STATE OF M.P. versus MAHALAXMI FABRIC MILLS LTD. AND ORS.

STATE OF M.P. versus MAHALAXMI FABRIC MILLS LTD. AND ORS.

Section 9(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 is within Parliament's legislative competence under Entry 54 and, alternatively, Entry 97 of the Union List. Delegation to the Central Government for revising royalty rates is not excessive delegation, as guidelines and fetters exist. The...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: State of Madhya Pradesh; Respondent: Mahalaxmi Fabric Mills Ltd.; Appellant: Union of India; Appellant: Birla Jute and Industries Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 February 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Writ Petitions
Outcome
Appeals allowed; writ petitions dismissed; High Court orders quashed and set aside.
Legal Topics
Legislative Competence, Delegated Legislation, Royalty on Minerals, Ultra Vires, Colourable Exercise of Power
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Taxation Law Mining Law Legislative Competence Delegated Legislation Royalty on Minerals Ultra Vires +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Madhya Pradesh

Appellant

Mahalaxmi Fabric Mills Ltd.

Respondent

Union of India

Appellant

Birla Jute and Industries Ltd.

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Writ Petitions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 9(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 is ultra vires the Constitution or illegal on other grounds?
  2. 2 Whether the Notification dated 1.8.1991 issued under Section 9(3) is beyond the scope of Section 9(3), incompetent, and invalid?
  3. 3 Whether the Notification is a piece of colourable exercise of power?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 9(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 is within Parliament's legislative competence under Entry 54 and, alternatively, Entry 97 of the Union List. Delegation to the Central Government for revising royalty rates is not excessive delegation, as guidelines and fetters exist. The impugned Notification enhancing royalty on coal is neither ultra vires, nor arbitrary, nor a colourable exercise of power, and serves a legitimate regulatory and developmental purpose.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; writ petitions dismissed; High Court orders quashed and set aside.

Orders

  • Judgment and order of the High Court in M.P. No. 10/93 dated 17.12.93 quashed and writ petition dismissed.
  • Judgment and order of the High Court in Misc. Petition No. 7907/92 dated 17.12.93 quashed and petition dismissed.