https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172407 A final judicial direction requiring the State to recommend grant of a mining lease remained binding in contempt proceedings, and the State could not resist compliance by reopening the merits, relying on later developments, or invoking subsequent case-law. Non-compliance was therefore treated as contempt in relation to the Keora area, with a final opportunity given to purge the contempt by making the required recommendation. Separate writ petitions under Article 32 seeking parity relief were not maintainable because non-grant of a mining lease does not itself infringe a fundamental right; the petitioners were left to pursue remedies before the High Court or another appropriate forum. en-us Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:04:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172407 A final judicial direction requiring the State to recommend grant of a mining lease remained binding in contempt proceedings, and the State could not resist compliance by reopening the merits, relying on later developments, or invoking subsequent case-law. Non-compliance was therefore treated as contempt in relation to the Keora area, with a final opportunity given to purge the contempt by making the required recommendation. Separate writ petitions under Article 32 seeking parity relief were not maintainable because non-grant of a mining lease does not itself infringe a fundamental right; the petitioners were left to pursue remedies before the High Court or another appropriate forum. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172407