https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288055 A writ challenge to mineral concession processing was held maintainable because revision lay only against a communicated order, the claim was not premature, and delay and laches did not bar relief. The area was treated as non-reserved because earlier reservation notifications had lost effect after the statutory changes and lacked the required Central approval, so the 1991 notification could not sustain a reservation. For applications filed before the amendment, the earlier applicant retained preferential consideration, and a later applicant could be preferred only for exceptional recorded special reasons with the required approval. The recommendation favouring the later applicant was therefore invalid, and reconsideration of all pending applications was directed. en-us Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 May 2020 18:18:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288055 A writ challenge to mineral concession processing was held maintainable because revision lay only against a communicated order, the claim was not premature, and delay and laches did not bar relief. The area was treated as non-reserved because earlier reservation notifications had lost effect after the statutory changes and lacked the required Central approval, so the 1991 notification could not sustain a reservation. For applications filed before the amendment, the earlier applicant retained preferential consideration, and a later applicant could be preferred only for exceptional recorded special reasons with the required approval. The recommendation favouring the later applicant was therefore invalid, and reconsideration of all pending applications was directed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288055