<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2000 (1) TMI 984 - Andhra High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174530</link>
    <description>Rule 12 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 requires an applicant for prospecting licence to be given an opportunity of being heard and reasons to be recorded before refusal. A personal oral hearing is not invariably required; fair compliance can be achieved through show-cause notice and consideration of the written explanation, depending on the nature of the matter and the right involved. In assessing a prospecting licence application, the Government may consider relevant factors such as need, reserve availability, plant capacity, expansion plans and competing applications. On that basis, the refusal was held valid and not vitiated by absence of personal hearing or reliance on irrelevant considerations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2015 15:47:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400738" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 984 - Andhra High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174530</link>
      <description>Rule 12 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 requires an applicant for prospecting licence to be given an opportunity of being heard and reasons to be recorded before refusal. A personal oral hearing is not invariably required; fair compliance can be achieved through show-cause notice and consideration of the written explanation, depending on the nature of the matter and the right involved. In assessing a prospecting licence application, the Government may consider relevant factors such as need, reserve availability, plant capacity, expansion plans and competing applications. On that basis, the refusal was held valid and not vitiated by absence of personal hearing or reliance on irrelevant considerations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174530</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>