Supreme Court of India
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARANATAKA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 265
- Decided
- 18 April 2013
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- AFTAB ALAM
Holding
The Court affirmed the credibility of the CEC and the Joint Team’s survey, accepted the categorisation of mines, ordered closure of Category‑C mines, allowed reopening of Category‑A and B mines subject to conditions, lifted the embargo on fresh licences, and suspended operations on inter‑state boundary leases pending resolution.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined massive illegal iron‑ore mining in Karnataka’s Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga districts, which had caused severe forest loss and financial loss to the exchequer. A Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and a Court‑appointed Joint Team surveyed 166 mining leases, categorising them as A, B or C based on the percentage of encroachment. The Court upheld the credibility of the CEC and the Joint Team’s survey, accepted the categorisation, ordered the reopening of Category‑A mines and conditional reopening of Category‑B mines, and directed the complete closure of all Category‑C mines. It lifted the earlier embargo on granting fresh mining licences, suspended operations on seven leases situated on the Karnataka‑Andhra Pradesh inter‑state boundary pending boundary resolution, and directed the sale of illegally extracted iron ore proceeds to be transferred to a Special Purpose Vehicle for remedial measures. The Court also affirmed its power under Articles 32 and 142 to provide extraordinary relief where statutory mechanisms were inadequate.
Issues considered
- The credibility and authority of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).
- The propriety of exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 142 versus reliance on statutory remedies under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
- The procedural fairness and technical validity of the Joint Team’s survey and lease‑boundary demarcation.
- The acceptability of the CEC’s recommendations regarding categorisation of mines, reclamation and rehabilitation (R&R) plans, and conditions for reopening or closure of mines.
- The status of mining operations on leases located on or near the Karnataka‑Andhra Pradesh inter‑state boundary.
- The continuation or withdrawal of the Court‑imposed embargo on granting fresh mining licences.
Legislation cited
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. 3(2)(v)
- Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957s. 23C, s. 2(d), s. 4A, s. 5
Subjects
illegal miningenvironmental protectionforest conservationconstitutional jurisdictionArticle 32Article 142inter‑state boundaryreclamation and rehabilitationpublic interestfundamental rightsmineral resources
Judgment
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 810
A SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF KARANATAKA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (CIVIL) No. 562 of 2009 etc.)
APRIL 18, 2013
B
[AFTAB ALAM, K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND
RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]
Environment Protection and Pollution Control:
c
Forest - Illegal mining in forest area of Karnataka and
Andhra Pradesh - PIL - Court appointed Central Powered
Committee (CEC) in its report indicating illegal mining- Joint
Team constituted by Court, determined boundaries of
concerned 166 mining leases - CEC in its final report
0
recommended categorization of mines into 3 categories viz.
A, B and C on the basis of extent of encroachment of mining
pits and overburden dumps - CEC recommended resumption
of A and B category mines subject to certain conditions and
E closure of category C mines - The credibility of CEC, sanctity
of the process of survey undertaken by Joint Team and
acceptability of recommendations of CEC were questioned -
Held: Credibility of CEC cannot be questioned - The body
is performing its tasks as per the directions of the Court - The
credibility of the survey conducted by the Joint Team under
F the orders of the Court, also cannot be questioned - The
categorization of leases done by CEC, is reasonable and
hence acceptable - Embargo placed by the Court on grant
of fresh mining licences is lifted - Operation of the leases,
located on or near the inter-State boundary of Kamataka and
G Andhra Pradesh, is suspended until the boundary issue is
resolved - Investigations in respect of alleged criminal
offences by lessees to be brought to its logical conclusion -
Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 - Forest Conservation Act,
1980 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
H 810
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 811
STATE OF KARANATAKA
Constitution of India, 1950 : A
Articles 32 and 142 - Illegal mining - Causing large
scale damage to forest wealth - Remedy u/Arts. 32 and 142
- Resort to - Jn view of availability of remedies under
provisions of relevant statutes - Held: Court can resort to
B
constitutional jurisdiction to remedy the enormous wrong -
The relevant statutes would not be effective and efficacious
to deal with extraordinary situations arisen on account of large
scale illegalities in mining operations The
recommendations of CEC, accepted by the Court does not
come in conflict with the statutory provisions - Mines and C
Minerals Act, 1957 - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 -
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Art.14 - Classification - Test of arbitrariness - Held:
Arbitrariness in the adoption of a criteria for classification has D
to be tested on the anvil of Art. 14 and not on the subjective
notions of availability of a better basis of classification.
Article 21 - Right to life - Enforcement of - Held: In
enforcing such rights affecting large number of citizens, E
supreme Court cannot be constrained by restraints of
procedure.
Words and Phrases - 'Mining operations' - Meaning of
- In he context of Mines and Minerals Act.
F
Justice U.L. Bhat Committee was appointed on the
issue of indiscriminate mining in the State of Karnataka.
Thereafter, the matter was referred to Lokayukta of the
State, who in his report indicated indiscriminate mining
in the Bellary District of the State. G
The petitioner filed the present PIL u/Art. 32 of the
Constitution, seeking Court's intervention in the matter.
The Court asked the Central Empowered Committee
(CEC) to submit its report on the allegations of illegal
H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 6 S.C.R.
A mining in the Bellary region of the State of Karnataka. The
CEC, in its reports indicated large scale illegal mining.
The Court by order dated 29.7.2011 imposed complete
ban on mining in the Bellary district, and further by order
dated 28.8.2011 in the districts of Tumkur and
B Chitradurga. The Court constituted a Joint Team to
determine the boundaries of initially 117 mining leases
which subsequently extended to 166 mining leases. The
survey conducted by the Joint Team was subjected to re-
examination by the Special Team, at the behest of the
c lease-holders. CEC submitted its final report dated
3.2.2012 recommending for categorization of the mines
into three categories i.e. 'A', 'B' and 'C' on the basis of
the extent of encroachment in respect of he mining pits
and over burden dumps determined in terms of
percentage qua the total lease area. It also recommended
0
conditions subject to which reopening of the mines and
resumption of mining operations were to be considered
by the Court. CEC also submitted modified
recommendations alongwith detailed guidelines for
preparation and implementation of Reclamation and
E Rehabilitation Plans (Rand R Plans) on 13.3.2012. The
guidelines were prepared after consultation with different
stake-holders including the Federation of Indian Mineral
Industries (FIMI) a representative body of the majority of
the mining lessees in the present case.
F
In terms of the order of the Court dated 10.2.2012,
CEC considered 66 representations of the lease-holders.
CEC found 4 representations tenable and made
corrections in respect of the 4 leases. CEC placed the
G cases of 2 lease-holders viz. 'V' and 'H' for consideration
of the Court for their upgradation from category 'C' to 'B'.
The Court, by order dated 3.9.2012 permitted
reopening of 18 category 'A' mines subject to certain
conditions. The Court by order dated 28.9.2012 also laid
H
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 813
STATE OF KARANATAKA
down certain conditions for resumption of mining A
operations by Category-'B' lease-holders. The 7 mines,
located on the inter-State border (Karnataka-Andh"ra
Pradesh) were placed in Special category (81) out of the
72 category-B mines. The 7 category-B mines and the
cases of 2 lessees i.e. 'S' and 'Sh' (which were tentatively B
placed by CEC in Category-8), were placed before the
Court for their appropriate categorization.The CEC in its
report dated 15.2.2013 recommended resumption of
mining operation in the remaining category-A and
category-8 mines. c
The Court directed investigation by CBI, in respect
'of criminal offences by lessees. The Court also ordered
disposal of iron-ore accumulated on account of illegal
mining, by the process of e-auction through a Monitory
Committee. The court also constituted Special Purpose D
Vehicle (SPV) for taking of ameliorative and mitig~tive
measures as per 'Comprehensive Environment Plans for
the Mining Impact Zone' (CPMIZ) around mining leases in
Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur.
E
Interlocutory applications were filed questioning the
sanctity of the survey carried out by the Joint Team, the
categorization of the lease-holders, on the grounds of
lack of procedural fairness and inherent defects in the
technical part of the exercise of survey. The credibility of F
CEC was also questioned.
It was contended by the lease-holders that the
categorization of the allegedly offending leases on the
basis of percentage of the alleged encroachment qua the
total lease area was constitutionally fragile and G
environmentally self-defeating; that resort to the powers
u/Art.32 r/w. Art. 142 of the Constitution for the issues in
question, was uncalled for because the issue was
covered under the statutory scheme under Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; Forest H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R
A (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986.
Disposing of the Writ Petition 562 of 2009 and
detagning the other connected SLPs and Writ Petitions,
B the Court
HELD: 1. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC)
was first constituted by the Court by its order dated
9.5.2002 as an interim body until creation of the statutory
agency contemplated under the provisions of Section 3
C (3) of the Environment (Protection) Act. Thereafter by a
Notification dated 17.9.2002 published in the Gazette of
India, the constitution of the CEC for a period of 5 years
was notified indicating its composition together with the
extent of its powers and duties. As the period of five years
D mentioned in the Notification dated 17.9.2002 had expired
and the terms of reference to the body had been
redetermined by this Court, perhaps, a fresh notification
should have been issued which was not forthcoming. It
is in such a situation that the CEC had continued to
E function under orders of the Court submitting its reports
from time to time in various environmental issues
pending before this Court. It is on consideration of such
Reports that the Court has been passing its orders from
time to time. In view of these circumstances, the
F questions concerning the credibility of the CEC are
unfounded, particularly in the absence of any materials
to substantiate the apprehensions, if not allegations, that
have been leveled. The said body has been performing
such tasks as had been assigned by this Court by its
G orders passed from time to time. The directions on the
basis of which the CEC had proceeded and had
submitted its Reports, are within the framework of the
terms of reference of the CEC as determined by this Court
by order dated 14.12.2007. [Paras 21 to 23] [851-E-F; 853-
H E-H; 854-A]
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 815
STATE OF KARANATAKA
2. The mechanism provided by any of the statutes in A
question viz. Mines and Minerals (Development &
Regulation) Act, 1957; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 would neither be
effective nor efficacious to deal with the extraordinary
situation that has arisen on account of the large scale B
illegalities committed in the operation of the mines in ,
question resulting in grave and irreparable loss to the
forest wealth of the country besides the colossal loss
caused to the national exchequer. The situation being
extraordinary, the remedy, indeed, must also be c
extraordinary. Considered against the backdrop of the
statutory schemes in question, none of the
recommendations of the CEC, if accepted, would come
into conflict with any law enacted by the legislature. It is
only in the above situation that the Court may consider
0
the necessity of placing the recommendations made by
the CEC on a finer balancing scale before accepting the
same. Therefore, the Court would proceed to exercise its
constitutional jurisdicfion to remedy the enormous
wrong that has happened and to provide adequate
protection for the future, as may be required. [Para 33) E
[865-B-E]
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India and Ors. (1984)
3 SCC 161: 1984 (2) SCR 67; M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India
and Ors. (1987) 1 SCC 395: 1987 (1) SCR 819; M.C. Mehta F
vs. Union of India and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 142 - relied on.
Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India and
Anr. (1998) 4 SCC 409: 1998 (2) SCR 795 - held not
applicable.
G
3.1. The participation of the lessee or his
representative throughout the process of survey by the
Joint Team; the manner of conduct of the actual process
of survey; the use of the state of the art technology; the
composition of the Joint Team entrusted with the H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R
A responsibility of the survey and the constitution of the 7
teams that conducted the field survey under the
supervision of the Joint Team; the two stages of re-
verification of the findings of the survey in the light of the
objections raised by the lease holders under orders of
B this Court dated 26.9.2011 and 10.2.2012 and the
corrections made on the basis thereof can leave no
doubt as to the credibility of the findings of the survey
conducted under the orders of the Court. Therefore, all
complaints and grievances must fade away in the light,
c of the survey undertaken by the Joint Team and the
events subsequent thereto. [Para 38] [871-G-H; 872-A-B]
3.2. It is directed that in supersession of all orders
either of the authorities of the State or Courts, as may be,
the boundaries of leases fixed by the Joint Team will
D henceforth be the boundaries of each of the leases who
will have the benefit of the lease area as determined by
the Joint Team. All proceedings pending in any court with
regard to boundaries of the leases involved in the present
proceeding shall stand adjudicated by means of present
E order and no such question would be open for re-
examination by any body or authority. [Para 39] [872-G-
H; 873-A]
4. The wide terms of the definition contained in
F Section 2(d) of the Mines and Minerals Act encompasses
all such activity within the meaning of expression "mining
operations". Hence dumping of mining waste
(overburden dumps) do not constitute operations under
Section 2(d) of the Mines and Minerals Act. Use of forest
G land for such activity would require clearance under the
Forest Conservation Act. In case the land used for such
purpose is not forest land the mining lease must cover
the land used for any such activity. [Para 40] [873-B-C]
5.1. Inter-generational equity and sustainable
H development have come to be firmly embedded in our
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 817
STATE OF KARANATAKA
constitutional jurisprudence as an integral part.of the A
fundamental rights conferred by Article 21 of the
Constitution. In enforcing such rights of a large number
of citizens who are bound to be adversely affected by
environmental degradation, this Court cannot be
constrained by the restraints of ·procedure. The CEC B
which has been assisting the Court in various
environment related matters for over a decade now was
assigned certain specified tasks which have been
performed by the said body giving sufficient justification
for the decisions arrived and the recommendations made. c
If the said recommendations can withstand the test of
logic and reason, there is no reason not to accept the said
recommendations and embody the same as a part of the
order in the present case. [Para 41] [873-F-H; 874-A]
5.2. Arbitrariness in the adoption of a criteria for D
classification has to be tested on the anvll of Article 14
and not on the subjective notions of availability of a better
basis of classification. The test, therefore, ought not to
be what would be a 'better' basis for the categorization
for that would introduce subjectivity in the process; the E
test is whether categorization on the basis adopted
results iJl hostile discrimination and adoption of the
criteria of percentage has no reasonable nexus with the
object sought to be achieved, namely, to identify the ·
lessees who have committed the maximum violations and F
damage to environment. Viewed from the aforesaid
perspective, the categorization made does not fail the test
of reasonableness and would commend acceptance of
the Court. In the totality of the circumstances, the
categorization suggested by the CEC in its Report dated G
3.2.2012 should be accepted. [Para 42] [874-C-E; 875-B]
5.3. The conditions subject to which Category 'A' and
'B' mines are to be reopened and the R&R Plans that have
been recommended as a precondition for reopening of
Category 'B' mines are essentially steps to ensure H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A scientific and planned exploitation of the scarce mineral
resources of the country. The recommendations are
wholesome and in the interest not only of the
environment and ecology but the mining industry as a
whole so as to enable the industry to run in a more
B organized, planned and disciplined manner. FIMI was
actively associated in the framing of the guidelines and
the preparation of the R&R Plans. There is nothing in the
preconditions or in the details of the R&R plans
suggested which are contrary to or in conflict or
C inconsistent with any of the statutory provisions of the
Mines and Minerals Act, Environment Protection Act and
Forest Conservation Act. In such a situation, while
accepting the preconditions subject to which the
Category 'A' and 'B' mines are to be reopened and ttie
R&R plans that must be put in place for Category 'B'
D mines the suggestions made by the CEC for reopening
of Category 'A' and 'B' mines as well as the details of the
R&R plans should be accepted. [Para 43] [875-C-F]
5.4. It is evident from the compilation submitted to the
E Court by the CEC that several of the Category 'C' mines
were operating without requisite clearances under Forest
Conservation Act or even in the absence of a mining
lease for a part of the area used for mining operations.
