STATE OF MEGHALAYAversusALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, DIMA-HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS.

                        [2019] 8 S.C.R. 297                              297


                     STATE OF MEGHALAYA                                  A
                                  v.
             ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,
        DIMA-HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS.
               (Civil Appeal No.10720 of 2018)                           B
                           JULY 03, 2019
        [ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
       National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: ss.14, 15 and 16 –
Jurisdiction of National Green Tribunal (NGT) – Orders by NGT
                                                                         C
imposing ban on mining – Whether orders passed by NGT were
without jurisdiction being beyond the purview of ss.14, 15 and 16
of the NGT Act, 2010 – Held: Cognizance was taken by NGT when
application O.A.73 of 2014 on 17.4.2014 was admitted and order
was issued – There were clear allegation in the application that
inspite of various remedial measures set out in the report of expert,    D
no proper and effective remedial measures were taken by the
concerned authorities of the State – The pleadings in the
application clearly alleged environmental degradation due to
illegal coal mining – It was further stated that inaction of
authorities had resulted in violation of various enactments
                                                                         E
mentioned in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010 including the Water
(Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 – The allegations made in the application
were sufficient for NGT to exercise its jurisdiction as conferred by
s.14 – Both the component as appearing in sub-section 1 of s.14,         F
that is (i) substantial question relating to environment and (ii) such
question arises out of the implementation of the enactments
specified in Schedule I, were involved – NGT after adverting to
O.A.No.73 of 2014 on 17.04.2014 had called for various reports
from different committees including State Pollution Control Board
                                                                         G
– It was not a case of mere allegation of environmental
degradation by illegal and unregulated coal mining rather there
were materials on the record including the report of the experts, the
Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board published in the month
of September, 1992, the report of Katakey committee appointed by
                                                                         H
                                 297
298            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     NGT by which environmental degradation of water, air and surface
      of the land was proved – Therefore, there was sufficient allegation
      regarding substantial questions relating to environment and
      violation of enactments in Schedule I – There was no substance in
      the appellant’s submission that NGT has no jurisdiction to
      entertain the case and pass orders – In cases pertaining to
B
      environmental matter, the State has to act as facilitator and not as
      obstructionist – The submission for the State that NGT exceeded its
      jurisdiction under ss.14 and 15 in entertaining O.A.No.73 of 2014
      is rejected – Constitution of India – Art.48A – Water (Prevention
      and Control Pollution) Act, 1974 – Air (Prevention and Control of
C     Pollution) Act, 1981 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
              National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: s.19(1) – Under Or.26
      r.10A CPC, a Court can appoint commission for scientific
      investigation – This power can very well be exercised by the NGT
      also – NGT while asking expert to give a report is not confined to
D     the four corners of r.10A and its jurisdiction is not shackled by
      strict terms of Or.21 r.10A by virtue of s.19(1) of the NGT Act – r.24
      of National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011
      empowers the Tribunal to make such orders or give such directions
      as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to
      secure the ends of justice – There is no lack of jurisdiction in NGT
E     in directing for appointment of a committee and to obtain a report
      from a Committee – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.26 r.10A –
      Commission/Committee – National Green Tribunal (Practice and
      Procedure) Rules, 2011 – r.24.
            Land Laws: Land tenure system – Nature of land tenure in
F     the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya – In the Hills Districts of
      State of Meghalaya, the most of the lands are either privately or
      community owned in which State does not claim any right – The,
      private owners of the land as well as community owners have both
      the surface right as well as sub-soil right – Thus, the tribals owned
G     the land and also owned the minerals – Constitution of India –
      Art.244, sub-clause (2) – Mines and Minerals.
            Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957:
      Applicability of the provisions of Act of 1957 in Tribal areas within
      the State of Meghalaya, included in Schedule VI of the Constitution
H     – Schedule VI of the Constitution is a provision for Administration
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                            299
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

