TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether rule 72 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 applied to an area that had earlier been leased under Chapter IV and was later withdrawn from auction/tender procedure; (ii) Whether the District Magistrate could be directed to consider the respondent's earlier application dated 4.7.1995, or whether a fresh notice under rule 72 was necessary.
Issue (i): Whether rule 72 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 applied to an area that had earlier been leased under Chapter IV and was later withdrawn from auction/tender procedure.
Analysis: The earlier decision did not decide the applicability of rule 72 and therefore did not operate as a binding precedent on that point, since an issue not consciously considered is not decided sub silentio in the sense of Article 141. Rule 72 was introduced to ensure transparency and to prevent favoritism or clandestine dealing in the grant of mining leases. Reading the rule literally so as to exclude land previously leased under Chapter IV would defeat that object after the area had been withdrawn and made subject to the normal procedure. A construction that suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy was therefore required.
Conclusion: Rule 72 applied to the area in question, and the quashing of the State Government's lease order for non-compliance with that rule was in law.
Issue (ii): Whether the District Magistrate could be directed to consider the respondent's earlier application dated 4.7.1995, or whether a fresh notice under rule 72 was necessary.
Analysis: The earlier order of the Court had authorised issuance of a fresh notice in accordance with law. Once fresh notice was required, applications had to be invited afresh from all eligible persons, and an application made pursuant to an earlier notice could not be treated as surviving for consideration. The process had to be restarted under rule 72 so that all interested parties could compete on equal terms.
Conclusion: The direction to consider the earlier application dated 4.7.1995 was unsustainable; a fresh notice and fresh consideration of applications under rule 72 were required.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: the lease granted in favour of the appellant remained quashed, but the direction to consider the respondent's earlier application was set aside, leaving the authorities to proceed afresh under rule 72.
Ratio Decidendi: A provision governing regrant of mining leases must be construed purposively to secure transparency and prevent abuse of the leasing process, and an earlier decision is not binding on an issue that was not consciously decided.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