The satellite imageries placed before the Court with
F regard to environmental damage and destruction has
shocked judicial conscience. It is in the light of the above
facts and circumstances that the future course of action
in respect of the maximum violators/polluters, i.e.,
Category 'C' mines has to be judged. While doing so, the
Court also has to keep in mind the requirement of Iron
G Ore to ensure adequate supply of manufactured steel and
other allied products. Once the result of the survey
undertaken and the boundaries of the leases determined
by the Joint Team has been accepted by the Court and
the basis of categorization of the mines has been found
H to be rational and constitutionally permissible, it will be
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 819
STATE OF KARANATAKA
difficult for this Court to visualize as to how the Category A
'C' mines can be allowed to reopen. There is no room for
compassion; fervent pleas for clemency cannot have
even a persuasive value. As against the individual
interest of the 49 Category 'C' leaseholders, public
interest at large would require the Court to lean in favour B
of demonstrating the efficacy and effectiveness of the
long arm of the law. Therefore, the Court orders for the
complete closure of the Category 'C' mines and for
necessary follow up action in terms of the
recommendations of the CEC in this regard. [Paras 44 c
and 4S] [876-B-F]
6. By an order dated 2.11.2012 passed by this Court
an embargo has been placed on grant of fresh mining
licenses. In view of the developments that have taken ,.
place in the meantime and in view of the fact that the D
Court is inclined to accept the recommendations at SI.
Nos. VI and VII of the CEC's Report dated 3.2.2012 it is
not necessary to continue with the order dated 2.11.2012
in so far as grant of fresh leases are concerned. [Para 46]
[876-H; 877-A] E
7. In so far as settlement of the inter-state boundaries
between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka is
concerned, both tht! States have agreed to have the
boundaries fixed under the supervision of the Geological F
Survey of India. In view of the agreement between the
States on the said issue the Court permits the States to
finalize the issue in the above terms. The operation of the
7 leases (Category 81) located on or near the inter-State
boundary is presently suspended. Until the boundary G
issue between the two States is resolved resumption of
mining operations in the 7 leases cannot be allowed.
[Para 47) [877-B-C]
8. The CEC has provisionally categorised ML
No.2515 and ML No.2553 in Category "B" though the H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 6 S.C.R.
A encroached area under illegal mining pits has been found
to be 24.44% and 23.62% respectively. According to the
CEC, it is on account of "the complexities involved in
finalizing the survey sketches and in the absence of inter-
village boundary" that the said leases have been placed
8 in Category "B" instead of Category "C". The Court
cannot agree with the tentative decision of the CEC. On
the basis of the findings of the survey and the
categorization made, both of which have been accepted
by the Court by the present order, the aforesaid two
c leases, are directed to be placed in Category "C".
Necessary consequential action will naturally follow.
[Para 48) [877-D-F]
9. The CEC in its Report dated 28.3.2012 has placed
the cases of 'V.S.' and 'H' (placed in Category "C") for final
D determination by the Court. The CEC has reported that
the encroachment by ' V.S.' is only in respect of the
overburden dumps and exceeds the percentage (15%)
marginally, i.e., by 0.17% which could very well be due to
the least count error used by the Joint Team. In so far as
E 'H' is concerned, the CEC in its Report dated 28.3.2012
has recorded that according to the lessee it has carried
on its mining operation for the last 50 years in the lease
area allotted to it which may have been wrongly identified
in the earlier surveys and demarcations by taking into
F account a wrong reference point. Having considered the
facts on which the two lessees have sought upgradation
from "C" to "B" Category, such upgradation cannot be
allowed. Both the lessees, in fact, accept the results of
the survey by the Joint Team which findings have already
G been accepted by this Court. [Para 49) [877-G-H; 878-A-B]
10. The investigations in respect of alleged criminal
offences by lessees which have been ordered by this
Court to be investigated by the CBI, would necessarily
have to follow the procedure prescribed by law. Each of
H
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 821
STATE OF KARANATAKA
such investigation shall be brought to its logical A
conclusion in accordance with law and any aggrieved
party would be entitled to avail of all legal remedies as
may be available. [Para 13] [847-D-E]
11. As per the CEC's Report dated 15.2.2013 sale of
8
almost the entire quantity of illegally extracted Iron Ore
has been effected through the Monitoring Committee and
the sub-grade Iron Ore lying in dumps in and around
several lease areas may not have adequate commercial
potential. Besides removal thereof for sale, in many
cases, may also give rise to environmental problems in C
as much as removal of such dumps may constitute a
hazard to the stability of the dumps which have been in
existence for many years. Permission for sale of sub-
grade iron ore, only when the same is commercially
viable and removal thereof from the dumps is an D
environmentally safe exercise, has been sought by the
CEC in its last Report dated 15.2.2013. There is no
impediment in accepting the recommendations of the
CEC in the Report dated 15.2.2013 in respect of removal
and sale of sub-grade Iron Ore. Similarly, there is no E
difficulty in continuing the previous orders of the Court,
permitting sale of iron ore to be mined after resumption
of operations through the Monitoring Committee on the
same terms and conditions as presently in force. [Para
15] [848-D-G]
F
12. Court's order dated 02.11.2012 placing an embargo
on grant of fresh mining leases need not be continued any
further. Grant of fresh mining leases and consideration of
pending applications be dealt with In accordance with law,
the directions contained in the present order as well as the G
spirit thereof. [Para 50] [880-C]
Case Law Reference:
1984 (2) SCR 67 relied on Para 28
1987 (1) SCR 819 relied on Para 30 H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 6 S.C.R.
A (2009) s sec 142 relied on Para 31
1998 (2) SCR 795 held not applicablePara 32
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
562 of 2009.
B
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
SLP (C) No. 7366-7367, 32690 of 2010, W.P.(Crl.) No.
66 of 2010, SLP (C) Nos. 17064-17065 of 2010 SLP(C) Nos.
(CC Nos. 16829 & 16830 of2010, W.P. (C) No. 411 of2010,
C SLP (C) No. 353 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No. 76 of 2012.
G.E. Vahanvati, Attorney General, H.P. Raval, P.P.
Malhotra, A.S. Chandhiok, ASG, Shyam Divan (A.C.) (Assisted
by Vasuman Khandelwal), Arvind Datar, C.A. Sundaram, V.
Giri, D.L.N. Rao, Dushyant Dave, F.S. Nariman, Chander Uday
D Singh, Nalini Chidambaram, C.S. Vaidyanathan, K.K.
Venugopal, P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Pallav Shishodia,
Gurukrishna Kumar, Krishnan Venugopal, Raju Ramachandran,
S. Ganesh, S.P. Singh, Jaideep Gupta, P.H. Parekh, Nirman
Sharma, Abhinav Malhotra, A.D.N. Rao (Assisted by Mansha
E Monga), Neelam Jain, A. Venkatesh, Siddharth Chowdhury,
Prashant Bhushan, Ramesh K. Mishra, Pranav Sachedva
(A.C.), K. Raghavacharyulu, D. Julius Riamei, Sanjeev Kapur,
Raja! Jariwal (for Khaitan & Co.), Vikas Mehta, Ravi Shankar,
Shubham Tripathi, P.V. Dinesh, S.K. Kulkarni, Ankur S.
F Kulkarni, A. Raghunath, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina
Madhavan, Anindita Pujari (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.), Devadat
Kamat, Sunil Dogra (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.), Simar Suri,
Chanchal Kr. Ganguli, K. Maruthi Rao, K. Radha, Anjani
Aiyagari, K. Dheeraj Kumar, K. Subba Rao, G. Umapathi, R.
G Mekhala, Rakesh K. Sharma, Kiran Suri, K.N. Phanindra, S.J.
Amith, Apama Mattoo, Girish Ananthamurthy, Vaijayanthi Girish,
Nabikur Rahman Barbhuiya, Dr. Vipin Gupta, Shashi Kiran
Shelly, Sharan Thakur (For Dr. Sushil Balwada), Bhargava V.
Desai, Shreyas Mehtrotra, Naveen R. Nath, Lalit Mohini Bhat,
H Amrita Sharma, Darpan K.M., Sanjay R. Hegde, D.M. Rajesh,
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 823
STATE OF KARANATAKA
S. Nithin, Anil K. Misra, Kashi Vishweshwar, A. Sumati, Madhu A
Singh Satya Siddiqui, S.K. Mishra, Asha G. Nair, A. Dev
Kumar, D.S. Mahra, Ranjana Narayan, B.K. Prasad, Mahesh
Agarwal, Aparna Singhal, E.C, Agrawala, Dr. Sumant
Bharadwai, Manoj Kumar, Ajit Kumar Gupta, Mridula Ray
Bharadwaj, A. Raghunath, Sidharth Singh, Ravindra Kolle, B
Anitha Shenoy, Syed Naqvi, N.K. Sharma, P.P. Kanwer, Kunal
Verma, Rashmi Malhotra, Gunwant Dara, S.K. Bajwa (for S.N.
Terdal), A.K. Vasanth, Shefali Malhotra, Balaji Srinivasan,
Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Ranvir Singh, Sumi! Goel,
Sarabjot Walia (for Parekh & Co.), Priya Hingorani, Syed c
Tanweer Ahmad (for B.V. Balramdas), S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh
Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Kuriakose Varghese, V., Shyamohan,
lram Hassan, Rayjith Mark, Abir Phukan, Pratap Parmal,
Shaheen Parveen (for B.V. Bairam Das) for the appearing
parties.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANJAN GOGOi, J.
W.P. !Cl No.562 of 2009
E
1. What should be the appropriate contours of this Court's
jurisdiction while dealing with allegations of systematic plunder
of natural resources by a handful of opportunists seeking to
achieve immediate gains? This is the core question that arises
in the present proceeding in the context of mining of Iron Ore F
and allied minerals in the State of Karnataka.
2. Over exploitation, if not indiscriminate and rampant
mining, in the State of Karnataka, particularly in the District of
Bellary, had been purportedly engaging the attention of the G
State Government from time to time. In the year 2006, Justice
U.L. Bhat Committee was appointed to go into the issues which
exercise, however, did not yield any tangible result. Thereafter,
the matter was referred to the Lokayukta of the State and a
Report dated 18.12.2008 was submitted which, prima facie,
H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A indicated indiscriminate mining of unbelievable proportions in
the Bellary district of the State. It is in these circumstances, that
the petitioner- Samaj Parivartana Samudaya had instituted the
present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
complaining of little or no corrective action on the part of the
B State; seeking this Court's intervention in the matter and
specifically praying for the reliefs noted hereinbelow.
"(A) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing
immediate steps be initiated by both the
c Respondent States and the Union of India to stop
all mining and other related activities in forest areas
of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka which are in
violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated
12.12.1996 in W.P (C) No 202 of 1995 and the
D Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
(B) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing as null
and void retrospectively all 'raising contracts' I sub
E leasing because which are in violation of the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 and initiate penal action against the violators.
(C) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
F stoppage of all mining along the border and in forest
areas in the Bellary Reserve Forest till a systematic
survey of both the interstate border and the mine
lease areas along the entire border is completed
by the Survey of India along with a representative
G of the Lokayukta of Karnataka.
(D) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing action
against all the violators involved either directly or
H indirectly in illegal mining including those named in
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 825
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
the Report of the Lokayukta of Karnataka (Part-I}. A
(E) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
recovery of the illegal wealth accumulated through
the illegal mining and related activities; and 8
(F) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing null
and void notification No. Cl 33 MMM 1994 dated
15.3.2003 and other related notifications/orders
dereserving lands for mining operations." C
3. The writ petition was entertained and the Central
Empowered Committee (hereinafter for short "the CEC") was
asked to submit a report on the allegations of ill~gal mining in
the Bellary region of the State of Karnataka. The very initial o
order of this Court is dated 19.11.201 O and was restricted to
six mining leases granted in favour of M/s. Bellary Iron Ore Pvt.
Ltd., M/s. Mahabaleswarapa & Sons, M/s. Ananthapur Mining
Corporation and Mis. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd.
What followed thereafter is unprecedented in the history of E
Indian environmental jurisprudence. It is neither necessary nor
feasible to set out the series of Reports of the CEC and the
various orders of the Court passed from time to time. Rather,
a brief indication of the core Reports of the CEC and the main
orders passed by the Court will suffice to understand what had
F
happened so to enable the Court to unravel the course of action
for the future.
