Section 14 - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...

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...

Tag: Section 14

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

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