{"id":240408,"date":"2009-08-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009"},"modified":"2015-08-18T04:23:38","modified_gmt":"2015-08-17T22:53:38","slug":"ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Mukand Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Mukand Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit<\/div>\n
EN THE HEGH C(_.)UR'I' OF' K.ARNA'?'AKA AT I:3AN('}A\u00a7,(.)RE\u00a7\n\nDATED THIS THE 28'\" SAY OF AUGUST, 2UU':} '*.T\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE H(')i\\\u00a7'BLE MR. PD. DINAKARAN, cr%1E%?-.{JU;sjTiVCii' \n\nAND\n\n\"me: HONBLE MRJUSTICAEE._\\\/i'\u20ac}:SABfi_AR\u00a3vT'~ \" \"\n\nWRIT PETIT:oN_:Ne:,48:5\/2003 j;[:.e..}4 i\u00a5?i'r'*i $3\nBETWEEN: . ' A' I\n\n1 M\/S iVIUK.AND LzM:'T_E;3'L._V,':'\u00bb _ .. \u00bb\n(}INI(}ERA,VH(.)SPEA1T_ROAD,  \"\n1\u00bb-\\:(')PPAL DESTRECST.  _  - \nREP. 3y;\"1T:e:;;.$;a1N to R: MANA<.3;E:--R'; \n '  \nA(}E:D_A;3<1VuT';-:4')Y:'":fiARs.-"  '  PE'I'IT1ONE3R\n\n(\u00a333., $1-s'.-"f P RAJE:\u00a7\\1._};3_r'TeA.'K-aJ:Ex~:AR SUE\\IGAY, ADV(f)CA'I'E3 )\n\n\u00e9\u00e9\ufb01m\ufb02wg\n\n 2  $TA1;E\u00a7'('}---.\ufb01'---\u00abKARNATAKA\n\n I2"::'P.B2.\u00a33:PA\u00a21ir'M_ENT or? INDUSTRIES,\n  c;>jr~.4_:\\x1:e\":';~'3.r;:1?: AND MINING,\n.  vi;-\\;A~S; soumm, VEDHANA VEEZDHI,\n \u00a33_ANc3ALc)RE.\n\n  2 9r'v:~4,E DERECTOR AND C()IVIM1SSI()NER\n\n {)E3PAF~3'\u00a7'\u00a7\\\/IEIE\\1T(.)\u00a7\u00a5' MINES AND (':E()L()GY,\nP{ANL.JA B}-1:-'\\\\-\"\/\\%\\3, RACE COURSEI ROAD,\nFSANCEAL-{.)RE~(} E.\n\n\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
This writ petition is fiied under Arti<':iesf226.V.\u00e9ind<\/p>\n
227 of the Constitution of India seeking <\/p>\n
the communication dated 21_.9..2'OO-7'.Aissue,di:ip\u00a7i_ :hei'rir".~:.;<\/p>\n
res (indent recommendinv rdnt i'–:)i"i' minin\ufb01  in.
\nC: V_ 'V p. r, . .' 'V<\/p>\n
fax-'oLir of respondent No.5  issLieV._a' ciirecfivonmto the 0<\/p>\n
first respondent to '"gT\u20aciI'1tji'\u00a7;I'1iZ\/i.:Ii"1g\\.\\~-18886?'ifO1""i'[h\u20ac area
\nsought by the petitiozrzeris—.iin:" i'1;s"\u00ab.ii'a.pp__iicati0n dated<\/p>\n
10.5.2003.\n<\/p>\n
2: it ..is”i.ave:iireCl ‘i1’i”\u00ab.1:he”petiiion that petitioner is a
\nPL1blie\u00b0–.’Li’mit:ed’ _.incorporated in 1.937 and<\/p>\n
registered”ii:-‘ider gthe, p\ufb01ivisions of the Companies Act,<\/p>\n
    .VC0rnpa’n–_\u00a7,–‘\u00ab\u00abhas groix-“n from a roiling mil} to one<\/p>\n
 def  ‘ie\u00a7id.i4i”i1ginanufacturers of Aflqv and Special Steels<\/p>\n
i11″i}:i’E”‘. (T\u00a7>.L’.}’1″i:.?:.3″_”Vi’ 1nc=1.ing;_\u00bb; {he iieeds 0I’o1’igi11a.1.l I:’7′{.fLli}9I\ufb02C.’.1″1%’<\/p>\n
V._1’1’i\u00a3;1I”1L1\u00b0i”.?V,1(i31LlI”(“1’I’S (OEM). The company  um<\/p>\n
2*ViI1?.\u20ac}1″i’L1faC[UFiHg pfants, one at Cxinigera, Koppal District,<\/p>\n
 V !{f.i:*i1.:~1i.;eska, The COl’I’E})E\ufb02I]\u00bb\\-‘KS ggross turnover dLiriiig the<\/p>\n
V<\/p>\n
_\\-‘ea.r 2()0\u20aci–0’?'” is Rs.2078 crore and the ctinrnpanx-‘ <\/p>\n
r,_ .  enfa . ll  ii a 1″‘ ..i I t),–7l’rr_”I~1.o. e
\nesentlx = 4 Ted 1 rats 1 nd ocessn ‘”_1 3_ V if<\/p>\n
in two of the mines in the State of Kar:~jlata\u00a7<a;'t-lllitt.is "
\nfurther averreci that in response to _tis'c.\u00bb–..:n.oti~fic'atio_n'V<\/p>\n
dated 25.3.2003 inviting appli\ufb02:latio:n' "Vf'I';l\u00a7')VrTt:l'<\/p>\n
public for grant of mining lease iriaresppect as many–~.as'.tV<\/p>\n
36 areas, including the area*~._merlttione..Cll"_in'\u00bbvth'elsaidl<\/p>\n
notification at Sl.l\\lo. 12 for  of.l7"'98Vf'87JF}\/zeetares<\/p>\n
situated at Donimalai..4_R.ra11ge,Sa;i1.c\u00a7tlr'\u00abtalul<:, application<\/p>\n
was filed on 10.5.2003. 'Thei'felornpan\ufb02retseiveci a notice<\/p>\n
under', Rt_,1l_ei'2.6[..1.):'\u00ab.ol'\u00ab..plVli.ne.sjand Minerals Concession
\nRules, l\u00a7.9ll\u20ac)() l('he'1*e'i;'1al7$terl called the Rules'; dated<\/p>\n
3o.ps;r.:2'oo7\/3.9.2007ii from the third respondent<\/p>\n
llii\ufb01olrmillng the company,' to appear before the Additional<\/p>\n
lS_e'c.reta'1*\u00a7l?'_'vv..toil"'flovernment (Mines), Commerce and<\/p>\n
lndi;tstr—ies"ll\ufb01epartment, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course<\/p>\n
 Bangalore, on l;2.9.i2007' to make a<\/p>\n
rtrspmresentation for the applied Mining lease by the<\/p>\n
N}<\/p>\n
Company. Accordingly, the compan_V's represe*i1—-tati\\4-'e<\/p>\n
appeared before the Authority and <\/p>\n
submissions along with the represen-tgitirionI 'rFiT'1{i_ i'<\/p>\n
highlighted some of the salient ifiaetvsjre'iat_ing._:tojV_its<\/p>\n
plants in Maharashtra and KarnAait'aka. [The V' C:()T'1"i:'}')E'.3{11_\\'f".<\/p>\n
referred to its financial ieisoiiirces "anCi't–Iitsi',adeqL1ate
\nexpertise in mining""~3eti.Viti_eS',–._in\ufb02response to the<\/p>\n
notification ciated  appiications
\nwere receiveeiiiniihrespeot "of"t'heHiss;idV:\u00abextent of ianoi at
\nS1.No.12   respondent No.5
\nis   who fiied appiication on
\n"\u00a38.4.2{A)iO~7L,T   after the notification.<\/p>\n
\\Ar'h1'lje"'rhe appIi_cati<)ns fiieti for the period commencing<\/p>\n
 A"t._ivi1 31.3.2007 were kept pending, shortly<\/p>\n
i"a_ft'e_ip-p.thefieppiiiei\u00e9tion of the fifth respondent was made,<\/p>\n
  respect of fifth respondent though, nearlx,–' 60<\/p>\n
1"ec:o'nirriend\u00e9tion has been made for grant of mining<\/p>\n
Aappliications have to be processed and therefore, the<\/p>\n
M}<\/p>\n
act.ior2 of the Governmeiit appears to be inexplicable and<\/p>\n
totally lacking tram sparency. Being aggrie\\'eciV}q_i\\_-' .{h'e"s2i'iti<\/p>\n
recommendation, the instant writ p\u20ac11'i"'i'{)V1"}':VA_'i'Si. .*"ii1e–d_'i'<\/p>\n
E'i\\-"(:'1"I'i1'E\u00a7_\u00a7 that the application of the';:ie't_iti-ioner–.ha\u00e9'iiioi?;<\/p>\n
been considered on merits thetigh the:.:peititioiier\u00a5'a<\/p>\n
compaiiy stands on a better"footirigiiithi\u00e9inigthe fifth<\/p>\n
I"t'SpOi1(i\u20ac1'1L<\/p>\n
3. We hegiie__ heardii  ieoiinsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the \u20acp’eii”i.t_’io.   ::(_+'(}t.111SC’i appearing for
\n  appearing for
\nrespoiiderit  Government Advocate
\n‘c-1ppETE’i’I’i11gi%ii:(J1″V?\u20ac\u20aci3}:*_()i’i’-fiii\u00e91iiitiS I to 3.<\/p>\n
4: .i’Leeir.ijed counsel appearing for the petitioner<\/p>\n
ii’i’.Ci”t’.’3;’i’Eiii(i'(i’_’=.I:_}T<ij."gI'(')L.lI1dS urged in the writ petition and<\/p>\n
sL2bi'nitt5ed"%ihat the procedure prescribed for ex-'aiuat.ion<\/p>\n
2'~.3h'\u00e91~;:\u00a7…i"1(J'{Hi1{)@(?13 followed in accordance with law, inasmuch<\/p>\n
'cii{S',ithE.'. a licaziorz filed by res ondent i\\io.5, which is
\nE – P<\/p>\n
we<\/p>\n
i"\n<\/p>\n
subsequent. to the date of application of the peti.ti_oner,<\/p>\n
has been recommended for grant of mining lease—ii:’n.iiivt.s<\/p>\n
fax-*ot1r, withotit considering the merits of theiipet’it:.iione~1’_;_s V’<\/p>\n
application and therefore, the jsainie’.isl.1ia.b1_ei”t0 set<\/p>\n
aside.\n<\/p>\n
5. Learned cow\ufb02iseli’iiiiiaipfiearing  “the fifth<\/p>\n
respondent submitted that o.pp.or}3.,i_nit}.: of hearing
\nhas been gi:;rei’i’o;v.i.o the ap-eititioi9ie.i”vvva_S:iadmitted by the
\npetitioneri _itse1’f.in’  p’evt.:tio’\u00bbni’i a.nd the notice at<\/p>\n
A1″1I\u00a7\u20ac”.’>{L.l\u00a7”Cf~H.i’til’; .sc5\u00ab.fa’r.._as.._the comparative merits of the
\npetitioner, and the”fiIth”*-\u00abrespondent is concerned, since<\/p>\n
fifth;r’es.ponden_tidoes not hold any mining lease in<\/p>\n
.ii’\\’arna.tt\u00a711i<ya.and they tiave established an integrated steel<\/p>\n
iii'p_1aii\u00a7_tA  District, the mining lease is<\/p>\n
reeo'rrm"ien'd"ed for its captive use and therefore, there is<\/p>\n
2 v,ii'o<i:zi:e1'it in the writ petition and the same is liable to be<\/p>\n
 d~ivsn'iissed_<\/p>\n
K}<\/p>\n
6. Leameci Government Advocate appe_a~i7iif1\u00ab.grfor<\/p>\n
respondents l to 3 submitted that the re<:o–mmiefi\u00e9iatiioti~<\/p>\n
made in favour of 5"' respon\u00e9_e.11t_hasi bee:\ufb01';v\u00bbi2'i':1V\u00e9'e in ii<\/p>\n
E'i.CC'{')I'ClE-1I7C\u20ac' \\\\'llh iE1\\'\\'.<\/p>\n
7. We have hear\u00e9 the_ii’e.arne”<il VeoupriaeI""._;i_'p'pVeari1ig"'<\/p>\n
fot" the parties and scri,1tinisje–d th–eiii<1Aate1'ialvon..i*eco1*d.<\/p>\n
8. The material an e1’AeCoifir,:l&:vvx-roltiildwpClearly Show that
\nthe petitioner ahc_i_ the’ii*iftl1~1reepio-noerr:are applicants in
\nrespect” 1′? the notification dated
\n1f”5.3.2iQQ3_iSiSilea_i”L.1Vri’C\u00a7e}”\u00ab-,’R\u00a7_y1le 59 of the MC Rules, The<\/p>\n
petiticmei’\u00b0~..maCle~.  application on lO.:”5.2OU3.<\/p>\n
‘V..,_ARef\u00a7.l5loz;den_t Noii5″*’*miade an application for grant of<\/p>\n
mihi1″:g”%ea\u00bb:\u00a7eA.o_oij. i8.4.2oo-“7. In View of the provisions of<\/p>\n
Eietgicm_l.illg}’i(>l’ the MMDR Act and the decision of this<\/p>\n
W.Court” W.\/–\\.No.5026\/2008 and connected appeals<\/p>\n
 of on 33.6.2009, it is clear that all the<\/p>\n
\\r\/’<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
12–ikC’11 {or aetcttive co1″isiCierati01i once the<\/p>\n
not.il’ic;;tt.ion is pubiished under’ Section 11(2) of<\/p>\n
the I\\\/EMDR Act in orcicr to give c.’iTcct to tho Fir:siti”h<\/p>\n
aimci :’sCt’t)nCi pI'()Vit-3(.) to Sc\u00e9ctiuti 1]{2) of<\/p>\n
MEVIDR Act or otherwise, t.h<:_y _i'\u00abJt:":(I()'t;1ii"l'(;_:i""<\/p>\n
r'<:dL1nda'mt. By this i11{c:"prc''ie-1ti(Jn,—\u00bb..et:i'1_ .<\/p>\n
}3I'{")ViSi{)l'1S of the Act  aiid" ._ RL2l~:Cs–  'arcf <\/p>\n
he-1\u00a7'113{)11i(')L.1Si\\' 1'c2ac.i and gi\\~'et1 C'a'."_l"c;\u00a5'’~ t.=t*i\u00abt}it:>..Ltt__i”.<\/p>\n
emy i11COf1SiS1′.\u20ac’f2CC’ \u20acitI”=._’C{)I”lfiAi'(‘1 fxt-‘1″i’\u00e9v1{iSs’:i:)(;=x.I_<;;tfV, <\/p>\n
becatisc, it" is sctticd 1a\\,vi'i'th;:t the 1i*i3o1&11t,1'L"CiSg b:()I.h
\npmvisions of Lh\u20ac'r' Act 2.-tz1'i:.'1" P.Lil'if3,ii"-Si"l()LEiC.i "tjv "i'c*2-ad
\ni'1\u00e9:lI"TTl(Jl1i(}L1Si_\\,-' a1I'tCi' the p_I"()if=:'ii:SSi()iii"i.:-ii of 'tiflt' ACE. and
\nRules should be it1.1.(:r_}':tfct.cCito'i\u00e9i'chiC'i1c'iithc object<\/p>\n