4. The initial Reports submitted by the CEC in response
to the orders of the Court having indicated large scale illegal
mining at the cost and to the detriment of the environment, a G
stage came when by order dated 29.7.2011 a complete ban
on mining in the district of Bellary was imposed. Extension of
the said ban was made in respect of the mining operations in
the districts of Tumkur and Chitradurga by order dated
26.8.2011. As the materials placed before the Court (including H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A the Report of the Lokayukta dated 18.12 .2008) indicated large
scale encroachment into forest areas by leaseholders and
ongoing mining operations in such areas without requisite
statutory approval and clearances, a Joint Team was
constituted by this Court by order dated 6.5.2011 to determine
B the boundaries of initially 117 mining leases which number was
subsequently extended to 166 by inclusion of the mines in
Tumkur and Chitradurga districts. The result of the survey by
the Joint Team revealed a shocking state of depredation of
nature's bounty by human greed. Objections of the lease
c holders to the survey came early and were subjected to a re-
examination by the special team itself under orders of the Court
dated 23.9.2011 in the course of which 122 cases were re-
examined and necessary corrections were effected in 33
cases. Thereafter, the CEC submitted its Report termed as the
"Final Report" dated 3.2.2012 which is significant for two of its
0
recommendations. The first was for categorization of the mines
into three categories, i.e., 'A', 'B' and 'C' on the basis of the
extent of encroachment in respect of the mining pits and over
burden dumps determined in terms of percentage qua the total
lease area. The second set of recommendations pertained to
E the conditions subject to which reopening of the mines and
resumption of mining operations were to be considered by the
Court. A set of modified recommendations along with a set of
detailed guidelines for preparation and implementation of
Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plans (R & R) were also
F submitted to the Court by the CEC on 13.3.2012. Before the
relevant extracts from the Reports of the CEC dated 3.2.2012
and 13.3.2012 are noticed, to make the discussion on the
Report of the Joint Team complete it will be necessary to note
that in terms of the order dated 10.2.2012 of the Court, 66
G representations were considered by the CEC out of which only
4 were found tenable. Accordingly, corrections were made in
respect of the said four leases which corrections, however, did
not involve any change of category. The CEC placed the cases
of two lease holders i.e. Mis. V.S. Lad & Sons and Mis. Hothur
H Traders for consideration of the Court as to whether the said
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 827
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.)
two leases placed in Category "C" needed upgradation to A
Category "B" in view of the minimal violation committed by them
and the circumstances surrounding such violations.
5. We may now proceed to notice the relevant part of the
two Reports of the CEC dated 3.2.2012 and 13.3.2012, as B
referred to hereinabove.
"IV. CLASSIFICATION OF LEASES IN DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES ON THE BASIS OF THE LEVEL OF
ILLEGALITIES FOUND.
c
27. The CEC, based on the extent of illegal mining found
by the Joint Team and as appropriately modified by the
CEC in its Proceeding dated 25th January, 2012 and after
considering the other relevant information has classified
the mining leases into three categories namely "Category- 0
A". "Category-B" and "Category-C".
28. The "Category-A" comprises of (a) working leases
wherein no illegality/marginal illegality have been found
and (b) non working leases wherein no marginal/illegalities
have been found. The number of such leases comes to 21 E
& 24 respectively.
29. "Category-B" comprises of (a) mining leases wherein
illegal mining by way of (i) mining pits outside the
sanctioned lease areas have been found to be up to 10% F
of the lease areas and/ or (ii) over b.urden/waste dumps
outside the sanctioned lease areas have been found to be
up to 15% of the lease areas and (b) leases falling on
interstate boundary between Karnataka and Andhra
Pradesh and for which survey sketches have not been G
finalized. For specific reasons as mentioned in the
statement of "Category-B" leases, Mis. S.B. Minerals (ML,
No. 2515), M/s. Shantalaxmi Jayram (ML No. 2553), M/s.
Gavisiddeshwar Enterprises (ML No. 80) and Mis.
Vibhutigudda Mines (Pvt.) Ltd. (ML No. 2469) have been H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A assigned in "Category-B". The numbers of such leases in
"Category-B" comes to 72.
30. The "Category-C" comprises of leases wherein (i) the
illegal mining by way of (a) mining pits outside the
sanctioned lease area have been found to be more than
B
10% of the lease area and/or (b) over burden/waste dumps
outside the sanctioned lease areas have been found to be
more than 15% of the lease areas and/or (ii) the leases
found to be involved in flagrant violation of the Forest
(Conservation) Act and/or found to be involved in illegal
c mining in other lease areas. The number of such leases
comes to 49.
RECOMMENDATIONS (as modified by CEC by its
Report dated 13.3.2012. Items 1 to IV of the Report dated
D 3.2.2012 stood replaced by Items A to I of the Report
dated 13.3.2012 which are reproduced below along with
Items V to XIV of the initial Report dated 3.2.2012).
(A) the findings of the Joint Team and as modified after
careful examination by the CEC may be accepted
E
and directed to be followed by the concerned
authorities and the respective leases,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary. The
boundaries of the mining leases should accordingly
be fixed on the ground.
F
(B) a ceiling of 25 Million Metric Tonnes (MMT) for total
production of iron ore from all the mining leases in
District Beltary may be prescribed. A ceiling of 5
MMT for production of iron ore from all the mining
G leases in Districts Chitradurga and Tumkur together
may be prescribed;
(C) the proposed "guidelines for the preparation of the
R&R Plans" may be approved by this Hon'ble Court
and the prescriptions/provisions of the R&R Plans,
H
"
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 829
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
prepared as per these guidelines, may be directed A
to be followed by the respective lessees and the
concerned authorities;
(D) the iron ore which becomes available should be
used for meeting the iron ore requirement of the 8
steel plants and associated industries located in
Karnataka and also of those plants located in the
adjoining States which have been using the iron
ore from the mining leases located in these
Districts. Exports, outside the country, should be C
permissible only in respect of the material which the
steel plants and associated industries are not
willing to purchase on or above the average pdce
realized by the Monitoring Committee for the
corresponding grades of fines/lumps during the sale
of about 25 MMT of the existing stock of iron ore. D
Similarly, the iron ore produced by the beneficiation ·
plants after processing should also not be
permitted to be exported outside the country;
(E) • the sale of the iron ore should continue to be through E
e-auction and the same should be conducted by
the Monitoring Committee constituted by this
Hon'ble Court. However, the quantity to be put up
fore-auction, its grade, lot size, its base/floor price
and the period of delivery will be decided/provided F
by the respective lease holders. The Monitoring
Committee may permit the lease holders to put up
fore-auction the quantities of the iron ore planned
to be produced in subsequent months. The system
of sale through the Monitoring Committee may be G
reviewed after say two year;
(F) 90% of the sale price (excluding the royalty and the
applicable taxes) received during the e-auction
may be paid by the buyer directly to the respective
lease holders and the balance 10% may be H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A deposited with the Monitoring Committee alongwith
the royalty, FDT and other applicable taxes/
charges;
(G) The responsibility of the Monitoring Committee will
be (a) to monitor the implementation of the various
8
provisions/prescriptions of the R&R Plans, (b) to
ensure strict compliance of the conditions on which
the environment clearance, the approval under the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the other
statutory approvals/clearances have been
c accorded, (c) to ensure that the mining is
undertaken as per the approved Mining Plan, (d) to
ensure that the ceiling on annual production ·fixed
for the lease does not exceed, (e) to ensure that the
safety zone is maintained around the lease area
D and in respect of the clusters of mining leases
around the outer boundary of such cluster of mining
leases and (f) to ensure compliance of the other
applicable condition/provisions. Any lease found to
be operating in violation of the stipulated
E conditions/provisions should be liable for closure
and/or termination of the lease;
(H) the present Members of the Monitoring Committee
should continue for a period of next two years; and
F
(Q in the larger public interest the mining operations
in the two leases of Mis. NMDC may be permitted
to be continued. However, it will be liable to deposit
penalty/compensation as payable for the mining
leases falling in "Category-8"
G
(V) In respect of the mining leases falling in
"CATEGORY-8" (details given at Annexure-R-10 to
this Report) it is recommended that:
(i) the R&R Plan, under preparation by the ICFRE,
H
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 831
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
after incorporating the appropriate changes as per A
the directions of this Hon'ble Court, should be
implemented in a time bound manner by the
respective lessees at his cost. In the event of his
failure to do so or if the quality and/or the progress
of the implementation of the R&R Plan is found to
B
be unsatisfactory by the Monitoring Committee or
by the designated officer(s) of the State of
Karnataka, the same should be implemented by the
State of Karnataka through appropriate agency(ies)
and at the cost of the lessee;
c
(ii) for carrying out the illegal mining outside the lease
area, exemplary compensation/ penalty may be
imposed on the lessee. It is recommended that:
(a) For illegal mining by way of mining pits D
outside the leases area, as found by the Joint
Team, the compensation/ penalty may be
imposed at the rate of Rs. 5.00 crore (Rs.
Five Crore only) for per ha. of the area found
by the Joint Team to be under illegal mining E
pit; and
(b) For illegal mining by way of over burden
dump(s) road, office, etc. outside the
sanctioned lease area, the compensation/
penalty may be imposed @ Rs. 1.00 crores F
(Rs. One Crores only) for per ha. of the area
found to be under illegal over burden dump
etc.
(iii) Mining operation may be allowed to be undertaken G
after (a) the implementation of the R& R Plan is
physically undertaken and is found to be satisfactory
based on the pre-determined parameters (b)
penalty/ compensation as decided by this Hon'ble
Court is deposited and (c) the conditions as
H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 6 S.C.R.
A applicable in respect of "Category-A" leases are
fulfilled/followed;
(iv) In respect of the seven mining leases located on/
nearby the interstate boundary, the mining
operation should presently remain suspended. The
B
survey sketches of these leases should be finalized
after the interstate boundary is decided and
thereafter the individual leases should be dealt with
depending upon the level of the illegality found; and
c (v) Out of the sale proceeds of the existing stock of the
mining leases, after deducting :
(a) The penalty/compensation payable;
(b) Estimated cost of the implementation of the
D R& R Plan; and
(c) 10% of the sale proceeds to be retained by
the Monitoring Committee for being
transferred to the SPY
E
(d) The balance amount, if any, may be allowed
to be disbursed to the respective lessees.
(VI) In respect of the mining leases falling in
"CATEGORY-C" (details are given at annexure-R-
F 11 to this Report) it is recommended that (a) such
leases should be directed to be cancelled/
determined on account of these leases having been
found to be involved in substantial illegal mining
outside the sanctioned lease areas (b) the entire
G sale proceeds of the existing stock of the iron ore
of these leases should be retained by the
Monitoring Committee and (c) the implementation
of the R&R Plan should be at the cost of the lessee;
H (VII) the area of the mining leases falling in the
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 833
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
"Category-C", after cancellation of the mining A
leases may be directed to be allotted/assigned
through a transparent process of bidding to the
highest bidder (s) from amongst the end users. The
floor price for this purpose should be fixed on the
basis of the market value of the permissible annual B
production of the iron ore during the period of the
agreements/lease period. The iron ore produced
from such mines should be used for captive use
only and no sale/export will be permissible. The
detailed schemes in this regard should be prepared c
and implemented after obtaining the permission of
Jhis Hon'ble Court;
(VIII) the mining leases owned by the Mis. MML should
be operated by it. Alternatively, the agreements for
mining operations and supply of the iron ore should D
be entered into by it through a transparent process
and on the basis of the market value of the mineral
and without any hidden subsidy. The detailed
scheme in this regard should be prepared and
implemented after obtaining permission of this E
Hon'ble Court.
(IX) A Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) under the
. Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Government
Karnataka and with the senior officers of the
concerned Departments of the State Government
F
as Members may be directed to be set up for the
purpose of taking various ameliorative and
mitigative measures in Districts Bellary,
Chitradurga and Tumkur. The additional resources
mobilized by (a) allotment/ assignment of the G
cancelled mining leases as well as the mining
le'ases belonging to Mis. MML, (b) the amount of
the penalty/ compensation received/ receivable
from the defaulting lessee, (c) the amount received/
receivable by the Monitoring Committee from the H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 6 S.C.R.
A mining leases falling in "Category-A" and
"Category-B", (d) amount received/ receivable from
the sale proceeds of the confiscated material etc.,
may be directed to be transferred to the SPV and
used exclusively for the socio-economic
B development of the area/local population,
infrastructure development, conservation and
protection of forest, developing common facilities
for transportation of iron ore (such as maintenance
and widening of existing road, construction of
c alternate road, conveyor belt, railway siding and
improving communication system, etc.). A detailed
scheme in this regard may be directed to be
prepared and implemented after obtaining
permission of this Hon'ble Court;
D (X) Out of the 20% of sale proceeds retained by the
Monitoring Committee in respect of the cleared
mining leases falling in "Category-A", 10% of the
sale proceeds may be transferred to the SPV while
the balance 10% of the sale proceeds may be
E reimbursed to the respective lessees. In respect of
the mining leases falling in "Category-8", after
deducting the penalty/compensation, the estimated
cost of the implementation of the R&R Plan, and
10% of the sale proceeds to be retained for being
F transferred to the SPV, the balance amount, if any,
may be reimbursed to the respective lessees;
(XI) no new mining leases, including for which
Notifications have already been issued, will be
granted without obtaining permission of this
G
Hon'ble Court;
(XII) the pending' applications for grant of mining leases
in Ramgad and Swamimalai Block in District
Bellary and for which the NOC's were earlier issued
H will stand rejected;
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 835
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
I
(XIII) the confiscated. iron ore pertaining to the cancelled A
stock yards will be sold by the Monitoring
Committee and the sale proceeds will be retained
by the Monitoring Committee;
(XIII) the Monitoring Committee may be authorized to sell
8
low grade/sub grade iron ore to Cement Plants, Red
Oxide and other similarly placed industries. It may
also be authorized to supply iron ore required for
construction of nuclear plants at the rates mutually
agreed between the Monitoring Committee and the
concerned authorities provided no middle man is C
involved; and
(XIV) the Monitoring Committee may be authorized to
utilize up to 25% of the interest received by it for
engaging reputed agencies for the monitoring of the D
various parameters relating to mining."
