Mining Lease - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Sets Aside Mining Tender: “Previous Year” Means Year Before Bid

21Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside Mining Tender: “Previous Year” Means Year Before Bid

The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial review in tender matters ensures fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14. It held that misinterpretation of a tender condition, which wrongly excludes the highest bidder and deprives the state of revenue, vitiates the decision-making process. The court underscored the state's duty to maximize public value in natural resource auctions. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a public auction for a five-year sand quarry lease in Odisha. The appellant, M/s Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd., was the highest bidder but its bid was rejected by the Tender Committee for allegedly failing to comply with Rule 27(4)(iv) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016. The rule required submission of an Income Tax Return for the "previous Financial Year...

Explained: The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Sand Mining and Environmental Clearance

This Supreme Court judgement reaffirms that a valid District Survey Report (DSR), prepared under the EIA Notification, 2016, is mandatory for granting environmental clearance for sand mining. The Supreme Court held that a DSR is legally untenable without a scientific replenishment study, as it forms the foundational basis for determining sustainable extraction limits and ensuring ecological balance. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the grant of an Environmental Clearance (EC) for sand mining in three blocks on the Shaliganga Nallah in Jammu & Kashmir. The project proponent, contracted by the National Highway Authority of India for a Srinagar ring road, applied for the EC. Initially, the J&K Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) rejected the proposal in January 2022, citing ...

Sand Mining Case: Supreme Court Explains State’s Power to Fix DMF Charges for Minor Minerals

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals challenging demand notices for depositing 10% of the total bid amount with the District Mineral Foundation (DMF). The Court held that Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, is inapplicable to minor minerals due to Section 14. The State Government is empowered under Section 15A to fix the amount payable to the DMF for minor minerals. The Court found the demand consistent with statutory provisions and the 2017 Rules Facts Of The Case: Chandra Bhan Singh, a successful bidder for mining minor minerals (sand), was allotted a tender. In line with the Policy decision dated April 22, 2017, the Appellant was required to deposit an amount of ₹54,12,960/-, representing 10% of the total bid amount of ₹5,41,29,600/-, to the Dis...