of the 1n=:a1″id ~1’=F1C”C(iji’L~Jif’1v.vShfJ’\u00a7,1i(i avoid an<\/p>\n
j’iitt\u00e9r1jmt5:\u00abitioiii; it.h_eit’t’,i.\\-‘t)t.iiti be irictiiisistctit. with<\/p>\n
(in C’  11 (J t it C r  ” ~ *’<\/p>\n
“i26.’;2().’–_ \\’n?c\u00a2–t”rc, therefore, of Com:-:.id<:rccl<\/p>\n
 op"i~ni<.m t}"m1_thc'-1.applications Filed either i)eforC<\/p>\n
}Ji(,1Vi,J]i'(T\u00e9E\u00a2;1.i(J11 of'1"t0tificat'i0n or bcf'or<' thc trxpirjx; of<\/p>\n
 =1i'i1iit'.?, [3f,i'VI"'i{_)iiC:i.. specified in thc noti:"i<:ati0n, oven<\/p>\n
 t:ii(J'L.t;\u00a7j}j am pI"\u20ac-'Ina-1[.L1I'C 2'-mcl shall not be<\/p>\n
c=1"\u20actc:1*t\u00e931incd, from 1i"t{,' moment the :'iot.i{ic:ati(.m is-:.<\/p>\n
;)"L1.\u00a7,3ii.*3i1(.'Ci; stttth appii<':ettit'ms 2:11':-.'. tmtitlccl to bc<\/p>\n
"gte::I<:cti For active ctonsiderzztiori. In short, such<\/p>\n
applicatitms applied belbrc-3 the notilkration<\/p>\n
\\\/\u00b0~<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
remains pzmssive and bec:.ome active when the’–..<\/p>\n
1mtit’it*a.1tir>1i is isstiecii or whet”: the :~s2.1me is ta_.\u00a7’t’t:7_1i’~,_ <\/p>\n
{or c(msiciem:.ion under Rule 59(2) of  :_.<\/p>\n
R’u]es.'”\n<\/p>\n
9.}. In the instant case, “t\u00abhe;’_i_irr;’ate1*ia’iea <\/p>\n
woutd Show that notice \\\u00bb\\\u00bb’as_ i1’S.SLt\u20acd.i’\u20ac0 they V-petitioner on”<\/p>\n
30.8.2007 affording  iOf~…heie1rir1g to
\npresent its case anet”ete’cijr_ci’iijigi%ei.’:_thepetitioner has
\npresented %t s..t;:ase  iiriiesporadent and
\ntheref”o:”e, git   vi’ti}:i:tjb<)rttznit_t-' of hearing has
\nbeen gfaih ifei\u00e9poihdent to the petitioner
\nin exe1;iCisie.i_of  on it under Rule 26(1)<\/p>\n
of the MC' LR-.2 .11\u00e9:-ts.._ <\/p>\n
9.2.. E.h'"thi:~3 regard it is relevant to extract. Rule 265 of'<\/p>\n
i";'t3e.._t\\\/I(fi"titulg\u00e9ea.Etvhich deals with the power of deiegation<\/p>\n
2inct"'E.he=.iAsa1i*\u00a7.e reads thus:<\/p>\n
 Deiegation of powers: 3) The Central<\/p>\n
  ('i()\\-'{"l"l'lITlCI"l[ ITl2–1_\\-", by m:)ti\u00a3'ic.'2.ttio1"i in the 0tTiei:-:1]<\/p>\n
g.{a:':t'rtt<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
()\u00a5Tic’er, there is no division c)T*,
\n1*es;’J<)1'isil}i\u00a7it\\f of l'}e'e.3t'iI'}gg and
\nwliiie. deiegatiiig the power of \u00a5.i1Q..S2;-rte V
\n(}m='ernment." it <\/p>\n
37. in View of our a;.:1isi\\\\-‘e\u00ab_r? to ti_7t(‘.”i’c’.-iii_)’t)\\”C’,”~V’<\/p>\n
C’]L1C-S?.i()I’1f-3, we hoiri that C?C’i=i]?g&-.l:ti'()i’i: <)i'~_.t){_mf'e;* <)\u00bb.\u00a7'~..,,,ii
\nState under Section 2,F:}{;2_) 0? 1\u00b0h_e"'MML?\u00bbR'"Ar';t to
\nthe Director of Mines \u00a31n(}e4i,Ge:c)iog_y-' ii)-W.\\_f Ii'c2ii-1ficti;t.ioi1<\/p>\n
detect 18.1 3.2003 is valid—ir\ufb01i"l\u00e91W:..__."<\/p>\n
9.5. In the ibroceedings of
\nhearing  26(1) of the MC
\nRules,   Secretary to
\n Industries Department.\n<\/p>\n
discloseitriiat  has given an 0\u00a73I3Ortunit_\\-<\/p>\n
of Vlqieiiing healrd\ufb02uto the petitioner and also to other<\/p>\n
,Aappi1cairavit.s,}5efore recommending the grant in favour of<\/p>\n
‘the-_\u00a7:c>n’tesf.__iz’rg’irespondents. Therefore, in View of the<\/p>\n
.V deciiisierigirheridered in Writ Appeal N0.]O95\/2008 and<\/p>\n
‘ig:e”m1r;.eetVed appeais disposed of on 26.8.2009, the<\/p>\n
 e’c’}1’1ter1t.i0n raised by the petitioner in this regard fails<\/p>\n
\\}<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