6. As previously noticed, the CEC in its Report dated
13.3.2012 had set out in detail the objectives of the
Reclamation and Rehabilitation (R&R) plans and the guidelines E
for preparation of detailed R & R plans in respect of each mining
lease. The origins of the idea (R & R plans) are to be found in
an earlier Report of the CEC dated 28.7.2011. As the
suggestions of the CEC with regard to preparations of R & R
plans for each mine is crucial to scientific and planned
exploitation of the mineral resources in question it will be 'F
necessary for us to notice the said objectives and the detailed
guidelines which are set out below. In this connection it would
be worthwhile to take note of the fact that the guidelines in
question have been prepared after detailed consultation with
different stakeholders including the Federation of Indian G
Mineral Industries (FIMI) which claims to be the representative
body of the majority of the mining lessees of the present case .
. "II. BROAD OBJECTIVES/PARAMETERS OF R&R
PLANS H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A 8. The broad objectives/parameters of the R&R Plans
would be:
(i) to carry out time bound reclamation and
rehabilitation of the areas found to be under illegal
mining by way of mining pits, over burden/waste
B
dumps etc. outside the sanctioned areas;
(ii) to ensure scientific and sustainable mining after
taking into consideration the mining reserves
assessed to be available within the lease area;
c
(iii) to ensure environmental friendly mining and related
activities and complying with the standards
stipulated under the various environmental/mining
statutes e.g. air quality (SPM, RPM), noise/vibration
D level, water quality (surface as well as ground
water), scientific over burden/waste dumping,
stabilization of slopes and benches, proper stacking
and preservation of top soil, sub grade mineral and
saleable minerals, proper quality of internal roads,
adequate protective measures such as dust
E
suppression/control measures for screening and
crushing plants, beneficiation plants, provision for
retention walls, garland drains, check dams,
siltation ponds, afforestation, safety zones, proper
covering of truck, exploring possibility of back filling
F of part of over burden/waste dumps in the mining
pits, sale/beneficia!ion of sub grade iron ore, water
harvesting, etc.
(iv) for achieving (ii) and (iii) above, fixation of
G permissible annual production; and
(v) regular and effective monitoring and evaluation.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
H
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 837
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
VI. PROVISIONS/PRESCRIPTIONS OF THE LEASE A
WISE R&R PLANS
14. The leasewise R&R Plans will provide for the specific
provisions/prescriptions as dealt with hereunder:
(A) REGARDING AREA FOUND BY THE JOINT B
TEAM TO BE UNDER ILLEGAL MINING
15. The area under illegal mining pits should be filled up
with the existing over burden/waste dumps preferably the
illegal dumps. Appropriate soil and moisture conservation c
measures will be provided and such areas will be
afforested with indigenous species.
16. The reclamation and rehabilitation works will be carried
out even if such areas are found to be having mineral D
reserves.
17. In respect of area under illegal over burden/waste
dumps, wherever environmentally feasible the over burden/
waste dumps will be removed and disposed of
scientifically within the lease area of the encroacher. E
18. In other cases, the illegal over burden/waste dumps will
be stabilized by: ·
(a) modifying the gradient of the lump
F
(b) construction of retaining walls,
(c) construction of gully plugs
(d) construction of garland drains
G
(e) geo-metric/geo-matting of dumps
(f) afforestation, and
(g) other soil and moisture conservation measures,
H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A 19. However, in respect of the mining pits falling within the
area of the other sanctioned leases, specific lease-wise
prescription/provision will be made depending upon the
ground situation.
(B) REGARDING PERMISSIBLE ANNUAL
B
PRODUCTION
20. The permissible annual production for the mining lease
would be based on (a) the mineral reserves in the lease
area; (b) area available for over burden/waste dumps, sub
c g,_rade iron ore and other land uses (c) existing transport
facilities in relation to the traffic load of the mining lease
and (d) overall ceiling on the annual production from all the
mining leases in the district (as dealt with earlier).
21. Presently the permissible annual production would be
decided for the next five years subject to review/
modification in any of the following situation:
(a) change in the assessed mineral reserves/
resources because of subsequent exploration
E carried out and incorporated in the modified mining
plan/scheme and approved by the IBM;
(b) identification of additional area for the disposal
of the over burden/waste dumps and incorpora*ed
F in the approved mining plan/scheme (preferably by
way of back filling of mined out pits); and
(c) creation of additional physical infrastructure such
as railway sidings, conveyors, wagon tipplers,
wagon loaders (to remove/reduce transportation
G bottlenecks).
(C) STABILIZATION OF THE EXISTING OVER
BURDEN/WASTE DUMPS AND SUB GRADE
IRON ORE DUMPS AND PLAN FOR ACTIVE
H OVER BURDEN/WASTE DUMP
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 839
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
22. This will include the total area of the dump(s), present A
gradient, planned gradient, provision for retaining wall(s),
benches, final gradient, volume of over burden/waste dump
that may be stored, afforestation, use of geo-matting/geo-
textile, garland drains and other soil and moisture
conservation/protective measures; B
23. The design will vary from mine to mine and within the
mine from dump to dump. The prescription will also vary
between old dumps and active dumps. The slope of 27
degree provided in the environment clearance may not be C
feasible for dumping on steep hill slopes.
24. The ultimate objective of the dump design/protective
measure would be to ensure that the slopes are stable, are
not vulnerable to erosion and to provide for adequate
protective measures to capture/control run off; D
{D) MINING PITS
25. In respect of the mining leases where the shape and
design of the mining pits differ substantially from those
provided in the approved mining plan and /or found to be E
in gross violation of the approved design, mining will be
permissible based on rectification as required by the
concerned statutory authority (viz. DGMS). Similarly, gross
violations under other Acts/Rules, if any, will need to be
rectified (as required by the relevant statutory authorities). F
{E) SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATIONS,
AFFORESTATION AND OTHER MEASURES
26. The R&R plan would inter alia provide for:
G
(i) broad design/specification for
(a) garland drains
(b) retaining walls
H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 6 S.C.R.
A (c) check dams
(d) gully plugs and/or culverts (if required)
(e) gee textile/gee matting of dumps
B (f) afforestation in the safety zones
(g) afforestation in peripheral area, road side,
over burden dumps and other areas
(ii) dust suppression measures at/for loading,
c unloading and transfer points, internal roads,
mineral stacks etc.
(iii) covered conveyor belts (if feasible) - such as down
hill conveyor, pipe conveyor etc.
D
(iv) specification of internal roads,
(v) details of existing transport system and proposed
improvements
E (vi) railways siding (if feasible)
(vii) capacity building of personnel involved in the mining
and environmental management
(viii) rain water harvesting
F
(F) TIME SCHEDULE
27. Time schedule for implementation of various
prescriptions will be provided.
G (G) MONITORING MECHANISM
28. Monitoring mechanism, including predetermined
parameters to assess the successful implementation of the
· various provision/prescriptions of the R&R Plan will be
H pr~vided. The Monitoring Committee will be responsible
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 841
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOl, J.]
for monitoring the implementation of the prescription/ A
provisions of the R&R Plans."
7. The recommendations of the CEC dated 13.3.2012 in
respect of Items A to I were accepted by the Court by its order
dated 13.4.2012.
B
8. The next significant event that had occurred in the
catalogue of relevant occurrences is the order of the Court
dated 3.9.2012 permitting reopening of 18 category 'A' mines
subject to the conditions spelt out in the said order which
broadly were to the effect that mining shall be to the extent of C
the annual production as applicable to each mine determined
by the CEC in its Report dated 29.8.2012 and further subject
to the following conditions:
"(I) compliance with all the statutory requirements; D
(II) the full satisfaction of the Monitoring Committee,
expressed in writing, that steps for implementation of the
R & R Plan in the leasehold areas are proceeding
effectively and meaningfully, and
E
(Ill) a written undertaking by the leaseholders that they
would fully abide by the Supplementary Environment
Management Plan (SEMP) as applicable to the leasehold
area and shall also abide by the Comprehensive
Environment Plan for Mining Impact Zone (CEPMIZ) that F
may be formulated later on and comply with any liabilities,
financial or otherwise, that may arise against them under
the CEPMIZ.
(IV) The CEC shall, upon inspection, submit a report to this G
Court that any or all the stated 18 "Category A" mine
owners have fully satisfied the above-mentioned
conditions. Further, it shall be reported that the mining
activity is being carried on strictly within the specified
parameters and without any violation."
H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 6 S.C.R.
A 9. The order of the Court dated 28.9.2012, laying down
certain conditions "as the absolute first step before
consideration of any resumption of mining operations by
Category-'B' leaseholders" would also be required to be
specifically noticed at this stage.
B
"I. Compensatory Payment
(a) Each of the leaseholders must pay compensation
for the areas under illegal mining pits outside the
sanctioned area, as found by the Joint Team (and
c as finally held by the CEC) at the rate of Rs.5
crores per hectare, and (b) for the areas under
illegal overburden dumps, roads, offices, etc.
outside the sanctioned lease area, as found by the
Joint Team (as might have been finally held by the
D CEC) at the rate of Rs.1 crore per hectare.
It is made clear that the payment at the rates
aforesaid is the minimum payment and each leaseholder
may be liable to pay additional amounts on the basis of
the final determination of the national loss caused by the
E
illegal mining and the illegal use of the land for overburden
dumps, roads, offices, etc. Each leaseholder, besides
making payment as directed above, must also give an
undertaking to the CEC for payment of the addition-al
amounts, if held liable on the basis of the final
F
determination.
At the same time, we direct for the constitution of a
Committee to determine the amount of compensatory
payment to be made by each of the leaseholders having
G regard to the value of the ore illegally extracted from forest/
non-forest land falling within or outside the sanctioned
lease area and the profit made from such illegal extraction
and the resultant damage caused to the environment and
the ecology of the area.
H
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 843
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
The Committee 'shall consist of experts/officers A
nominated each by the Ministry of Mines and the Ministry
of Environment and Forests. The convener of the
Committee will be the Member Secretary of the CEC. The
two members nominated by the Ministry of Mines and the
Ministry of Environment and Forests along with the B
Member Secretary, CEC shall co-opt two or three officers
from the State Government. The Committee shall submit
its report on the aforesaid issue through the CEC to this
Court within three months from today.
The final determination so made, on being approved C
by the Court, shall be payable by each of the leaseholders.
II. Guarantee money for implementation of the R&R plan
in the respective sanctioned lease areas.
D
The CEC shall make an estimate ofthe expenses
required for the full implementation of the R&R plan in each
of the 63 'Category B' mines and each of the leaseholders
must pay the estimated amount as guarantee for
imple.mentation of the R&R plans in their respective E
sanctioned lease areas and in the areas where they
carried on illegal mining activities or which were used for
illegal overburden dumps, roads, offices, etc. beyond the
sanctioned lease area. In case, any leaseholder defaults
in implementation of the R&R plan, it will be open to the
CEC to carry out the R&R plan for that leasehold through F
some other proper agency from the guarantee money
deposited by the leaseholder. However, on the full
implementation of the R&R plan to the complete
satisfaction of the CEC and subject to the approval by the
Court, the guarantee money would be refundable to the G
leaseholder.
Ill. In additio~ to the above, each leaseholder must pay a
sum equivalent to 15% of the sale proceeds of its iron ore
sold through the Monitoring Committee as per the earlier H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A orders of this Court .. In this regard, it may be stated that
though the amicus suggests the payment @ 10% of the
sale proceeds, having regard to the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, we have enhanced this payment
to 15% of the sale proceeds.
B
Here it needs to be clarified that the CEC/Monitoring
Committee is holding the sale proceeds of the iron ores
of the leaseholders, including the 63 leaseholds being the
subject of this order. In case, the money held by the CEC/
Monitoring Committee on the account of any leaseholder
c is sufficient to cover the payments under the aforesaid
three heads, the leaseholder may, in writing, authorize the
CEC to deduct from the sale proceeds on its account the
amounts under the aforesaid three heads and an
undertaking to make payment of any additional amount as
D compensatory payment. On submission of such
authorization and undertaking, the CEC shall retain the
amounts covering the aforesaid three heads and pay to
the concerned leaseholder the balance amount, if any. It
is expected that the balance amount, after making the
E adjustments as indicated here, would be paid to the
concerned leaseholder within one month from the date of
submission of the authorization and the undertaking.
In the case of any leaseholder, if the money held on
F his account is not sufficient to cover the aforesaid three
heads, he must pay the deficit within two months from
today.
IV. The R&R plans for the aforesaid 63 'Category B'
mines may be prepared as early as possible, as directed
G by orders of this Court dated April 13, April 20 and May
05, 2012, and in case where the R&R plan is already
prepared and ready, the leaseholder may take steps for
its comprehensive implementation, both within and outside
the sanctioned lease area, without any delay."
H
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 845
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, JJ
10. The number of "B" Category mines though mentioned A
as 72 in the CEC Report .dated 3.2.2012, reference to the
figure of 63 in the above extracted part of the Court's ordet
dated 28.9.2012 is on account of placing of the 7 mines located
on the inter-State border (Karnataka-Andhra Pradesh) in a
special category (81) and the cases of two leases i.e. Mis S.B. B
Minerals (ML No.2515) and Mis. Shanthalakshmi Jayaram (ML
No.2553) (tentatively placed by CEC in Category 'B'] before
the Court for orders as to their appropriate categorization. The
issue of the seven (7) mines on the Karnataka - Andhra
Pradesh border and the two (2) mines in respect of which c
appropriate categorization which is to be decided is being dealt
with in i:mother part of the present orqer.
11. The latest Report of the CEC dated 15.2.2013
indicating the present status of preparation and implementation
of the lease wise R& R plans and resumption of mining D
operations by Category 'A' and Category 'B' mines and the
compliance of the preconditions for opening of Category 'B'
mines will also require specific notice, which recommendations
are extracted below.
