The Revival of Ray XVII

Another submission of Mr. Pritesh Kapur was that since it is the State Government which is the ‘owner of the minerals’ and the minerals that ‘vest’ in it, as held in Amritlal Nathubhai Shah, (1976) 4 SCC 108 while granting the licence, it can put conditions pertaining to movement and flow of such minerals as well. Ms. Madhavi Divan, Learned Additional Solicitor General, submitted that there is no conflict whatsoever between Judgments of Amritlal Nathubhai Shah and D.K. Trivedi, (1986) Supp SC 20 on the one hand and M.P.P. Kavery Chetty, (1995) 2 SCC 402 on the other. 

In the cases of Amritlal Nathubhai Shah, D.K. Trivedi and Hind Stone, (1981) 2 SCC 205 the measures in question had a direct nexus with the grant or the refusal to grant a lease. In the instant case, which concerns the sale of already excavated minerals that belong to the lessee, a prohibition by the State Government on sale thereof outside the State is not permissible under The Mines and Minerals (Deveopment and Regulation) Act, 1957.”

Hon’ble Justice A.K. Sikri, State of Gujarat v. Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Kalathiya, [Civil Appeal Nos. 10373-10374 of 2010].

My Lord, Judges in Amritlal Nathubhai Shah, (1976) 4 SCC 108?

Three. Hon’ble Judges N.L. Untwalia and P.N. Shingal; Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray.