M/S. Orissa Industries vs Union Of India & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5549 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                            W.P.(C) No. 23819 of 2022
M/s. Orissa Industries                 .....                                  Petitioner
Limited, Bhubaneswar
                                                                 Mr.A.Pal, Advocate
                                 Vs.
Union of India & others                .....                         Opposite Parties
                                                          Mr. P.P.Mohanty, A.G.A.
                                                             Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI

                CORAM:
                   DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                   Mr. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                                              ORDER

14.10.2022

Order No.

01. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to declare Section 10A(2)(b) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as ultra vires. In support of his contention, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru passed in Writ Petition No. 1920 of 2021 and batch disposed of on 27.05.2022 (Indocil Sillicons Private Limited and others Vrs. Union of India and others), wherein the High Court of Karnataka has come to a conclusion that if the legislature was desirous of revoking the said vested rights, the amendment would have been made to the main provision or the said provision could have been omitted with retrospective effect and having not done so and rather having opted the legislative tool of a proviso being inserted to the

main provision, the well settled principles of the object and purpose of a proviso would come into play. As such, the proviso does not take away vested rights with retrospective effect, the writ petition which has been filed by the petitioner claiming that the right under Section 10A(2)(b) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as already fructified and being a vested right, has to be proceeded with based on the law as it stood then and taken to its logical conclusion.

4. In the opinion of this Court, the matter requires consideration.

5. Issue notice to opposite parties.

6. One extra copy of the writ petition be served on learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for opposite party No.1 within three days enabling him to obtain instructions or file counter affidavit.

7. Four extra copies of the writ petition be served on learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for opposite parties no. 2 to 5 within three days enabling him to obtain instructions or file counter affidavit.

                                               (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                                     JUDGE


                                                    (G. SATAPATHY)
Ashok/Kishore                                            JUDGE