obtaining a. prospecting licence or mining lease;-.__
\nas me case may be, in respect of that land
\nany ofi’1erper’scm.’<\/p>\n
(2) Xx XXX xxx V _<\/p>\n
(3) Tfze matters referTe(f*fc..1’n su_ib–seeI’~:;:0’r’1.(2)
\nare Ihefollowingrw 1 ii i V V’ i ii<\/p>\n
{(2) any specials _know-ledge  ‘or*;\n<\/p>\n
experience ‘  ‘r*.econ_naisSa’ncVe
\noperations, prospecting Operations or
\nmining operatiQns;~(:zsV.;_he case _r’_nay9 be,
\npossessed the (1pp.Zl”Cafii’I,,f ” ”<\/p>\n
(b) the finci;~”.’cTi–al’a i’;re}eso’tci’ces\u00bb\u00bb_ of the
\napplicant;  i   __<\/p>\n
[C] rag’ ._nat;ure”zand\u00ab..j–.guai-;\u00ab:y of the
\n;tec~7??nicaVE. Staff “em’p’i’cyed or to be<\/p>\n
 em;i=I_oyeCi  fkae a.pp–?ican.f,-\n<\/p>\n
.. e.(d)_ u”~t_F:.z”e”< :1:-,2'z.:e\u00bb.s'm1_erczif "-\u00ab–.7J.2}2'ic}z the agnlicrcmr<\/p>\n
Av;'2\u00bb3io[)o'se?s .:o'\u00ab::{1.i1ke m the mines and in the
\n.indi1-.sAtf_:,1b .based on the minerals; and<\/p>\n
"(.e)i' _suC%_1 oih'er "m_c2:t1.ers as may be prescribed,<\/p>\n
{4} ,xf_,i=<;'.\n<\/p>\n
V ‘ ‘ {_5)xxx.x’.x’ xxx “.\n<\/p>\n
i”ii1O.i4.V;”s:’I__:5:Ru1e 35 of the M.C.Ru1<–:-s reads as<\/p>\n
 'V._\u00bbhereund'er:\n<\/p>\n
“35. Preferential rights of certain<\/p>\n
persons.~ Where two or more persons have<\/p>\n
K)<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
applied for CI reconnaissance perrnit or a___
\npr’Ospe>(‘Fi?lg Eic:er1c:e> or (2 zrunirlg lease? in re?spr besides the rr1aVt\u00bbt\u00a7?:fs rne*ii.fi.__ fr’3_1:rn1eraZ.’V_-fry’ \u00bb. t\ufb01i\u00e9<\/p>\n
appIz’Cam””.\n<\/p>\n
10.5. The mandatgry 17<43'{i'1'L1'\u00a3zfE'r11\\"c:*1j1t. 0f\u00e9\u00a7O1':'1"p\u00a7iance of<\/p>\n
Section 11(3) of the  35 of the MC<\/p>\n
Ruies has a!.z'e'a_d;\\-' b\u00e9jeni  Court in Writ<\/p>\n
Appeal of on 51" June, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
Writ  -‘disposed of on 11″‘ June,<\/p>\n
2009 an\u00abd=\\_f_\\\/1″ifEv  ~66\/2009 dispcmed of on<\/p>\n
 8%”,..l%fg\u00a7Ey;~2OO9’.”V.  _ A:\n<\/p>\n
   Appeal No.5026\/2008 this court has<\/p>\n
hsiid-.33 Vf’u-Rio vVx;’;-si<\/p>\n
‘ j’2’E3:4.VTbc? w(>r(_\u00a7s cmp\u00a70ycc.i by the Par’1iamc=n1 zmdcr<\/p>\n
S’0sti()11 \u00a7}(3}(C] \\-‘iz., ‘such. cnziecar maifcrs as rmw be<\/p>\n
H , ‘ ‘_\u00ab,0rc=%_<~:{'r2'}.J{?(.'J'5 i11<?iLzdC the 1"r1attcrs p1'cscribod zmcicr<\/p>\n
K?'<\/p>\n
28<\/span><\/p>\n
making any allegation against the policy decisions<\/p>\n
nor challenging the same, but all th8.’\u20ac”:V:lL’I}.\u00a3:’,’i’.,..V”‘.<\/p>\n
petitioner seeks is, only to give effect to tghe  l”<\/p>\n
decision of the State which is …9.cl_fn.ittetlIy<\/p>\n
implemented by the State.\n<\/p>\n
19.3. The Apex. _cour4t,.A;in SHRHLEKHA-:i”‘<\/p>\n
VIDYARTI-II (KUMAR1} STATE ‘
\nPRADESI-I [(199141 sco1_2″1t2] held t.hat;__ <\/p>\n
“27. Unlike a”‘-private  acts
\nuninformed by_…re:asori..q\ufb01;d_–‘mflue.ncecl by
\npersorzat ‘  — predilectfons  in a …_.contractual
\nmatters if .- __  “?”_esu_lt:,:  adverse
\ncorcsei;u1encesi_. to  alone uiithout affecting
\n1\u00a7fz;b1i\u00a3\u00a7’\u00a7_’ir;:\u00a24ra}._si;. any” such act of the
\n State  even in this \ufb01eld<\/p>\n
‘would adve:*se–lyi’_affect the public interest.<\/p>\n
  “holder of a public office by
\n  ofwzihich he acts on behalf of<\/p>\n
, the._iState or public body is ultimately<\/p>\n