of Tribal areas in the State of Meghalaya – There is nothing in             A
Schedule VI which may indicate about the inapplicability of Act,
1957 with regard to the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya – In
the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the
year ended 31st March, 2013 also it is clearly stated that Act, 1957
is fully applicable for regulation of mines and regulation of minerals
                                                                            B
in the State of Meghalaya – Moreover, there was no notification
issued by the President under Para 12A(b) of Schedule VI which
empowers the President, with respect to any Act of Parliament, by
notification, to direct that it shall not apply to an autonomous district
or an autonomous region in the State of Meghalaya, or shall apply
to such district or region or any part thereof subject to such              C
exceptions or modifications as he may specify in the notification –
Thus, there is nothing in Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which
may indicate about the inapplicability of Act, 1957 with regard to
the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya – Constitution of India –
Schedule VI, Para 12A sub-clause (b) – Mines Act, 1952.
                                                                            D
       Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957:
Legislative competence of State of Meghalaya to frame Mining
Policy – Directions of NGT to the State of Meghalaya to frame policy
– Propriety of – Held: Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy, 2012
and Draft Guidelines of coal mining activities in the State framed
by Mining and Geology Department of the Government – Policy of              E
2012 contemplated regulatory regime for mining lease by the State
– The Guidelines mentioned about the unregulated and unscientific
mining being carried out in the State of Meghalaya – There can be
no dispute to the preposition that in view of MMDR Act, 1957, the
legislative competence of State of Meghalaya under Entry 23 List II         F
stood denuded – However, under MMDR Act, 1957 as well as the
MC Rules, 1960, several statutory obligations/jurisdictions have
been conferred on the State of Meghalaya – When under a
Parliamentary enactment, State has been given some statutory
obligations, there is no lack of jurisdiction in the State to frame
policy to give effect to or implement the jurisdictions conferred on        G
the State by Parliamentary enactments – It is true that Mining Policy
to be framed by the State has to confine to the jurisdiction conferred
on it as per the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder
– Several other aspects relating to mining like, rehabilitation,
                                                                            H
300            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     reclamation and restoration have to be effectively implemented by
      the State for which also, it may be required to frame a policy –
      Policy of 2012 was already framed by the State of Meghalaya, even
      before directions were issued by the NGT – In pursuance of NGT
      directions, it was draft guidelines of 2015, which were prepared by
      State of Meghalaya – Thus, direction of NGT to declare Mining
B
      Policy by the State of Meghalaya cannot be said to be without
      jurisdiction – However, the State in its Mining Policy can only include
      those areas where it has jurisdiction under the MMDR Act, 1957
      and the Rules framed thereunder – Constitution of India – Mineral
      Concession Rules, 1960.
C          Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957: s.4(1)
      – Whether the statute requires obtaining lease for winning the
      minerals in so far as mining of coal from privately owned land/
      community owned land are concerned – Held: For carrying out
      mining operations in privately owned land in hills districts of
D     Meghalaya, obtaining a mining lease is a statutory requirement
      under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules, 1960 – Mineral
      Concession Rules, 1960.
            Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957:
      Whether the power to allot land for mining purposes is vested in
E     Autonomous District Councils – Held: The District Council does
      not have any power to make any law with regard to grant of mining
      lease – The mining leases for winning the major minerals has to be
      granted in accordance with 1957 Act and Mineral Concession Rules,
      1960 – Khasi Hills District (Trading by Non Tribals) Regulation,
      1954 – United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Management
F     and Control of Forest) Rules, 1960 – Khasi Hills Autonomous District
      (Trading by Non Tribals) Rules, 1959,.
            Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957:
      Whether the order of NGT dated 17.04.2014 directing for complete
      ban on mining is unsustainable – Held: The use of natural resources
G     plays major role in carrying out development – A fine balance has
      to be maintained in utilisation of natural resources and its
      conservation and preservation – By order of NGT dated 17.04.2014,
      the Rat hole mining/illegal mining was prohibited throughout the
      State of Meghalaya – In OA No.73 of 2014 in which said order was
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                       301
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

passed, sufficient materials were on record including experts report   A
which proved that illegal coal mining in the State of Meghalaya
was degrading the environment – NGT after considering all pleas
and materials affirmed order dated 17.04.2014 and refused to
withdraw the ban – No error in the order of NGT reaffirming its
ban order.
                                                                       B
      Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957:
Whether the complete ban on mining of coal in the State of
Meghalaya as directed by NGT deserved to be vacated/modified in
the interest of State and Tribals – Held: Tribals are the owners of
the land who carry on mining of coal in their land by which they
earn their substantial livelihood – In event mining operations are     C
undertaken by the tribals or other owners of hills districts of
Meghalaya in accordance with mining lease obtained from the State
of Meghalaya as per 1957 Act and Rules, 1960, the ban order dated
17.04.2014 of NGT shall not come in its way of carrying mining
operations – The ban order is for the illegal coal mining which was    D
rampant in the State of Meghalaya and the ban order cannot be
extended to valid and legal mining as per 1957 Act and 1960 Rules
– Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
      Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: Chapter V – Procedure for
grant of mining lease and authority/person, who is competent to        E
grant such lease – Held: As per the statutory provisions contained
in Rules, 1960, especially Chapter V, a mining lease for minerals,
which belongs to a private owner or a community owner, it is not
the State Government, which is entitled to receive any application
or grant any mining lease, but it is the private owner or community
owner, who is entitled to grant a lease for mining minerals owned      F
by them.
       Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: Chapter IV and Chapter V
– Distinction between – Chapter IV deals with grant of mining leases
in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government and
Chapter V deals with procedure for obtaining a prospecting licence     G
or mining lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in a
person other than the Government – Procedure and manner of
applying for mining lease and grant of lease as contained in Chapter
IV is not made applicable to the procedure as given in Chapter V
                                                                       H
302            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     except that by virtue of r.45(i) certain conditions of mining lease as
      contained in r.27 under Chapter IV are made applicable for mining
      lease under Chapter V.
            Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: Chapter V – Whether the
      State of Meghalaya has any statutory control over the mining of
B     coal from privately owned/community owned land in Hills Districts
      of State of Meghalaya – Held: State of Meghalaya has jurisdiction
      and power to ensure that no mining of coal should take place except
      when a mining lease is granted under the Rules, 1960 – The statutory
      scheme delineated by s.13(2)(f) and the Rules, 1960 clearly
      contemplate grant of mining lease, with regard to both the categories
C     of land, i.e., land in which minerals vest in the Government, and the
      land in which minerals vest in a person other than the Government
      – Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957 –
      s.13(2)(f).
             Mines and Minerals: Jurisdiction of NGT – Constitution of
D     committee – Whether NGT had any jurisdiction to constitute
      committees to submit reports, to implement the orders of NGT, to
      monitor storage/transportation; of minerals and to prepare action
      plan for restoration of environment and whether the NGT committed
      error in directing for constitution of fund, namely, Meghalaya
E     Environment Protection and Restoration Fund – Held: There is no
      lack of jurisdiction in the NGT to direct for appointment of committee
      or to obtain a report from a committee – A Fund has been constituted
      by NGT, namely, “Meghalaya Environment Protection and
      Restoration Fund” – NGT could have passed any order or direction
      to secure ends of justice which power especially conferred by Rule
F     24 – Direction to constitute Fund is thus also saved under such
      power – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
            Mines and Minerals: Judicial powers of NGT – Whether NGT
      by constituting Committees has delegated essential judicial powers
      to the Committees – Held: The various instances where the NGT
G     directed for report or investigation and submission of report by
      committees were with the object of ensuring the implementation of
      the orders passed by it and to decide the environmental issues raised
      before it – In no manner, constitution of committee can be said to be

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                        303
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

delegation of essential judicial powers of the NGT to the committee     A
– The Katakey committee was constituted by NGT on 31.08.2018 –
The constitution of the committee and its functions entrusted were
with the object to implement the orders passed by NGT – For the
restoration of environment, NGT by its order dated 31.08.2018 has
directed the committee to submit its action plan and reports by
                                                                        B
e-mail – NGT, thus, had kept complete control on all steps which
were required to be taken by the committee and issued directions
from time to time – Thus, the submission that the essential judicial
powers of the NGT had been delegated to the committee is not tenable
– The matter being pending before NGT of acts of the committee are
under direct control of NGT and if the committee oversteps in any       C
direction the same can very well be corrected by NGT on the matter
being brought before it – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
       Mines and Minerals: Whether constitution of the committee
encroaches the constitutional scheme of the Tribal areas under
Art.244(2) and Art.275(1) and Schedule VI of the Constitution –         D
Para 3 of the Schedule VI enumerates the powers of the District
Council and Regional Council to make laws – The powers of the
District and Regional Councils are enumerated under Para 3 – In
the directions of NGT to constitute committee for transportation of
extracted minerals or for preparing time bound action to deal with
the restoration of environment and to ensure its implementation,        E
there is no interference in the powers of the District or Regional
Councils – Action plan for restoration of environment is consequence
of NGT finding out that an unregulated coal mining has damaged
environment and has caused the pollution including water pollution
– It is not case of the appellant that District and Regional Councils   F
have framed any law for restoration of environment which is being
breached by the committee or its acts – The District and Regional
Councils are free to exercise all their powers and the committee
constituted by NGT is only concerned with the Environmental
degradation and illegal coal mining – The committees’ report or
direction of NGT in no manner encroaches upon the administration        G
of Tribal areas by the District and Regional Councils – Constitution
of India – Arts.244(2), 275(1).