E
"RECOMMENDATIONS
15. In the above background the following
recommendations are made for the consideration of this
Hon'ble Court :
F
(i) This Hon'ble Court may consider extending its
order dated 3rd September, 2012, by which mining
operations were permitted to be resumed in 18
"Category-A" mining leases, to all "Category-A"
mining leases; G
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may consider permitting the
resumption of the mining operations in "Category-
B" mining leases subject to the conditions as
applicable for the resumption of the mining
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A operations in the "Category-A" mining leases and
compliance of the following additional conditions :
(a) In compliance of this Hon'ble Court's order
dated 28th September, 2012 the lessees will
be required to pay, if not already so done,
B
compensation for the area under illegal
mining pits, illegal over burden dumps,
roads, offices etc. undertake to pay the
additional compensatory amounts, if held
liable, guarantee money for implementation
c of the R&R Plans and deposit of 15% of the
sale proceeds of the existing iron ore sold by
the Monitoring Committee; and
(b) Before starting the mining operations the
D implementation of the R& R Plans for the
areas found under illegal mining pits, illegal
over burden dumps, etc. will be completed/
nearing completion to the satisfaction of the
Monitoring Committee; and
E
(iii) the CEC/Monitoring Committee may be authorized
to remove and sell through e-auction the sub grade
iron ore available in the existing over burden dumps
in and around the lease areas subject to the
condition that such removal and sale is not likely to
F have significant adverse impact on the existing tree
growth/vegetation and/or stability of the over burden
dumps. The Monitoring Committee may be
authorized to retain the entire sale proceeds in
respect of the dumps located outside the
G sanctioned and presently valid lease areas for the
purpose of transfer to the SPV for the
implementation of the Comprehensive Environment
Plan for Mining Impact Zone (CEPMIZ)."
H Thus the CEC in its Report dated 15.2.2013 had
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 847
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
recommended resumption of mining operations in the A
remaining category 'A' mines subject to the conditions already
imposed by this Court in its order dated 3.9.2012 and also for
reopening of Category 'B' mines subject to the same
conditions and additionally the preconditions recommended by
the CEC and approved by this Court by its order dated B
28.9.2012.
12. The above main features contained in the various
Reports of the CEC and the orders of this Court apart, there
are certain incidental and supplementary matters which may be
conveniently noticed now. C
13. The first is with regard to investigations in respect of
alleged criminal offences by lessees which have been ordered
by this Court to be investigated by the CBI. As investigations
have already been ordered by this Court and such investigations o
would necessarily have to follow the procedure prescribed by
law we do not wish to delve upon the same save and except
to say that each of such investigation shall be brought to its
logical conclusion in accordance with law and any aggrieved
party would be entitled to avail of all legal remedies as may be E
available.
14. The second supplementary issue that can be
conveniently dealt with at this stage is with regard to sale of
the existing stock of Iron Ore which is mainly the yield of illegal
mining. The Court had ordered disposal of such accumulated F
Iron Ore by the process of e-auction through a Monitoring
Committee constituted by order oJ this Court dated 23.9.2011.
From time to time this Court had directed certain payments to
be made to the Monitoring Committee e.g. by way of 10% of
sale proceeds; on account of compensatory payments etc. By G
order dated 28.9.2012, this Court had constituted a Special
Purpose Vehicle (for short 'SPV') on the suggestion of the
learned Amicus Curiae. The purpose of constitution of the
SPV, it may be noticed, is for taking of ameliorative and
mitigative measures as per the "Comprehensive Environment H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A Plans for the Mining Impact Zone" (CPEMIZ) around mining
leases in Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur. By the order dated
28.9.2012, the Monitoring Committee was to make available
the payments received by it under different heads of receivables
to the SPV.
B 15. The above facts would have relevance to the future of
the mining operations in the State as the continuance of this
Court's orders for sale of the Iron Ore by the process of e-
auction by the Monitoring Committee after recommencement
of mining operations on the same terms and conditions and
C also the continuance of the SPV would be required to be
considered by us. It would also be convenient to take note of
the fact that as per the CEC's Report dated 15.2.2013 sale of
almost the entire quantity of illegally extracted Iron Ore has been
effected through the Monitoring Committee and the sub-grade
D Iron Ore lying in dumps in and around several lease areas may
not have adequate commercial potential. Besides removal
thereof for sale, in many cases, may also give rise to
environmental problems in as much as removal of such dumps
may constitute a hazard to the stability of the dumps which have
E been in existence for many years. Permission for sale of sub-
grade iron ore, only when the same is commercially viable and
removal thereof from the dumps is an environmentally safe
exercise, has been sought by the CEC in its last Report dated
15.2.2013. We do not find any impediment in accepting the
F recommendations of the CEC in the Report dated 15.2.2013
in respect of removal and sale of sub-grade Iron Ore. Similarly,
we do not find any difficulty in continuing our previous orders
permitting sale of iron ore to be mined after resumption of
operations through the Monitoring Committee on the same
G terms and conditions as presently in force.
16. The supplementary and the collateral issues, which we
must emphasize are not to be understood to be low either in
priority or importance because of the nomenclature used,
having been dealt with by us in the manner indicated above we
H
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 849
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
may now come to what can be conveniently referred to as the A
central issues that confront the Court in the present case. In this
regard notice must be had to the large number of interlocutory
applications (IAs) filed basically questioning the sanctity of the
survey carried out by the Joint Team constituted by this Court,
the findings arrived at and the categorization of the leaseholders B
into the three different categories. Such objections in the main
have come from leaseholders who have been put in Category
'C' (except in few isolated cases seeking a change from
Category 'B' to 'A') for which Category of mines the
recommendation of the CEC is one of closure. The challenge c
is on twin grounds of lack of procedural fairness and inherent
defee<ts in the technical part of the exercise of survey besides
apparent legal fallacies in the process of determination of the
allegedly encroached mining area. Denial of adequate
opportunity to associate and coordinate with the survey process, D
notwithstanding the possible adverse effects of the findings of
survey on the legal rights of the lease holders, is the backbone
of the challenge on ground of procedural fairness. On the other
hand, alteration of the lease area either by shifting or reducing
the same; ignoring concluded judicial orders determining E
boundary disputes between adjacent lease holders; taking of
land use for dumps as mining operations requiring a mining
license for the land so used or forest clearances under the
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (in case of such use of forest
land) and above all the change of boundaries demarcated
decades back by adoption of the Total Station Method instead F
of a repeat survey by following the same Conventional Method
(chain method) are the common threads in the arguments
advanced to challenge the technical part of the survey.
17. The categorization of the allegedly offending leases on G
the basis of percentage of the alleged encroachment qua the
total lease area is contended to be constitutionally fragile and
environmentally self-defeating. A leaseholder with a more
expansive lease area, inspite of committing a larger
encroachment, may still fall below the percentage adopted as H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 6 S.C.R.
A the parameter so as to place him in a more favourable
category, say Category 'B', as compared to a small lease
where the area encroached, though small, falls in a less
favourable category, say "C" because the percentage of
encroachment exceeds the prescribed parameters. The
B recommendation of the CEC with regard to categorization and
the actions proposed on that basis as well as the suggested
parameters for drawing up the R& R plans and the
preconditions to be fulfilled by Category 'A' and 'B'
leaseholders for recommencement of mining operations has
c also been assailed by questioning the credibility of the CEC
as an institution and the prolonged continuance of its members
which, according to the leaseholders, have the tendency of
effectuating unbridled powers.
18. Relying on the provisions of the Mines and Minerals
D (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957; Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter
referred to as "MMDR Act", "FC Act" and "EP Act" respectively)
it is argued that each of the statutes contemplate a distinct and
definite statutory scheme to deal with the situations that have
E allegedly arisen in the present case. To resolve the said issues
it is the statutory scheme that should be directed to be followed
and resort to the powers of this Court under Article 32 read with
Article 142 of the Constitution, when a statutory scheme is in
existence, would be wholly uncalled for. Specifically, it has been
F pointed out that none of the conditions that are required to be
fulfilled by Category 'A' leaseholders and none of the
compulsory payments contemplated for Category 'B'
leaseholders for recommencement of operation are visualized
in any of the statutory schemes. Insofar as Category 'C'
G leaseholders are concerned, it is contended that cancellation,
if any, has to be in accordance with the statute which would
provide the lease holder with different tiers of remedial forums
as compared to the finality that would be attached if any order
is to be passed by this Court. In this regard, several earlier
H opinions of this Court, details of which will be noticed in the
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 851
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
discussions that follow, had been cited at the bar to persuade A
us to take the view that we should desist from exercising our
powers under the Constitution and instead relegate the parties
to the remedies provided by the statute.
19. We may now proceed to deal with the issues arising
in proper sequential order. B
ISSUE N0.1
Credibility of the CEC
20. A scathing attack has been made against the CEC on C
beh.alf of one of the lessees represented by ~hri Dushyant A.
Dave, learned senior counsel. It is contended that the said
authority has virtually become a law unto itself making
recommendations which is in defiance of both law and logic.
Assumption of unguided, unbridled and absolute powers has D
been attributed to the CEC. The implicit trust of this Court in
the said body has been misutilised requiring a review by this
Court with regard to the continuance of the said body or at least
in respect of a change in its present composition, it is argued.
E
·21. The CEC was first constituted by the Court by its order
dated 9.5.2002 as an interim body until creation of the statutory
agency contemplated under the provisions of Section 3 (3) of
the EP Act. Thereafter by a Notification dated 17 .9.2002
published in the Gazette of India the constitution of the Central F
Empowered Committee (CEC) for a period of 5 years was
notified indicating its composition together with the extent of its
powers and duties. It transpires from the Court's order dated
7.9.2007 that an issue with regard to the correctness of the
extent of empowerment of the said body made by Notification G
dated 17.9.2002 was raised on behalf of the Union of India,
whereafter, on the suggestions of the Attorney General for India,
this Court by its order dated 14.12.2007 had determined the
extent of powers of the CEC in the following terms :
"1. In supersession of all the previous orders regarding H
A
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
constitutions and functioning of the Central
---
I
,
Empowered Committee (hereinafter called the
"Empowered Committee") is constituted for the
purpose of monitoring and ensuring compliance
with the orders of this Court covering the subject
B matter of forest and wild life and related issues
arising out of the said orders.
2. The Committee shall exercise the following powers
and perform the following functions:
C (i) to monitor the implementation of this Court's orders
and place reports of non-compliance before the
Court and Central Government for appropriate
action.
(ii) to examine pending lnterlocutary Applications in the
D
said Writ petitions (as may be referred to it by the
Court) as well as the reports and affidavits filed by
the States in response to the orders passed by the
Hon'ble Court and place its recommendations
before the Court for orders
E
(iii) to deal with any applications made to it by any
aggrieved person and wherever necessary, to
make a report to this Court in that behalf;
F (iv) for the purposes of effective discharge of powers
conferred upon the Committee under this order; the
Committee can:-
(a) call for any documents from any persons or
the government of the Union or the State or
G any other official;
(b) undertake site inspection of forest area
involved;
, (c) seek assistance or presence of any
H
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 853
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
person(s) or official(s) required by it in A
relation to its work;
(d) co-opt one or more persons as its members
or as special invitees for dealing with
specific issues; B
(e) co-opt, wherever feasible, the Chief
Secretary or his representative and Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests of the State as
special invitees while dealing with issues C
pertaining to a particular state;
(f) to suggest measures generally to the State, ·
as well as Central Government, for the more
effective implementation of the Act and other
orders of this Court. D
(v) to examine and advise/recommend on any issue
referred to the Committee."
22. As the period of five years mentioned in the Notification
dated 17.9.2002 had expired and the terms of reference to the E
body had been redetermined by this Court, perhaps, a fresh
notification should have been issued which was not
forthcoming. It is in such a situation that the CEC had continued
to function under orders of the Court submitting its reports from
time to time in various environmental issues pending before F
this Court. It is on consideration of such Reports that the Court ·
has been passing its orders from time to time.
23. In the circumstances enumerated above, questions
concerning the credibility of the CEC are absolutely unfounded, G
particularly in the absence of any materials to substantiate the
apprehensions, if not allegations, that have been leveled. The
said body has been performing such tasks as had been
assigned by this Court by its orders passed from time to time.
The directions on the basis of which the CEC had proceeded H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A and had submitted its Reports are within the framework of the
terms of reference of the CEC as determined by this Court by
order dated 14.12.2007. Needless to say, acceptance of the
recommendations made by the CEC on the basis of which
orders of the Court are formulated is upon the satisfaction of
B the Court. We, therefore, close the issue by holding the
contentions made to be wholly untenable.
ISSUE N0.2
Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32/142 of the
C Constitution on the basis of the facts revealed bv Reports
of the CEC i.e. large scale damage to the forest wealth of
the country due to illegal mining on an unprecedented
scale vis-ii-vis resort to remedies under the provisions of
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
D 1957. Forest (Conservation) Act. 1980 and Environment
(Protection) Act. 1986
24. On the above issue the short and precise argument
on behalf of the leaseholders is that the provisions of each of
E the statutory enactments, i.e., the MMDR Act, FC Act and EP
Act prescribe a distinct statutory scheme for regulation of mining
activities and the corrective as well as punitive steps that may
be taken in the event mining activities are carried out in a
manner contrary to the terms of the lease or the provisions of
F any of the statutes, as may be. The argument advanced is that
as the statutes in question contemplate a particular scheme to
deal with instances of illegal mining or carrying on mining
operations which is hazardous to the environment, the CEC
could not have recommended the taking of any step or
measure beyond what is contemplated by the statutory
G scheme(s) in force. It is argued that it will not be proper for this
Court to act under Article 32 and to accept any of the said
recommendations which are beyond the scheme(s)
contemplated by the Statute(s). In other words, what is sought
to be advanced on behalf of the leaseholders is that no step
H
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 855
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
should be taken or direction issued by this Court which will be A
contrary to or in conflict with the provisions of the relevant
statutes. Several judgments of this Court, which are perceived
to be precedents in support of the proposition advanced, have
been cited in the course of the arguments made.
