final order in this case was passed by the Central Government, making it beyond the High Court's jurisdiction to issue a writ.2. Application of the principle of merger in the context of dismissal orders and subsequent review decisions.Analysis:The appellant argued that the principle of merger, as discussed in previous cases, should not apply in this case. The Court examined the principle of merger in the context of dismissal orders and subsequent review decisions. It distinguished the present case from previous judgments, emphasizing that the Central Government's rejection of the review petition effectively rejected the appellant's application for the mining lease. The Court clarified that the Central Government's order, being final under the Mineral Concession Rules, prevailed over the State Government's decision. The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on a previous case where the State Government's order was set aside on review, as the circumstances differed from the present case where the Central Government's decision was final and binding.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision on jurisdiction and emphasizing the finality of the Central Government's order in the mining lease application process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