                                                                        H
304            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A            Mines and Minerals: Whether direction to deposit Rs.100/-
      crores by the State of Meghalaya by order dated 04.01.2019 of
      NGT is sustainable – NGT by its order dated 04.01.2019 had directed
      the State of Meghalaya to deposit an amount of Rs.100 Crores with
      the Central Pollution Control Board, which was to be spent for
      restoration of environment – The State of Meghalaya aggrieved by
B
      this direction filed appeal – Held: The amount, which has been
      directed by NGT to be deposited by State of Meghalaya is neither a
      penalty nor a fine imposed on the State – The amount has been
      directed to be deposited for carrying out steps regarding restoration
      of environment – The said amount cannot be said to be amount of
C     damages to be paid by the State – State of Meghalaya has very
      limited source of revenue and putting an extra burden on the State
      of Meghalaya to make payment of Rs.100 Crores from its own
      financial resources and budgetary amount may cause great hardship
      to the State of Meghalaya – In the ends of justice, the direction of
      NGT dated 04.01.2019 is modified to the extent that State is permitted
D
      to transfer an amount of Rs.100 Crores from the amount lying in the
      MEPRF to the Central Pollution Control Board – The Central
      Pollution Control Board shall utilise the amount of Rs.100 Crores
      only for restoration of the environment.
             Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957:
E     ss.4(1), 21 – Coal – Vesting in Government – Whether NGT’s order
      dated 31.03.2016 that after 15.05.2016, all remaining coal shall
      vest in the State of Meghalaya is sustainable – By order dated
      31.03.2016, NGT had permitted transportation of coal till 15.5.2016
      under terms and conditions as enumerated therein and further
F     contemplated that no coal in any form whatsoever shall be permitted
      to be transported after 15.05.2016 on which date the entire
      remaining coal shall vest in the State Government and shall be
      disposed of in accordance with law – Propriety of NGT’s order dated
      31.03.2016 – Held: Coal mining was illegally going on in the Hills
      District of State of Meghalaya without there being any mining lease
G     – The entire mining was, thus, is clear in contravention of s.4(1) of
      Act, 1957 which attracted penalties under s.21 – The present is not
      a case where any kind of penalty was imposed on the miners except
      that the amount of royalty as payable on mining of coal was collected
      by the State as penalty – State Government has power under s.21(5)
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                          305
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

to recover from such person the minerals so raised, or, where such        A
material has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may
also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may
be, but it is for State Government to exercise its power under s.21(5)
by way of penalty – The NGT did not give any reason as to how
coal shall automatically vest in the State – The right of recovery of
                                                                          B
mineral as contemplated under s.21(5) would not amount to say
that proprietary right of owner of the minerals is lost rather State
under s.21(5) exercises its power to recover the mineral which has
been raised without any lawful authority – Thus, coal extracted
and lying in open after 15.05.2016 was not automatically vested in
the State and the owner of the coal or the person who has mined the       C
coal shall have the proprietary right in the mineral which shall not
be lost.
       Mines and Minerals: Coal – Whether assessed and unassessed
coal which has already been extracted and lying in different
Districts of Meghalaya be permitted to be transported – Mechanism         D
to be adopted for disposal of such coal – Held: Coal being major
mineral and useful for different industries and projects, appropriate
disposal of extracted coal is of a paramount importance – Entire
extracted coal lying at various places is directed to be taken over
by Coal India Ltd, a Government of India unit, who may dispose of
the same as per its normal method of disposal – For all extracted         E
coal lying at different places, it is the State, which is the
receiver-cum-custodian of the coal – The State having carried out
the assessment of the coal lying in the said four districts including
the details of the quantities and the details of owners being available
with it, it may ensure that the entire coal are handed over to the        F
Coal India Ltd., as per the mode and manner to be formulated by
Katakey Committee, in consultation with officers of the Coal India
Ltd. and State of Meghalaya – Commissioner and Secretary of the
State in the Department of Mining and Geology alongwith the
officers of Coal India Ltd. are directed to deliberate with the Katakey
committee to finalise a comprehensive plan for transportation and         G
handing over of the coal to Coal India Ltd. for disposal/auction as
per rules of Coal India Ltd. – It is for the Coal India Ltd. to decide
as to venue, where they shall receive the coal and finalise the process
of disposal and auction of the coal – It shall be the duty of the State
                                                                          H
306            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     of Meghalaya and its officers especially Deputy Commissioner of
      the area concerned to enter details of quantity of the coal, name of
      the owner and place from where it is collected – State of Meghalaya
      shall be entitled to royalty and payment towards MERP Fund as
      well as taxes out of the price of the coal – The Coal India Ltd. after
      taking its expenses for transportation with 10% of price of the coal
B
      shall remit the entire amount to the State and State after deducting
      the royalty and payment to the MERP Fund and taxes would pay
      back the balance of the amount to the owner – The coal, which has
      been seized by the State in illegal transportation or illegal mining
      for which different cases have been registered by the State shall be
C     dealt by the State in accordance with s.21 of the Act, 1957 and on
      being satisfied, the State can take a decision to recover the entire
      quantity of coal so illegally raised without lawful authority and the
      said cases has to be separately dealt with in accordance with law –
      All I.A.s filed by different applicants seeking order of transportation
      of the different quantities disposed of – The Katakey committee in
D
      consultation with State of Meghalaya and officers of Coal India
      Ltd. would finalise appropriate mode and manner to affect the
      transport and disposal of the coal in the above manner.
            Mines Act, 1952: Mines Act, 1952 contains various provisions
      regarding inspection of mining operation and management of mines
E     – The provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 are mandatory to be followed
      before working a mine – The regulations namely Coal Mines
      Regulations, 2017 also contains several regulatory provisions which
      need to be followed while working a mine by a mining lease holder
      – The enforcement of Mines Act, 1952 and the Regulations, 2017
F     have to be ensured by the State in the public interest.
             Mines and Minerals: Coal mining in the Hills Districts of the
      State of Meghalaya – As per statutory regime brought in force by
      notification dated 15.01.2016 issued under Environment
      (Protection) Act, 1986, environmental clearance is required for a
G     project of coal for mining of any extent of area – While implementing
      statutory regime for carrying mining operations in the Hills Districts
      of the State of Meghalaya, the State of Meghalaya has to ensure
      compliance of not only MMDR Act, 1957 but Mines Act, 1952 as
      well as Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                      307
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