B
25. On the other hand, the learned Amicus Curiae, Shri
Shyam Divan, has submitted that the present is a case of mass
destruction of the forest wealth of this country resulting not only
in a plunder of scarce natural resources but also causing
irreparable ecological and environmental damage and C
degradation. The learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that
the extent of illegal mining that had happened in the .three
districts of the State of Karnataka is unprecedented. The
relevant data compiled by different bodies has been placed by
the learned Amicus Curiae to indicate that in the Bellary-Hospet
region the annual production of Iron Ore had increased from D
12.4 MMT in the year 2001-02 to 44.39 MMT in the year 2008-
, 09. The then Chief Minister of the State had made a statement
on the floor of the legislative assembly on 9.7.2010 that 30.49
MMT of illegal Iron Ore has been exported from the State of
Karnataka between 2003-04 to 2009-10 valued at E
approximately Rs. 15,245 crores. In the year 2009-10 alone the
total quantity of illegal Iron Ore exported stood at 12.9 MMT.
During the inspection carried out by the Indian Bureau of Mines
in December, 2009 it was found that not a single mining lease
was operating without violating the provisions of the MMDR Act F
and the FC Act. In an affidavit filed by the official Respondents
in a writ petition registered and numbered as W.P. No. 14551/
2010 before the Karnataka High Court it was stated that
between November, 2009 and February, 2010 (i.e., within a
period of four months) 35.319 lakh MT of illegal Iron Ore was G
received at Belekeri and Karwar ports, fo( movement of which
for a period of about 4 months 2986 trucks were required to
undertake the journey every day in both directions i.e., to the
ports and thereafter back.
H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A 26. According to Shri Divan, the present is a case of mass
tort resulting in the abridgment of the fundamental rights of a
large number of citizens for enforcement of which the writ
petition has been filed under Article 32 .. Shri Divan has
submitted, by relying on several decisions of this Court, that in
B a situation where the Court is called upon to enforce the
fundamental rights and that too of an indeterminate number of
citizens there can be no limitations on the power of Court. It is
the satisfaction of the Court that alone would be material. Once
such satisfaction is reached, the Court will be free to devise
C its own procedure and issue whatever directions are
considered necessary to effectuate the Fundamental Rights.
The only restriction that the Court will bear in mind is that its
orders or directions will not be in conflict with the provisions of
any Statute. However, if the statute does not forbid a particular
D course of action it will be certainly open for the Court under
Article 32 to issue appropriate directions. According to the
learned Amicus Curiae in the present case none of the
recommendations of the CEC is inconsistent or contrary to any
statutory provision. They are at best supplemental to the
E existing provisions seeking to achieve the same end through
a procedure which may be somewhat different. The justification
for this, according to the learned Amicus Curiae, lies in the
extraordinary situation that had occurred in the present case.
27. Al this stage, very briefly, the statutory scheme under
F the three enactments in question may be taken note of. Under
the provisions of the MMDR Act the Slate Government has
been provided with the power of termination of licenses or
mining leases in the interest of regulation of mines and minerals
(Section 4A) whereas under Section 5, power has been
G conferred not to grant mining leases in certain specified
situations. The Rule making power under Section 23C extends
to framing of Rules by the State Government to prevent illegal
mining, transportation and storage of minerals and to provide
for checking and inspection of the mining lease area. The
H Karnataka (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 857
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
Storage of Minerals) Rules, 2011 has been notified on 5th A
February, 2011. Under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960,
the expression "illegal mining" has been explained in Rule 2(iia).
The aforesaid Rules also contemplate that while determining
the extent of illegal mining the area granted under the lease will
be deemed to have been held by the holder of the license B
under lawful authority. Under the provisions of the EP Act,
closure, prohibition or regulation of industry, operation or
process is contemplated, whereas under the provisions of the
FC Act prior approval of the Central Government for use of
forest land for non forest purpose is mandatory. The question c
that has been raised on behalf of the leaseholders is whether
the aforesaid provisions under the different statutes should be
resorted to and the recommendations made by the CEC
including closure of Category-"C" mines should not commend
for acceptance of this Court. o
28. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India & Ors.
(1984) 3 sec 161, this Court had the occasion to consider the
nature of a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution
which is in the following terms :-
E
"32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by
this Part.
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate
proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by
F
this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue
directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature
of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto
and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the G
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the
Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may
by law empower any other court to exercise within the local H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable
by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be
suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution."
B
29. The issue before the Court was one of release/freedom
of an indeterminate number of citizens from bonded labour and
was taken up by the Court by registering a letter addressed to
a Hon'ble Judge of this Court to the above effect as a writ
C petition under Article 32. In the above context this Court in para
13 of its order observed as follows :
"13. But the question then arises as to what is the power
which may be exercised by the Supreme Court when it is
D moved by an "appropriate" proceeding for enforcement of
a fundamental right. The only provision made by the
Constitution-makers in this behalf is to be found in clause
(2) of Article 32 which confers power on the Supreme
Court "to issue directions or orders or writs including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition,
E
quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for enforcement of any of the fundamental
rights". It will be seen that the power conferred by clause
(2) of Article 32 is in the widest terms. It is not confined to
issuing the high prerogative writs of habeas corpus,
F
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto, which
are hedged in by strict conditions differing from one writ
to another and which to quote the words spoken by Lord
Atkin in United Australia Limited v. Barclays Bank Ltd.
[(1941) A.G. 1] in another context often "stand in the path
G of justice clanking their mediaeval chains". But it is much
wider and includes within its matrix, power to issue any
directions, orders or writs which may be appropriate for
enforcement of the fundamental right in question and this
is made amply clear by the inclusive clause which refers
H to in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition,
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 859
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, 'J.]
quo warranto and certiorari. It is not only the high A
prerogative writs of mandamus, habeas corpus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari which can be
issued by the Supreme Court but also writs in the nature
of these high prerogative writs and therefore even if the
conditions for issue of any of these high prerogative writs B
are not fulfilled, the Supreme Court would not be
constrained to fold its hands in despair and plead its
inability to help the citizen who has come before it for
judicial redress, but would have power to issue any
direction, order or writ including a writ in the nature of any C
high prerogative writ. This provision conferring on the
Supreme Court power to enforce the fundamental rights
in the widest possible terms shows the anxiety of the
Constitution-makers not to allow any procedural
technicalities to stand in the way of enforcement of D
fundamental rights. The Constitution-makers clearly
intended that the Supreme Court should have the amplest
power to issue whatever direction, order or writ may be
appropriate in a given case for enforcement of a
fundamental right. But what procedure shall be followed by E
the Supreme Court in exercising the power to issue such
direction, order or writ? That is a matter on which the
Const.itution is silent and advisedly so; because the
Constitution-makers never intended to fetter the discretion
of the Supreme Court to evolve a procedure appropriate
in the circumstances of a given case for the purpose of F
enabling it to exercise its power of enforcing a fundamental
right. Neither clause (2) of Article 32 nor any other provision
of the Constitution requires that any particular procedure
shall be followed by the Supreme Court in exercising its
power to issue an appropriate direction, order or writ. The G
purpose for which the power to issue an appropriate
direction, order or writ is conferred on the Supreme Court
is to secure enforcement of a fundamental right and
obviously therefore, whatever procedure is necessary for .
H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A fulfilment of that purpose must be permissible to the
Supreme Court."
This Court also found that it would be justified to depart,
in a proceeding under Article 32, from the strict adversarial
B procedure and the principles embodied in the Code of Civil
Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act and in this regard
observed as under:
" ... We do not think we would be justified in imposing any
restriction on the power of the Supreme Court to adopt
c such procedure as it thinks fit in exercise of its jurisdiction,
by engrafting adversarial procedure on it, when the
Constitution-makers have deliberately chosen not to insist
on any such requirement and instead, left it open to the
Supreme Court to follow such procedure as it thinks
D appropriate for the purpose of securing the end for which
the power is conferred, namely, enforcement of a
fundamental right."
Insofar as the practice of appointing commissions for
E collection of -basic facts to enable the Court to adjudicate the
issues concerning violation of fundamental rights is concerned
it would be necessary to extract the following observations
recorded by this Court in para 14 in the case of Bandhua Mukti
Morcha (supra).
F "14 ... lt is for this reason that the Supreme Court has
evolved the practice of appointing commissions for· the
purpose of gathering facts and data in regard to a
complaint of breach of a fundamental right made on behalf
of the weaker sections of the society. The report of the
G Commissioner would furnish prima facie evidence of the
facts and data gathered by the Commissioner and that is
why the Supreme Court is careful to appoint a responsible
person as Commissioner to make an enquiry or
investigation into the facts relating to the complaint. It is
H interesting to note that in the past the Supreme Court has
'
I
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 861
. STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
appointed sometimes a District Magistrate, sometimes a A
District Judge, sometimes a professor of law, sometimes
a journalist, sometimes an officer of the Court and
sometimes an advocate practising in the Court, for the
purpose of carrying out an enquiry or investigation and
making report to the Court because the Commissioner B
appointed by the Court must be a responsible person who
enjoys the confidence of the Court and who is expected
to carry out his assignment objectively and impartially
without any predilection-or prejudice. Once the report of
the Commissioner is received, copies of it would be c
supplied to the parties so that either party, if it wants to
dispute any of the facts or data stated in the report, may
do so by filing an affidavit and the court then consider the
report of the Commissioner and the affidavits which may
have been filed and proceed to adjudicate upon the issue 0
arising in the writ petition. It would be entirely for the Court
to consider what weight to attach to the facts and data
stated in the report of the Commissioner and to what exte.nt
to act upon such facts and data."
30. In M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of/ndia & Ors. (1987) 1 SCC E
395, this Court not only reiterated the view adopted in Bandhua
Mukti Morcha (supra) but also held that the power under Article
32 would be both injunctive as well as remedial and the power
to grant remedial relief, naturally, would extend to a wide range
of situations and cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. ·F
31. M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 6 SCC
142 is a case which would disclose a very proximate connection
with the case in hand. In the aforesaid case this Court was
called upon to answer the question as to whether in view of the G
provisions of Section 4A of the MMDR Act (noticed .earlier) it
would be appropriate to exercise the power under Article 32
read with Article 142 in order to suspend mining operations in
the Aravali Hills. The said question was required to be gone
into by the Court in the context of the specific materials placed H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A before it to show that indiscriminate mining resulting in large
scale environmental degradation had occurred. In the above
context, the contents of the paragraphs 41 to 45 of the judgment
in the case of M. C. Mehta (supra) would be relevant:-
"41. On the legal parameters, Shri Diwan and Shri
B
Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel and Shri S.K. Dubey,
learned counsel, submitted that where law requires a
particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must
be done in that manner and other methods are strictly
forbidden. In this connection, it was urged that when Section
c 4-A postulates formation of an opinion by the Central
Government, after consultation of the State Government,
in the matter of cancellation of mining leases in cases of
environmental degradation, the power needs to be
exercised by the State Government upon receipt of request
D from the Central Government. According to the learned
counsel, therefore, this Court cannot cancel the mining
leases if there is alleged environmental degradation as
submitted by the learned amicus curiae.
E 42. It was further submitted that measures under Section
3(2)(v) of the EP Act, 1986 to restrict areas in which
industries shall or shall not be carried out can only be
undertaken by the Central Government where it deems
expedient to protect and improve the quality of
F environment. In fact, according to the learned counsel,
when Aravallis Notification was issued on 7-5-1992 it was
issued under Section 3(2)(v) by the Central Government.
At that time, the Central Government thought it fit not to
place a complete ban but to permit the industries in the
mining sector to carry on its business/operations subject
G
to restrictions enumerated in the said notification.
43. It was lastly submitted that the recommendations
of CEC to impose a complete ban on mining, particularly
in cases where environmental clearances are obtained
H would amount to an exercise of power outside the 1957
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 863
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
Act and the Rules framed thereunder. That, this Court A
cannot exercise powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution when specific provisions are made under
various forest and environmental laws dealing with the
manner and procedure for cancellation/termination of
mining leases. B
44. We find no merit in the above arguments. As
stated above, in the past when mining leases were
granted, requisite clearances for carrying out mining
operations were not obtained which have resulted in land C
and environmental degradation. Desjlite such breaches,
approvals had been granted for subsequent slots because
in the past the authorities have not taken into account the
macro effect of such wide-scale land and environmental
degradation caused by the absence of remedial measures
(including rehabilitation plan). Time has now come, D
therefore, to suspend mining in the above area till statutory
provisions for restoration and reclamation are duly
complied with, particularly in cases where pits/quarries
have been left abandoned. ·
E
." 45. Environment and ecology are national assets.
They are subject to intergenerational equity. Time has now
come to suspend all mining in the above area on
sustainable development principle which is part of Articles
21, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India. In fact, F
these articles have been extensively discussed in the
judgment in [M.C. Mehta case (2004) 12 SCC 118] which
keeps the option of imposing a ban in future open."
The issue is not one of application of the above principles
to a case of cancellation as distinguished from one of G
suspension. The issue is more fundamental, namely, the
wisdom of the exercise of the powers under Article 32 read with
Article 142 to prevent environmental degradation and thereby
effectuate the Fundamental Rights under Article 21.
H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A 32. We may now take up the decisions cited on behalf of
the leaseholders to contend that the power under Articles 32
and 142 ought not to be exercised in the present case and
instead remedies should be sought within the relevant statutes.
The sheet anchor is the case of Supreme Court Bar
B Association Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (1998)
4 sec 409. We do not see how or why we should lie entrapped
within the confines of any of the relevant Statutes on the strength
of the views expressed in Supreme Court Bar Association
(supra). The observations made in para 48 of the judgment and
c the use of words "ordinarily" and "are directly in conflict" as
appearing in the said paragraph (underlined by us) directly
militates against the view that the lease holders would like us
to adopt in the present case.
"48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
D under Article 142 has the power to make such order as is
n.ecessary for doing complete justice "between the parties
in any cause or matter pending before it". The very nature
of the power must lead the Court to set limits for itself
within which to exercise those powers and ordinarily it
E cannot disregard a statutory provision governing a subject,
except perhaps to balance the equities between the
conflicting claims of the litigating parties by "ironing out the
creases" in a cause or matter before it. Indeed this Court
is not a court of restricted jurisdiction of only dispute-
F settling. It is well recognised and established that this
Court has always been a law-maker and its role travels
beyond merely dispute-settling. It is a "problem-solver in
the nebulous areas" [see K. Veeraswami v. Union of India
(1991) 3 sec 55)] but the substantive statutory provisions
G dealing with the subject-matter of a given case cannot be
altogether ignored by this Court, while making an order
under Article 142. Indeed, these constitutional powers
cannot, in any way, be controlled by any statutory
provisions but at the same time these powers are not
H meant to be exercised when their exercise may come
SAMAJ PARIVARJANASAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 865
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.)
directlv in conflict with what has been expressly provided A
for in a statute dealing expressly with the subject."
