<?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>2023 (8) TMI 1714 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468354</link>
    <description>A pending application for a mining lease over Government land does not create a vested right or an enforceable legitimate expectation. The State may amend the mineral concession regime in public interest, including by replacing a first-come first-served process with auction and applying the amended rules to pending applications. The impugned amendments were upheld as valid because they were made under the parent Act&#039;s rule-making power, were not shown to be colourable or malicious, and did not breach natural justice merely because no individual hearing preceded the policy change. Earlier High Court directions did not freeze the pre-existing regime or confer a perpetual right to disposal under it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 15:14:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899270" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 1714 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468354</link>
      <description>A pending application for a mining lease over Government land does not create a vested right or an enforceable legitimate expectation. The State may amend the mineral concession regime in public interest, including by replacing a first-come first-served process with auction and applying the amended rules to pending applications. The impugned amendments were upheld as valid because they were made under the parent Act&#039;s rule-making power, were not shown to be colourable or malicious, and did not breach natural justice merely because no individual hearing preceded the policy change. Earlier High Court directions did not freeze the pre-existing regime or confer a perpetual right to disposal under it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468354</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>