       Judicial Appreciation: Committee – Work appreciated – The      A
Katakey committee and its various members and participants have
done a commendable job in studying and examining various aspects
of environment in the State of Meghalaya and several valuable
suggestions have been given by the committee, which are also being
implemented to mitigate the suffering of the citizens consequent to
                                                                      B
the illegal coal mined.
      Disposing of the appeals, the Court
      HELD: Whether orders passed by the National Green
Tribunal are without jurisdiction being beyond the purview of
Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010?      C
      1. The present is not a case of mere allegation of applicant
of environmental degradation by illegal and unregulated coal
mining rather there were materials on the record including the
report of the experts, the Meghalaya State Pollution Control
Board published in the month of September, 1992, the report of        D
Katakey committee appointed by the Tribunal where
environmental degradation of water, air and surface of the land
was proved. Hence, there was sufficient allegation regarding
substantial questions relating to environment and violation of
enactments in Schedule I. There were reports of the Meghalaya
State Pollution Control Board before the State Government             E
pointing out environmental degradation and the Tribunal having
taken up the issue, the submission on behalf of the State that the
Tribunal has no jurisdiction is not expected from the State
Government who is under constitutional obligation to ensure clean
environment to all its citizens. In cases pertaining to               F
environmental matter the State has to act as facilitator and not as
obstructionist. The submission for the State that the Tribunal
exceeded its jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15 in
entertaining O.A.No.73 of 2014 is rejected. [Paras 67, 68, 72]
[373-E-H; 376-A]
                                                                      G
      Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari and
      Others (2018) 11 SCC 734 : [2017] 12 SCR 956 –
      distinguished.