33. Even if the above observations is understood to be
laying down a note of caution, the same would be a qualified
one and can have no application in a case of mass tort as has
8
been occasioned in the present case. The mechanism provided
by any of the Statutes in question would neither be effective nor
efficacious to deal with the extraordinary situation that has
arisen on account of the large scale illegalities committed in
the operation of the mines in question resulting in grave and C
irreparable loss to the forest wealth of the country besides the
colossal loss caused to the national exchequer. The situation
being extraordinary the remedy, indeed, must also be
extraordinary. Considered against the backdrop of the Statutory
schemes in question, we do not see how any of the
recommendations of the CEC, if accepted, would come into D
conflict with any law enacted by the legislature. It is only in the
above situation that the Court may consider the necessity of
placing the recommendations made by the CEC on a finer
balancing scale before accepting the same. We, therefore, feel
uninhibited to proceed to exercise our constitutional jurisdiction E
to remedy the enormous wrong that has happened and to
provide adequate protection for the future, as may be required.
ISSUE N0.3
Sanctity of the process of survey undertaken by the Joint F
Team cdhstituted by this Court's order dated 6th May.
2011 and the determination of the boundaries of the
leases on the basis of the said survey.
34. The above issue will require examination from two G
perspectives. The first is the fairness of the procedure adopted
in carrying out the survey and the second is with regard to
acceptability of the technical part of the survey process. In so
far as the fairness of the procedure adopted is concerned it is
on record that notice of the dates proposed for survey of a H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 6 S.C.R.
A particular lease was intimated to the lease holder well in
advance to enable the lease holder or his representative to be
present at the site while the survey is conducted. The field
survey was done by 7 teams consisting of one surveyor each
from the Karnataka Forest Department, Karnataka Mines and
s Geological Department, Karnataka Revenue Department and
a representative of the National Institute of Technology,
Surathkal. The field survey undertaken by each team was
supervised by the Joint Team constituted by this Court. During
the field survey, the representative of the concerned lessees
c were present and the Mahazars (Panchnamas) for each day's
survey were prepared incorporating the details of the survey
carried out. The said Panchnamas were signed by, apart from
the Government representatives and the representative of the
National Institute of Technology, Surathkal, also by the
D con~rned lessee or their representatives. The readings
recorded during the field survey were shared with the concerned
lessees or their representatives and before finalizing the survey
sketches the concerned lessees or their representatives were
given a personal hearing. After the field survey was completed,
in terms of the order of the Court dated 23.9.2011, the
E representations filed by the leaseholders against the findings
of the Joint Team were reconsidered by the Joint Team and
personal hearing was afforded to 122 lease holders. On the
basis of the said hearings, necessary corrections were made
in respect of 33 number of leases. Thereafter, the final Report
F of the CEC dated 3.2.2012 was submitted to the Court. In terms
of the Court's order dated 10.2.2012, the CEC again
considered the representations filed by as many as 66 lease
holders. The findings of the Joint Team in respect of 4 leases
were modified by the CEC though the said modification did not
G result into any change of categorization. Two representations,
one filed by M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons and another by M/s. Hothur
Traders have been placed before the Court for appropriate
orders [issue is being dealt with separately] whereas the rest
of the representations were rejected by the CEC. In the above
H facts, procedural fairness in the process of survey carried out
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 867
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
by the Joint Team is writ large and there can be no room for A
any doubt so as to question the sanctity qf the survey process
on the above stated ground.
35. This will require the Court to go into the details of the
technical aspect of the survey which was conducted by the Joint
8
Team. The consideration of the details of the survey undertaken,
naturally, has to be in the backdrop of the multifold complaints
that have been raised on behalf of the leaseholders in the
several IAs filed. As already noted, on a very broad plane, the
complaints in this regard are that the Joint Team has ignored C
judicial orders passed in respect of boundaries between
neighbouring/adjacent leases; reduction of the area of the lease
provided in the lease deed/lease sketch; shifting of the lease
area to a new location as a result of the survey. Specifically,
objections have been raised to .the effect that overburden
dumps in different areas have been taken into account to come D
to the finding that mining had been carried out in such areas
without necessary clearances under the FC Act (in case of
forest areas) or in the absence of mining leases in respect of
such areas (non forest areas) though the activity in question i.e.
dumping does not amount to mining operations under the E
MMDR Act.
36. A consideration of the documents submitted by the
learned Amicus Curiae and those submitted on behalf of the
State of Karnataka would go to show that in carrying out the F
survey, the Joint Team had encountered some serious
difficulties. The same may be enumerated below:-
(i) the sanctioned lease sketch did not have any
reference point(s) and with reference to which the
location of the lease can be decided; G
(ii) there is mis-match between the location(s) of the
reference point(s) on the ground vis-a-vis the details
of such reference points(s) provided in the lease
sketches; H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A (iii) the reference point(s) have been destroyed/altered
on the ground;
(iv) the Survey and Demarcation sketch does not tally
with the lease sketch; and
B (v) there is inherent defect in the lease sketch."
37. To overcome the said difficulties, before the
commencement of the actual survey, a pre-survey examination
was undertaken to identify the boundary pillars, rock marks,
c revenue points etc. as shown in the lease sketch. This was done
with the help of the government staff as well as the
representative of the concerned lessee. Instead of measuring
the length of each arm of the lease sketch by using the
conventional engineering scale and instead of measuring the
D angle py using a protractor, the original lease sketch was
scanned and the digitized so that the length of each arm and
the angles could be precisely measured. Thereafter survey was
undertaken by use of the Total Station Method, which,
undoubtedly, is the state of the art technology with room for
E negligible error. A temporary control point was identified
keeping in view the visibility of the maximum number of
boundary points from the identified control point. Thereafter, the
distance between the control point and the visible boundary
points were measured and recorded in the instrument which
uses an infra-red ray. The instrument was shifted to another
F temporary control point and in a similar manner the distance
between the said control point and remaining boundary points
were measured. After completing the reading of all the points
the margin of error for the instrument was determined (which
was virtually negligible). Thereafter the data from the total station
G was downloaded on a computer using the autocadd software
for preparation of the survey sketch. The survey sketch so
prepared was superimposed on the digitized lease sketch to
ascertain the encroachment if any. Also, the details of the survey
sketch was superimposed on the satellite imageries to further
H verify the correctness of the process of survey undertaken. A
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 869
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
manual calculation of the lease areas was also undertaken to A
compare with the calculation of the lease areas as per the
digitized lease sketch. The difference between the two
measurements in case of 34 number of 'C' category leases is
less than +/- 05ha. The relevant details in this regard which are
available in the compilation of documents submitted by the B
State of Karnataka would be illuminating and are, therefore,
indicated below:
S. Name of the Lessee M.L. Sanction- Area as Area as Difference
No No. ed area manual per between
in Ha calcul- digitized Manually
ation in sketch calculated c
Ha in area &
Ha Digitised
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 J.M. 2173 3.36 3.348 3.54 0.19
VRISHVENDRAYYA D
2 VEEYAM PVT. LTD 2615 20.23 20.196 20.04 -0.16
3 AMBIKA GHORPADE 2354 4.95 4.495 4.84 0.35
4 MYSORE MANGANESE 2603 3.24 3.07 3.16 0.10
COMPANY
5 HOTHUR TRADERS 2313 21.11 22.117 21.61 -0.51
E
6 M. DASHARATHA RAMI 2560 19.95 19.59 19.46 -0.13
REDDY
7 BHARAT MINES AND 2245 26.20 23.3 24.47 1.17
MINERALS
F
8 ASSOCIATED MINING 2434 10.12 10.03 10.14 0.11
COMPANY
9 B.R. 2186 13.00 16.592 15.89 -0.70
YOGENDRANATH SINGH
10 LATHA MINING CO. 958 4.05 4 3.93 -0.07
(D. NARAYANA) G
11 CANARA MINERALS 2635 11.34 12.12 11.52 -0.60
12 THANGAVELU & 2585 60.70 62.28 60.92 -1.36
OTHERS
13 TRADING MINING 1732 5.26 5.31 5.45 0.14
COMPANY H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A 14 SRI. N. MANZOOR 1324/ 15.97 15.65 15.71 0.06
AHMED 2616
15 SMT KAMALA BAI 1442 13.45 13 02 13.44 0.42
16 SUDARSHAN SINGH 2579 8.09 8.37 8.11 -0.26
(MAHALAKSHMI
B MINERALS)
17 RAMGAD MINERALS 2451 24.28 24.23 24.04 -0.19
AND MINING PVT LTD
18 TRIDENT MINERALS 2315 32.27 31.606 32.43 0.82
19 ALLUM 2436 28.07 23.553 24.53 0.98
c VEERABHADRAPPA
20 KANHAYALAL 2563 30.76 28.73 30.09 1.36
DUDHERIA
21 ADARSHA 2369 3.03 2.91 2.98 0.07
ENTERPRISES
D 22 MATHA MINERALS 1975/ 129.5 125.5 129.16 3.66
2600
23 S.B. MINERALS 2393 40.47 40.67 40.38 -0.29
24 KARNATAKA LIMPO 2650 6.07 6.94 6.47 -0.47
25 ANJANA MINERALS 2519 4.55 4.5 4.53 0.03
E
26 DECCAN MINING 2525 19.02 17.015 17.43 0.41
SYNDICATE (P) LTD
27 P.ABUBAKAR 2183 14.00 13.756 13.85 0.09
28 LAKSHMI NARAYANA 2487 105.22 103.06 86.18 -16.88
MINING COMPANY
F
29 KAMALA BAI 2187 23.47 23.43 23.71 0.28
30 MYSORE STONEWARE 2521 122.72 118.3 122.65 4.35
PIPES AND
POLTERIES (P)LTD.
G 31 TEJAWORK 2353 4.85 4.74 4.83 0.09
32 RAJAPURA MINES 2190 93.74 89.62 91.7 2.13
33 H.G. RANGANGOWDA 2148 60.70 60.3 60.66 0.36
34 NlbHI MINING PVT. LTD. 2433 31.84 29.195 29.49 1.30
H 35 S.B. MINERALS 2550 44.52 38.819 39.40 0.58
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 871
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
36 MILANA MINERALS 1842 99.56 95.556 99.55 3.99 A
(LAKSHMI & CO.)
37 DEEP CHAND 2348 125.45 128.546 124.92 -3.63
Kl SHAN LAL
38 THUNGABHADRA
MINERALS LTD. 2365 125.58 135.04 8
39 THUNGABHADRA 2366 33.97 33.16
MINERALS LTD. 163.74 -4.46
40 M SRINIVASULU 2631 74.86 78.565 75.14 -3.43
41 M. CHANNAKESHAVA 2566 7.85 8 7.57 -0.43
REDDY(SRILAKSHMI c
NARASHIMHA
MINING CO.
42 SPARK LINE MINING 2567 4.86 4.93 4.86 -0.07
CORPORATION
43 MINERAL MINERS 2185A 46.13 44.11 44.42 0.31 D
AND TRADERS
44 MYSORE MINERALS LTD. 995 3360 82.2 32.89 -49.31
45 V.S. LAD & SONS 2290 105.06 98.12 100.54 2.42
46 KARTHIKEYAS 2559 27.23 27.236 26.71 -0.53
MANGANESE E
47 G RAJSHEKAR 2229 129.49 127.83 127.42 -0.41
48 RAMA RAO PAOL 2621 28.34 26.33 33.80 7.47
49 SMT RAZIA KHANUM 2557/ 12.58 12.0578 12.54 0.48
1575
F
38. The participation of the lessee or his representative
through out the process of survey by the Joint Team; the details
of the manner of conduct of the actual process of survey
delineated above; the use of the state of the art technology; the
composition of the Joint Team entrusted with the responsibility G
of the survey and the constitution of the 7 teams that conducted
the field survey under the supervision of the Joint Team; the two
stages of re-verification of the findings of the survey in the light
of the objections raised by the lease holders under orders of
this Court dated 26.9.2011 and 10.2.2012 and the corrections
H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A made on the basis thereof can leave no doubt as to the
credibility of the findings of the survey conducted under the
orders of the Court. True it is that we cannot claim to be experts;
but we need not be to see what is ex facie evident. Therefore,
notwithstanding the protracted arguments advanced on behalf
of lease holders and the large scale reference to sketches,
B maps and drawings filed before this Court by the said lease
holders, we are satisfied that all complaints and grievances
must fade away in the light of the survey undertaken by the Joint
Team and the events subsequent thereto. It would also be
significant to take note of the fact that in the written submission
c on behalf of the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI),
in the opening paragraph it has been stated as under.
"The applicant submits that FIMI has full faith in the integrity
and fairness of the survey done by the Joint Team and
'r.ecommended by CEC. FIMI is in full agreement with the
D recommendations made by CEC with regard to
Categories A and B and the directions issued by this
Hon'ble Court. FIMI is simultaneously of the view that
instead of cancellation of Category 'C' mining leases,
these may be directed to make appropriate compensatory
afforestation payment, undertake R&R work as per R& R
E Plan prepared by ICFRE and approved by CEC and after
successful completion and implementation of R&R Plan,
they should be allowed to recommence mining operations
in such leases."
39. We make it clear that we have not understood the
F above statement as an admission on the part of the Federation
and it is on a consideration of the totality of the facts placed
before us that we accept the findings of the survey conducted
by the Joint Team constituted by the orders of this Court and
the boundaries of each of the leases determined on that basis.