it “‘v’iE.f;coii4jrt’table to the people in whom the<\/p>\n
vsovgzreignty vests. As such, all powers so
\n ‘vested in him are meant to be exercised for
\n“public good and promoting the public
\ninterest. This is equally true of all actions
\neven in the field of contract. Thus, every<\/p>\n
D<\/p>\n
32<\/span><\/p>\n
wherein other more important   <\/p>\n
considerations may outweigh what wouid’<\/p>\n
otherwise have been the legitiin.atevvV.’V:’*–..it ~’-‘ <\/p>\n
expectation of the claimant. A  I<\/p>\n
decision of the public authority rizachediii   <\/p>\n
this manner would satisfy the ~.*”‘equ’irementu  <\/p>\n
of non–arbitran’ness.*and withstand judicial <\/p>\n
scrutiny. The doct’ri:ne of  legitimate
\nexpectation gets assiniiiated in the–..n.iie
\nof law and opeiates iinvlegal system<\/p>\n
in this manner and   ”\n<\/p>\n
19.53.” ‘I’n;,1;.’:1\u00a2 giasei Oi7’F:2(Jx\u00a5AI;vVi.IQUIDATOR
\nv. nA.YA\u00a7a:A\u00a7i’I3′-vorepo:*.i\u00a2a  12903110 sec 1, the
\nAvpexv _Co1irt71.:gyhiiei:c1eaIi\u00a5.ng-.with the doctrine of
\nIogitimatev.t:xp\u00e9ctaticohh…observed that:<\/p>\n
‘r’fI”0_2. concept of “due process of<\/p>\n
 law”  played a major role in the
\ndevelopment of administrative law. It<\/p>\n
 genszires ” “”” “fairness in public<\/p>\n
administration. The administrative<\/p>\n
  . “autho.ri’ties who are entrusted with the<\/p>\n
T  ofideciding iis between the parties
\nor ‘adjudicating upon the rights of the
\nindiiiiduals are duty–bound to comply<\/p>\n
~ with the rules of natural justice, which<\/p>\n
are multifaceted. The absence of bias in the
\ndecision-making process and compliance with
\naudi alteram partem are two of these facets.
\nThe doctrine of legitimate expectation is<\/p>\n
K)’-\n<\/p>\n
34<\/span>
\nunionism among civil service. For this, the Civil<\/p>\n
Service Order in the 1982 Council was issued.<\/p>\n
The Court of Appeal declared that the Minister<\/p>\n
had acted unlaw\ufb01xlly in abridging <\/p>\n
\ufb01indamental right of a citizen to become’*,a’*<:'~l.<\/p>\n
member of the trade union. The House  is<\/p>\n
approved the judgment of the Court of Appe.dl..and =<\/p>\n
held that such a right couldizhnot tie atalpen <\/p>\n
without consulting the civil seri;'ant.concerned;.V \u00ab. V K<\/p>\n
105. In India, the ‘courts have  if<\/p>\n
recognised that while administering the a_,\u00a7fair.s5 of
\nthe State, theft” _G;ove;_rn.nzent”~t _ and its
\ndepartments are expected the<\/p>\n
policy st:cite.merits   i’treatV’ the citizens<\/p>\n
ioithout’li’-angfvidiscriminlation. The theory of
\nlegitimate’e2i;r:ectation”first found its mention in<\/p>\n
Navjyoti Coops, (}rou’p;Housing Society 12. Union of<\/p>\n
India.  thatv_case the right of a housing society<\/p>\n
 to priority in the matter of registration<\/p>\n
  recognised in the following words: (SCC
\nVpp. ‘4’\u00a72–;z~95, paras 15-16)<\/p>\n
V \\’ “.15.  In the aforesaid facts, the Group
\n“Housing Societies were entitled to
\n‘legitimate expectation’ of following
\nconsistent past practice in the matter of
\nallotment, even though they may not have<\/p>\n
ya\u00bb<\/p>\n
33<\/span><\/p>\n
a nascent addition to the rules of
\nnatural justice. It goes beyond statutory<\/p>\n
rights by serving as another device ford’-.2
\nrendering justice. At the root of the  ..
