STATE OF KERALA & Ors. v. MIS. KERALA RARE EARTH & MINERALS
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Court is set aside and these appeals are allowed
Provisions considered
- Mines and Minerals Act ss. 3, 17A
- Constitution of India arts. 48A, 246
- Though MMDR Act
- Atomic Energy Act, 1962
Judgment
4.4 The policy of the State is also in consonance with Section 18 of the MMDR Act which provides that it shall be the duty of the Central Government to take all steps for conservation and systematic development of minerals in India. The State Government's policy is in adherence to sustainable development which is a constitutional mandate and the State has tried to balance the developmental needs and the need for protection of environment and ecology. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State Government's policy is violative of provisions of the MMDR Act and National Policy. The High Court failed to consider that the State of Kerala keeping in view its policy decision and the importance of environment protection rejected the application moved by the first respondent. [Para 25][553-G-H;554-A-B]
4.5 The State Government has passed a reasoned order as to why it has chosen to reserve the area for exploitation of mineral sand in public sector_ undertakings and there is no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the policy of the State. [Para 26][554-D E] 521 A B c D E -p G H 522 SUPREME .COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R. ORDER l. In view of the majority of opinion, these appeals fail and are · hereby dismissed. · G Kalpmm K. Tripathy Appeals dismissed.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Court is set aside and these appeals are allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Mines and Minerals Act — ss. 3, 17A; Constitution of India — arts. 48A, 246; Though MMDR Act; Atomic Energy Act, 1962.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.