Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K M Nataraj on Friday took strong exception to Karnataka High Court Chief Justice S K Mukherjee's stand on disposing off six petitions of mining companies.
There are six petitions before the high court requesting Letter of Intent (LoI) from the court to the Karnataka government regarding issuance of contract permits for mining.
Sections 10 (a) and 2 (c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 were amended in 2015. As per the amendment, contract permits for mining should be e-auctioned from January 11, 2017 onwards.
Three mining firms Vir Sponge and Power Limited, Sri Jai Santhoshi Matha Mining and Twenty First Century Group had filed appeals in the court to dispose off the pending petitions before January 11, 2017.
During hearing of petitions on Friday, Nataraj intervened when Justice Mukherjee started dictating the order to dispose off the petitions quoting the Andhra Pradesh High Court's observation in a similar case.
Taking objection to it, Nataraj stood up and said that the order will be favourable to mine owners and there was no transparency. He also told the Chief Justice that he was not using his discretionary powers properly. You have not considered the points highlighted during arguments of the case. Every thing looks like a conspiracy. Hence, you should not dispose off the petitions today, the ASG said.
Nataraj's observations surprised Justice Mukherjee who stopped dictating the order. He adjourned the matter to January 2, 2017 and said that he would deliver the order after a detailed study.
Miners should obtain consent from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and other departments of the Union government before applying for contract permits for mining.
The Supreme Court had delivered a verdict on December 15, 2016 with regard to obtaining consent and permits for contract mining. Nataraj was of the opinion that Justice Mukherjee had ignored the Supreme Court's observations and completely relied upon the Andhra Pradesh High Court's observations.![]( "There are six petitions before the high court requesting Letter of Intent (LoI) from the court to the Karnataka government regarding issuance of contract permits for mining. DH file photo")
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K M Nataraj on Friday took strong exception to Karnataka High Court Chief Justice S K Mukherjee’s stand on disposing off six petitions of mining companies.
There are six petitions before the high court requesting Letter of Intent (LoI) from the court to the Karnataka government regarding issuance of contract permits for mining.
Sections 10 (a) and 2 (c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 were amended in 2015. As per the amendment, contract permits for mining should be e-auctioned from January 11, 2017 onwards.
Three mining firms Vir Sponge and Power Limited, Sri Jai Santhoshi Matha Mining and Twenty First Century Group had filed appeals in the court to dispose off the pending petitions before January 11, 2017.
During hearing of petitions on Friday, Nataraj intervened when Justice Mukherjee started dictating the order to dispose off the petitions quoting the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s observation in a similar case.
Taking objection to it, Nataraj stood up and said that the order will be favourable to mine owners and there was no transparency. He also told the Chief Justice that he was not using his discretionary powers properly. You have not considered the points highlighted during arguments of the case. Every thing looks like a conspiracy. Hence, you should not dispose off the petitions today, the ASG said.
Nataraj’s observations surprised Justice Mukherjee who stopped dictating the order. He adjourned the matter to January 2, 2017 and said that he would deliver the order after a detailed study.
Miners should obtain consent from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and other departments of the Union government before applying for contract permits for mining.
The Supreme Court had delivered a verdict on December 15, 2016 with regard to obtaining consent and permits for contract mining. Nataraj was of the opinion that Justice Mukherjee had ignored the Supreme Court’s observations and completely relied upon the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s observations.
There are six petitions before the high court requesting Letter of Intent (LoI) from the court to the Karnataka government regarding issuance of contract permits for mining.
Sections 10 (a) and 2 (c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 were amended in 2015. As per the amendment, contract permits for mining should be e-auctioned from January 11, 2017 onwards.
Three mining firms Vir Sponge and Power Limited, Sri Jai Santhoshi Matha Mining and Twenty First Century Group had filed appeals in the court to dispose off the pending petitions before January 11, 2017.
During hearing of petitions on Friday, Nataraj intervened when Justice Mukherjee started dictating the order to dispose off the petitions quoting the Andhra Pradesh High Court's observation in a similar case.
Taking objection to it, Nataraj stood up and said that the order will be favourable to mine owners and there was no transparency. He also told the Chief Justice that he was not using his discretionary powers properly. You have not considered the points highlighted during arguments of the case. Every thing looks like a conspiracy. Hence, you should not dispose off the petitions today, the ASG said.
Nataraj's observations surprised Justice Mukherjee who stopped dictating the order. He adjourned the matter to January 2, 2017 and said that he would deliver the order after a detailed study.
Miners should obtain consent from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and other departments of the Union government before applying for contract permits for mining.
The Supreme Court had delivered a verdict on December 15, 2016 with regard to obtaining consent and permits for contract mining. Nataraj was of the opinion that Justice Mukherjee had ignored the Supreme Court's observations and completely relied upon the Andhra Pradesh High Court's observations.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K M Nataraj on Friday took strong exception to Karnataka High Court Chief Justice S K Mukherjee’s stand on disposing off six petitions of mining companies.There are six petitions before the high court requesting Letter of Intent (LoI) from the court to the Karnataka government regarding issuance of contract permits for mining.
Sections 10 (a) and 2 (c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 were amended in 2015. As per the amendment, contract permits for mining should be e-auctioned from January 11, 2017 onwards.
Three mining firms Vir Sponge and Power Limited, Sri Jai Santhoshi Matha Mining and Twenty First Century Group had filed appeals in the court to dispose off the pending petitions before January 11, 2017.
During hearing of petitions on Friday, Nataraj intervened when Justice Mukherjee started dictating the order to dispose off the petitions quoting the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s observation in a similar case.
Taking objection to it, Nataraj stood up and said that the order will be favourable to mine owners and there was no transparency. He also told the Chief Justice that he was not using his discretionary powers properly. You have not considered the points highlighted during arguments of the case. Every thing looks like a conspiracy. Hence, you should not dispose off the petitions today, the ASG said.
Nataraj’s observations surprised Justice Mukherjee who stopped dictating the order. He adjourned the matter to January 2, 2017 and said that he would deliver the order after a detailed study.
Miners should obtain consent from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and other departments of the Union government before applying for contract permits for mining.
The Supreme Court had delivered a verdict on December 15, 2016 with regard to obtaining consent and permits for contract mining. Nataraj was of the opinion that Justice Mukherjee had ignored the Supreme Court’s observations and completely relied upon the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s observations.