https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272380 Consent for sub-leasing of barytes mining areas, once acted upon and crystallised into executed sub-leases and commenced operations, could not be withdrawn or cancelled without notice to the affected sub-lessees. The Court treated a reasonable opportunity of hearing as mandatory before any adverse action affecting possession and mining rights, and held that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act could not be used where the statutory scheme and context were inconsistent with such withdrawal. It also held that the impugned action could not be justified under Section 4A, Rule 37, or the State's executive power, since executive power cannot displace Central mineral regulation and the order was not founded on a breach attracting Rule 37. en-us Fri, 02 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 May 2018 12:18:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272380 Consent for sub-leasing of barytes mining areas, once acted upon and crystallised into executed sub-leases and commenced operations, could not be withdrawn or cancelled without notice to the affected sub-lessees. The Court treated a reasonable opportunity of hearing as mandatory before any adverse action affecting possession and mining rights, and held that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act could not be used where the statutory scheme and context were inconsistent with such withdrawal. It also held that the impugned action could not be justified under Section 4A, Rule 37, or the State's executive power, since executive power cannot displace Central mineral regulation and the order was not founded on a breach attracting Rule 37. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272380