\nprinciple of legitimate expectation is\u00a7”th’e[f is
\nconstitutional principle of rule ofxlaw,-,  in<\/p>\n
which requires regularity, predicta.bi’lity..V:
\nand certainty in Government’s .dealings<\/p>\n
with the _public——J. Raz,[ Theg}iuthoriAty\u00ab._of..’~._gr,__gA
\nLaw [(1979) Chapter 1 1]. The “legal certainty”. ” <\/p>\n
is also a basic principleg of European’<\/p>\n
community. European law is based upon <\/p>\n
concept of vertrauensschut”z (the honouring
\na trust or con\ufb01dence). fo’r__these “reasons
\nthat the e2cisten’ceV_&of a legitirnaie\u00e9expectaiion
\nmay even in the a.bsAenceij_’of awfight of private
\nlaw, justify its recognitionlin pu_blicVIau::.\n<\/p>\n
103. In Halsbury—‘s’ Laws of Erigland (4th
\nEdn.),   “legitimatecsipectation has
\nbeen\u20ac’des:cril5ecll._in thefolloiving words:<\/p>\n
_ _”}1″.g–vuperson\u00ab.Vp “may. have a legitimate
\n gxpectaiiogngofu being treated in a certain
\n“way by._an ‘~adm_inistrative authority even
\nthaulgh he._has”no7’legal right in private law<\/p>\n
. to receivevsuch treatment. The expectation
\n“may a’ri’sev___eitl1er from a representation or<\/p>\n
C  ifupromise made by the authority, including<\/p>\n
an, “‘~-implied representation, or from<\/p>\n
 — ;”‘\u00ab.consis_tef,nt past practice. ”<\/p>\n
 formal statement on the doctrine of<\/p>\n
 legitiinate expectation can be found in the<\/p>\n
judgment of the House of Lords in Council of Civil<\/p>\n
in r  jtfservice Unions v. Minister for Civil Service. In that<\/p>\n
case the Government tried to forbid trade-<\/p>\n
K\/9*<\/p>\n
35<\/span><\/p>\n
any legal right in private law to receive
\nsuch treatment. The existence of ‘legitimate
\nexpectation’ may have a number of<\/p>\n
different consequences and one of such\u00bb:
\nconsequences is that the authority ougghtuyl
\nnot to act to defeat the ‘legitimate”\n<\/p>\n
expectation’ without some overrid__ingj’rV.. ”
\nreason of public policy to justify its””d*oing <\/p>\n
so. In a case of ‘legitimate expectation_'”if V
\nthe authority proposes to defeat.  personis ” f
\n‘legitimate expectation’ it should afford ..him 2 V
\nan opportunity to make representations
\nthe matter. In this connection rej”erence”may  <\/p>\n
be made to the discussions on ‘legitimate.
\nexpectation’ at p.152′ -of Vol. 1(1)
\nHalsbury’s Laws ~ of ..;3nglan*d,u{lt’h.p Edn. (re-
\nissue). We may also”reji=3gr’ to*a_ decision of
\nthe House of “Lords  ;Counci~lfV.of Civil
\nService _ Unions’ Av. Ministerifor Cit-.i3’V Service.<\/p>\n
It has beeii held \u20acin'”the’ said’=d.ecision that
\nan. agg.rie.ve_d pe:r.<;_o'n.. wa"sV.entit'led to judicial
\nreview if he""couidy.sh'ow that a decision of<\/p>\n
.the'l'publis;._yauthoz7ityit(affected him of some<\/p>\n
benefit_ or \ufb02adaiantage which in the past he<\/p>\n
 had been}-perznitted.. to "enjoy and which he
\n'-.legitimately_"~ .expected to be permitted to<\/p>\n
c'ontinue"to lenjoyijeither until he was given
\nreasons for withdrawal and the opportunity<\/p>\n
V or to comment on such reasons.\n<\/p>\n
_ _  It may be indicated here that
\ntheldoctrine of ‘legitimate expectation’<\/p>\n
.–._”imp’oses in essence a duty on public<\/p>\n
‘authority to act fairly by taking into<\/p>\n
*=consideration all relevant factors<\/p>\n
relating to such ‘legitimate
\nexpectation’. Within the conspectus of fair
\ndealing in case of ‘legitimate expectation’,<\/p>\n
\\\/’<\/p>\n
36<\/span><\/p>\n
the reasonable opportunities to make
\nrepresentation by the parties likely to  C
\na\ufb02ected by any change of consistent past,
\npolicy, come in. We have not been sh_o’_wn’\u00bbf  ‘
\nany compelling reasons taken *.i_nta9=._  i
\nconsideration by the ‘–Cen..t’ral”~, \u00e9<\/p>\n
Government to make adepartuzre gs-om<\/p>\n
the existing policy of=__all:otrrient
\nreference to seniority in”registratio.n ‘by; V’ ‘<\/p>\n
introducing a new.gnidelin_e.’ ”\n<\/p>\n
19.6. The Apex Colman TA’miRoN AND
\nSTEEL co. LTD.vv.zUNIQ’I’l or iN;)_1A repel-tee in
\n(1996)9 sec 709,:la.pptoi\u00a7ir;g”they.View of the
\nCommittee appointedvihby the Government
\npursuant t::.._t_he  Court of
\nOrissa,* ‘ =.sen’_’ior_’ officers from the
\nMinistrjytyyo-f  Bureau of Mines
\nand  of India, that the
\nNational  having been tabled: before
\nboth ‘th_ellHvotis_els’.of iiiarliament, is a guiding factor<\/p>\n
_\u00a3u~the deci.sion’\u00e9ma’king process of the Government<\/p>\n
 both inth’e”‘National Mineral Policy as well as<\/p>\n
, – ., ‘vth&V’VI11’d’t3:’\u00e9tVria1 Policy of the State of Orissa, captive<\/p>\n
 been recognized as a fundamental<\/p>\n
A  determining the criteria for granting<\/p>\n
mining lease, held that the Committee made an<\/p>\n
” estirnate of the captive mining requirement of<\/p>\n
 each of the parties appearing before it, after<\/p>\n
l”;\n<\/p>\n
Wh-\n<\/p>\n
38<\/span><\/p>\n
addition making it clear that mining as a stand—~__<\/p>\n
