https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172340 A Memorandum of Understanding remained operative where it had already been acted upon and the project proponent had altered its position and invested on that basis; the State's attempt to insist on a fresh memorandum was arbitrary and inconsistent with the legitimate expectation created by its own conduct. The State was also required to act consistently with earlier commitments and could not deny comparable relaxation under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 when similarly placed applicants had received such benefit. On that reasoning, the earlier MoU continued in force, and the rejection of the mining-lease claim was set aside with directions to proceed under the original arrangement. en-us Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172340 A Memorandum of Understanding remained operative where it had already been acted upon and the project proponent had altered its position and invested on that basis; the State's attempt to insist on a fresh memorandum was arbitrary and inconsistent with the legitimate expectation created by its own conduct. The State was also required to act consistently with earlier commitments and could not deny comparable relaxation under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 when similarly placed applicants had received such benefit. On that reasoning, the earlier MoU continued in force, and the rejection of the mining-lease claim was set aside with directions to proceed under the original arrangement. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172340