G We further direct that in supersession of all orders either of the
authorities of the State or Courts, as may be, the boundaries
of leases fixed by the Joint Team will henceforth be the
boundaries of each of the leases who will have the benefit of
the lease area as determined by the Joint Team. All
proceedings pending in any court with regard to boundaries of
H
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v.\ 873
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.j"
the leases involved in the present proceeding shall stand A
, adjudicated by means of present order and no such question
would be open for re-examination by any body or authority.
40. Before proceeding to the next issue we would like to
observe that the contention urged on behalf of some of the
lessees that dumping of mining waste (overburden dumps) do B
not constitute operations under Section 2(d) of the MMDR Act
is too naive for acceptance. The wide terms of the definition
contained in Section 2(d) of the MMDR Act encompasses all
such activity within the meaning of expression "mining
operations". Use of forest land for such activity would require C
clearance under the FC Act. In case the land used for such
purpose is not forest land the mining lease must cover the land
used for any such activity.
ISSUE N0.4
Acceptability of the Recommendations of the CEC with D
regard to (i) categorization. (ii) Reclamation and
Rehabilitation CR&R) Plans, (iii) Reopening of Categorv 'A'
and 'B' mines subject to conditions, (iv) Closure/
reopening of Category 'C' mines and (v) future course of
action in respect of Category 'C' mines if closure thereof E
is to be ordered by the Court
41. In the light of the discussions that have preceded
sanctity of the procedure of laying information and materials
before the Court with regard to the extent of illegal mining and
other specific details in this regard by means of the Reports of F
the CEe cannot be in doubt. Inter-generational equity and
sustainable development have come to be firmly embedded in
our constitutional jurisprudence as an integral part of the
fundamental rights conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution.
In enforcing such rights of a large number of citizens who are
bound to be adversely affected by environmental degradation, G
this Court cannot be constrained by the restraints of procedure.
The CEC which has been assisting the Court in various
environment related matters for over a decade now was
assigned certain specified tasks which have been performed
by the said body giving sufficient justification for the decisions H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A arrived and !lie recommendations made. If the said
recommendations can withstand the test of logic and reason
which issue is being examined hereinafter we will have no
reason not to accept the said recommendations and embody
the same as a part of the order that we will be required to make
in the present case.
8
(i) Categorization
42. The issue is whether categorization on the basis of
percentage of the encroached area qua the total lease area is
an arbitrary decision. Arbitrariness in the adoption of a criteria
C for classification has to be tested on the anvil of Article 14 and
not on the subjective notions of availability of a better basis of
classification. The basis suggested i.e. total encroached area
has the potential of raising questions similar to the ones now
raised on behalf of the lease holders. This is on account of the
lack of uniformity in the areas covered by the different leases
0
in question. The test, therefore, ought not to be what would be
a 'better' basis for the categorization for that would introduce
subjectivity in the process; the test is whether categorization on
the basis adopted results in hostile discrimination and adoption
of the criteria of percentage has no reasonable nexus with the
E object sought to be achieved, namely, to identify the lessees
who have committed the maximum violations and damage to
environment. Viewed from the aforesaid perspective, the
categorization made does not fail the test of reasonableness
and would commend for our acceptance.
F In this regard, we may take note of two IAs (IA.No.74 of
2012 and l.A.No.4 of 2012) filed by Federation of Indian Mineral
Industries which body claims membership of a vast number of
the lessees involved in !Ille present proceedings. In the aforesaid
IAs, as already noticed in a different context, the Federation has
G unequivocally accepted the findings of the survey conducted by
the Joint Team and the recommendation of the CEC in so far
as categorization of the leases and the actions suggested for
reopening of Category 'A' and 'B' mines along with other pre-
conditions stipulated including the preparation of the R & R
plans. The only caveat in this regard is in respect of category
H
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 875
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.)
'C' mines. The Federation had suggested that the said mines A
be also allowed to reopen subject to similar or even more
stringent conditions and, alternatively, for reopening of 39 total
out of the total of 49 category 'C' mines by adoption of certain
more liberal criteria than those recommended by the CEC. In
the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that the
categorization suggested by the CEC in its Report dated B
3.2.2012 should be accepted by us.
(ii) Conditions which have been suggested for
opening of Category 'A' mines and additionally
the R& R Plans for Category 'B' mines
c
43. The conditions subject to which Category 'A' and 'B'
mines are to be reopened and the R&R Plans that have been
recommended as a precondition for reopening of Category 'B'
mines are essentially steps to ensure scientific and planned
exploitation of the scarce mineral resources of the country. The
0
details of the preconditions and the R&R plans have already
been noticed and would not require a repetition. Suffice it would
be to say that such recommendations are wholesome and in
the interest not only of the environment and ecology but the
mining industry as a whole so as to enable the industry to run
in a more organized, planned and disciplined manner. FIMI was E
actively associated in the framing of the guidelines and the
preparation of the R&R Plans. There is nothing in the
preconditions or in the details of the R&R plans suggested which
are contrary to or in conflict or inconsistent with any of the
statutory provisions of the MMDR Act, EP Act and FC Act. In
such a situation, while accepting the preconditions subject to
F
which the Category 'A' and 'B' __mines are to be reopened and
the R&R plans that must be pUrin place for Category 'B' mines,
we are of the view that the suggestions made by the CEC for
reopening of Category 'A' and 'B' mines as well as the details
of the R&R plans should be accepted-by us, which we G
accordingly do. This will bring us to the most vital issue of the
case, i.e., the future of the Category 'C' mines.
44. The precise extent· of illegal mining that took place in
the three districts of Karnataka have been noted in detail in an
earlier part of this order (para 23). The same, therefore, will not H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A require any repetition. Illegal mining apart from playing havoc
on the national economy had, in fact, cast an ominous cloud
on the credibility of the system of governance by laws in force.
It has had a chilling and crippling effect on ecology and
environment. It is evident from the compilation submitted to the
Court by the CEC that several of the Category 'C' mines were
8 operating without requisite clearances under FC Act or even
in the absence of a mining lease for a part of the area used
for mining operations. The satellite imageries placed before the
Court with regard to environmental damage and destruction
has shocked judicial conscience. It is in the light of the above
c facts and circumstances that the future course of action in
respect of the maximum violators/polluters, i.e., Category 'C'
mines has to be judged. While doing so, the Court also has to
keep in mind the requirement of Iron Ore to ensure adequate
supply of manufactured steel and other allied products.
D 45. Once the result of the survey undertaken and the
boundaries of the leases determined by the Joint Team has
been accepted by the Court and the basis of categorization of
the mines has been found to be rational and constitutionally
permissible it will be difficult for this Court to visualize as to how
the Category 'C' mines can be allowed to reopen. There is no
E room for compassion; fervent pleas for clemency cannot have ,
even a persuasive value. As against the individual interest of
the 49 Category 'C' leaseholders, public interest at large would
require the Court to lean in favour of demonstrating the efficacy
and effectiveness of the long arm of the law. We, therefore,
F order for the complete closure of the Category 'C' mines and
for necessary follow up action in terms of the recommendations
of the CEC in this regard, details of which have already been
extracted in an earlier part of this order.
ISSUE N0.5
G Other Miscellaneous/Connected Issues
46. We have noticed that by an order dated 2.11.2012
passed by this Court an embargo has been placed on grant of
fresti mining licenses. In view of the developments that have
H taken place in the meantime and in view of the fact that we are
•
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 877
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
inclined to accept the recommendations at SI. Nos. VI and VII A
of the CEC's Report dated 3.2.2012 (Pg.56 of the Report), we
do not consider it necessary to continue with the order dated
2.11.2012 in so far as grant of fresh leases are concerned.
47. In so far as settlement of the inter-state boundaries
between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka is B
concerned, both the States have agreed to have the boundaries
fixed under the supervision of the Geological Survey of India.
In view of the agreement between the States on the said issue
we permit the States to finalize the issue in the above terms.
The operation of the 7 leases (Category 81) located on or near
the inter-State boundary is presently suspended. Until the C
boundary issue between the two States is resolved resumption
of mining operations in the 7 leases cannot be allowed.
48. The CEC has provisionally categorised Mis. S.B.
Minerals (ML No.2515) and Shanthalakshmi Jayaram (ML
No.2553) in Category "B" though the encroached area under D
illegal mining pits has been found to be 24.44% and 23.62%
respectively. According to the CEC, it is on account of "the
complexities involved in finalizing the survey sketches and in
the absence of inter-village boundary" that the said leases have
been placed in Category "B" instead of Category "C". We E
cannot agree with the tentative decision of the CEC. On the
basis of the findings of the survey and the categorization made,
both of which have been accepted by tha Court by the present
order, we direct that the aforesaid two leases, namely, Mis. S.B.
Minerals and Mis. Shanthalakshmi Jayaram be placed in
Category "C". Necessary consequential action will naturally F
follow.
49. The CEC in its Report dated 28.3.2012 has placed
the cases of Mis. V.S. Lad & Sons and Mis. Hothur Traders
(placed in Category "C") for final determination by the Court. G
The CEC has reported that the encroachment by Mis. V.S. Lad
& Sons is only in respect of the overburden dumps and exceeds
the percentage (15%) marginally, i.e., by 0.17% which could
very well be due to the least count error used by the Joint Team.
In so far as Mis. Hothur Traders is concerned the CEC in its
Report dated 28.3.2012 has recorded that according to the H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 6 S.C.R.
A lessee it has carried on its mining operation for the last 50 years
in the lease area allotted to it which may have been wrongly
identified in the earlier surveys and demarcations by taking into
account a wrong reference point.
Having considered the facts on which the two lessees
B have sought upgradation from "C" to "B" Category we are afraid
that such upgradalion cannot be allowed. Both the lessees, in
fact, accept the results of the survey by the Joint Team which
findings have already been accepted by us.
50. In the result, we summarize our conclusions in the
C matter as follows:-
(1) The findings of the survey conducted by the Joint
Team constituted by this Court by order dated
6.5.2011 and boundaries of the leases in question
as determined on the basis of the said survey is
D hereby approved and accepted.
(2) The categorization of the mines ("A", "B" and "C")
on the basis of the parameters adopted by the
CEC as indicated in its Report dated 3.2.2012 is
approved and accepted.
E
(3) The order of the Court dated 13.4.2012 accepting
the recommendations dated 13.3.2012 of the CEC
(in modification of the recommendations of the
CEC dated 3.2.2012) in respect of the items (A)
to (I) is reiterated. Specifically, the earmarked role
F of the Monitoring Committee in the said order
dated 13.4.2012 is also reiterated.
(4) The order of the Court dated 3.9.2012 in respect
of reopening of 18 Category "A" mines subject to
the conditions mentioned in the said order is
G reiterated.
(5) The order of the Court dated 28.9.2012 in all
respects is reiterated.
(6) The recommendations of the CEC contained in the
H Report dated 15.2.2013 for reopening of remaining
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. 879
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
Category "A" mines and Category "B" mines (63 in A.
number) and sale of sub-grade iron ore subject to
the conditions mentioned in the said Report are
approved.
(7) The recommendations contained in paragraphs VI
and VII (Pg. 56 to 57) of the CEC Report dated B
3.2.2012 are accepted, meaning thereby, the
leases in respect of "C" Category mines will stand
cancelled and the recommendations of the CEC
(para VII Pg. 56) of Report dated 3.2.2012 with
regard to the grant of fresh leases are accepted.
(8) The proceeds of the sales of the Iron Ore of the 'C'
c
Category mines made through the Monitoring
Committee will stand forfeited to the State. The
Monitoring Committee will remit the amounts held
by it on this account to the SPV for utilization in
connection with the purposes for which it had been D
constituted.
(9) Mis. V.S. Lad & Sons, Mis. Hothur Traders, Mis.
S.B. Minerals (ML No. 2515) and Mis.
Shanthalakshmi Jayaram (ML No. 2553) will be
treated as "C" Category mines and resultant E
consequences in respect of the said leases will
follow.
(10) The operation of the 7 leases placed in "B" category
situated on or nearby the Karnataka- Andhra
Pradesh inter-State boundary will remain F
suspended until finalisation of the inter-State
boundary dispute whereupon the question of
commencement of operations in respect of the
aforesaid 7 leases will be examined afresh by the
CEC.
G
(11) The recommendations made in the paragraph VIII
of the Report of the CEC dated 3.2.2012
(pertaining to Mis. MML, Pg.57) is accepted. The
recommendations made in paragraphs IX, X, XII (in
respect of confiscated iron-ore) XIII and XIV of the
said Report dated 3.2.2012 (Pg. 57-60) will not H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A require any specific direction as the same have
already been dealt with or the same have otherwise
become redundant, as may be.
(12) The recommendations made in paragraph XI (grant
of fresh leases) and paragraph XII (in respect of
8 pending applications for grant of mining leases) of
the CEC's Report dated 3.2.2012 (Pg. 59) are not
accepted. In view of the discussions and
conclusions in para 44 of the present order, this
Court's order dated 02.11.2012 placing an
embargo on grant of fresh mining leases need not
c be continued any further. Grant of fresh mining
leases and consideration of pending applications
be dealt with in accordance with law, the directions
contained in the present order as well as the spirit
thereof.
D (13) Determination of the inter-State boundary between
Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh in so far as the
same is relevant to the present proceedings, as
agreed upon by the two States, be made through
the intervention of the office of Surveyor General of
E India.
51. We also direct that all consequential action in terms
of the present order be completed with the utmost expedition.
The writ application filed by Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and
IAs shall stand disposed of in terms of our abovestated
F conclusions.
SLP (C) Nos.7366-7367 of 2010. SLP (C) Nos.32690-32691
of 2010. WP (Crl.l No.66 of 2010. SLP !Cl Nos.17064-17065
of 2010, SLP !Cl No ....... (CC No. 16829 of 2010}. SLP <Cl
No ...... (CC No. 16830 of 2010}, WP (Cl No.411 of 2010. SLP
G (Cl No.353 of 2011 and WP (C) No.76 of 2012
52. All these matters are de-tagged and directed to be
listed separately.
K.K.T. Writ Petition No. 562/2009
disposed of & other SLP.s
H & Writ Petitions detagged.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "illegal mining"Sign in to search