alone industry needs to be encouraged <\/p>\n
provides large scale employment; new r;n’inera,l_’ 5 <\/p>\n
based industries should be set up to ma.t_chjp”thVe h<\/p>\n
available raw material resources\u00bb; existing and’ne’w,:j_<\/p>\n
industries should set up facgilitiesy:’to7.bring ‘th:e..__  ‘A<\/p>\n
available raw materials up Wto\ufb02 the ,,vrt:ci_uiredl’: 3<\/p>\n
speci\ufb01cations by processes, like  bene’\ufb01ciaVtion,l<\/p>\n
pelletisation and sintering; “and __these ” industries
\nwill generate more. e5_mp1oyr:.1_ent>., and spawn<\/p>\n
auxiliary industries.\n<\/p>\n
22,1.’  are, therefore’, ‘satis\ufb01ed that (1) the<\/p>\n
proposed.mine’r,als by the applicant;<\/p>\n
and(ii’)’~, Vt}li\u00a33′.::._ captive” ‘congsufnption and value<\/p>\n
additionmine,ral\u00abs,”-shou.ld be the prime criteria
\nfor ‘granting_dmin’ing–~lease”, because the steel plants<\/p>\n
coming-._up in-__a ‘relatively under–developed areas,<\/p>\n
,,._iwil1e*.ensurepfurther employment generation in<\/p>\n
V”l”e.stab]ishment “of roads, ports, transportation,<\/p>\n
” giwatcri \u00bb.resources, railway infrastructure, supply<\/p>\n
“–c’hain–.V.business domain and allied industries such<\/p>\n
has \u00bb.fpower plants, slag cement plants, ancillary<\/p>\n
units, etc., leading to improved infrastructure and<\/p>\n
it ‘overall development of the lifestyle of the public at<\/p>\n
 large of the locality and region”.\n<\/p>\n
\\\/3\\.\n<\/p>\n
40<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioner already owns two mines in the State of<\/p>\n
Karnataka. The evaluation made by <\/p>\n
respondent would clearly show that all  <\/p>\n
including that of the petitioner  <\/p>\n
in view of the provisions of _4Sectior_1iii’1 1(3) <\/p>\n
Act and Rule 35 of the  reeqfnrneridation is
\nmade for grant of  the fifth
\nrespondent. Itis well  Court cannot
\nmake a   and demerits of
\neach of    Court is mainly
\n iollowed in arriving at the
\ndecision’. are  that there is no error or<\/p>\n
illegality. in re’eornrner.ding the \ufb01fth respondent for grant<\/p>\n
iof.1_fri1ir1iiig !.ea–se.\n<\/p>\n
i’i11_.  the reasons stated supra and applying the<\/p>\n
ratio ofrlecision rendered by this Court in Writ Appeal<\/p>\n
i V~:if”1\\ipiSG.26\/2008, Writ Petition No.5022\/2009 referred to<\/p>\n
i  above, we are satis\ufb01ed that the recommendation made for<\/p>\n
\\J–\n<\/p>\n
41<\/span><\/p>\n
grant of mining lease in favour of fifth respondent is<\/p>\n
justified.\n<\/p>\n
12. Accordingly, we hold that there is-no in the ‘v <\/p>\n
writ petition and the same is dismis\u00e9asedi.-..   i<\/p>\n
 Chief. Justice<\/p>\n
ind<::\u00bbi:i 'Yes\/No  ~ V V V
\n.  \/<\/p>\n
. .i_,j'N\u00a2b..H0;St:Y::$'\/NO  _____ <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Mukand Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2009 Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit EN THE HEGH C(_.)UR’I’ OF’ K.ARNA’?’AKA AT I:3AN(‘}A\u00a7,(.)RE\u00a7 DATED THIS THE 28′” SAY OF AUGUST, 2UU’:} ‘*.T PRESENT THE H(‘)i\\\u00a7’BLE MR. PD. DINAKARAN, cr%1E%?-.{JU;sjTiVCii’ AND “me: HONBLE MRJUSTICAEE._\\\/i’\u20ac}:SABfi_AR\u00a3vT’~ ” ” WRIT PETIT:oN_:Ne:,48:5\/2003 j;[:.e..}4 i\u00a5?i’r’*i $3 BETWEEN: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-240408","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Mukand Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Mukand Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-17T22:53:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Mukand Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-17T22:53:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4039,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Mukand Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-17T22:53:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Mukand Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Mukand Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Mukand Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-17T22:53:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Mukand Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-17T22:53:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009"},"wordCount":4039,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009","name":"M\/S Mukand Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-17T22:53:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-mukand-limited-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Mukand Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240408","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=240408"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240408\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240408"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240408"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240408"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}