                                                                      H
308           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           Whether provisions of Mines and Minerals Development
      Regulation Act, 1957 are applicable in Tribal areas within the
      State of Meghalaya, included in Sixth Schedule of the Constitution?
            2.1 By the North-Eastern Area Reorganisation Act, 1971,
      the State of Meghalaya was formed as independent full-fledged
B     State. After the enforcement of the Constitution, the area, now
      comprised in the State of Meghalaya, was included in the State of
      Assam, the Administration and control of which area was as per
      Article 244 of the Constitution of India read with Sixth Schedule
      of the Constitution. In so far as the land tenure in the Hills
      Districts of Meghalaya, there is no substantial change after the
C     advent of the Constitution. There was no payment system of land
      revenue before the advent of the Constitution in the Hills
      Districts of Meghalaya. [Para 73] [376-C-E]
            2.2 The lands in the Khasi Hills District of Meghalaya come
      under two divisions Ri Raid and Ri Kynti. Ri raid lands are
D     community lands which are set apart for the benefit and use of
      entire community. Ri kynti lands are privately owned lands which
      were also owned by community as well as by individuals. The
      owner of the re kynti land is an absolute proprietor. The tenure
      system in Jaintia Hills classified into two types of lands, namely,
E     Hali / irrigated land and High land. Hali lands are further
      categorised in Raj land, service land, village puja land and
      private land. Proprietary right does not vest in the State in
      respect to majority of lands which are either privately owned or
      owned by the Tribal community. No system of payment of land
      revenue is prevalent in the Hills District of Meghalaya except
F     lands which belong to State. In the Hills Districts of State of
      Meghalaya, the most of the lands are either privately or
      community owned in which State does not claim any right. Thus,
      private owners of the land as well as community owners have
      both the surface right as well as sub-soil right. Tribals owned the
G     land and also owned the minerals, which is an inescapable
      conclusion. [Paras 73, 75] [376-E-G; 378-E-F]
            Thressiamma Jacob and Others v. Geologist,
            Department of Mining and Geology and Others (2013)
            9 SCC 725 : [2013] 7 SCR 863 – referred to.
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                      309
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

      Raja Anand Brahma Shah v. The State of Uttar Pradesh            A
      and Others AIR 1967 SC 1081 : [1967] SCR 373 –
      followed.
      2.3 Part X of the Constitution separately deals with
Scheduled and Tribal areas. Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya
were treated to be Tribal area and were to be governed by             B
Article 244 sub-clause (2) read with Schedule VI. Sixth
Schedule of the Constitution contains ‘Provisions as to the
Administration of Tribal Areas in the States of Assam, Meghalaya,
Tripura and Mizoram’. Paragraph 20 of Sixth Schedule refers to
Tribal areas and Part II of which consists of Khasi Hills District,
Jaintia Hills District and Garo Hills District which have been        C
referred as Autonomous Districts. [Paras 76, 77, 78] [378-G-H;
379-C]
       2.4 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957 has been enacted to provide for development and
regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union.      D
The Act came into effect w.e.f. 01.06.1958. Para 12A sub-clause
(b) Schedule VI of the Constitution empowers that the President
may, with respect to any Act of Parliament, by notification, direct
that it shall not apply to an autonomous district or an
autonomous region in the State of Meghalaya, or shall apply to        E
such district or region or any part thereof subject to such
exceptions or modifications as he may specify in the notification.
No notification has been issued by the President under Para
12A(b), although, the said Para 12A(b) is in the Constitution with
effect from 21.1.1972. Thus, there is nothing in Sixth Schedule of
the Constitution which may indicate about the inapplicability of      F
Act, 1957 with regard to the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya.
The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for
the year ended 31st March, 2013 clearly stated that Act, 1957 is
fully applicable for regulation of mines and regulation of minerals
in the State of Meghalaya. [Paras 81 82, 83] [381-G-H; 382-C-E;       G
383-D]
      2.5 Clause 10 of the Mehghalaya Mines and Minerals
Policy, 2012 provides for “Regulatory Framework for Mine
Development and Mining”. Sub-clause (b) of Clause 10 required
that application for mineral concession either fresh or renewal is    H
310           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     to be submitted to the State Government through the Deputy
      Commissioner of the District wherein the area applied for is
      situated, with NOC from District Council concerned and land
      owner. Clause 10 also refers to clearance of the Pollution
      Control Board of Meghalaya and other requirement. Sub-clause
      (l) further contemplated that order for grant of mineral
B
      concessions will be issued by the State Government, with the
      approval of the Central Government wherever necessary. The
      Mining and Geology Department of the Government framed a
      draft guidelines for coal mining activity in the State which were
      prepared after consultation with the Central Government. The
C     draft guidelines clearly mentions about the unregulated and
      unscientific mining being carried out in the State of Meghalaya.
      [Paras 85-87] [383-F-H; 384-A-B]
            2.6 There can be no dispute to the preposition that in view
      of MMDR Act, 1957, the legislative competence of State of
D     Meghalaya under Entry 23 List II stood denuded. However,
      under the MMDR Act, 1957 as well as the Mineral Concession
      Rules, 1960, several statutory obligations/jurisdictions have been
      conferred on the State of Meghalaya. When under a
      Parliamentary enactment, State has been given some statutory
      obligations, there is no lack of jurisdiction in the State to frame
E     policy to give effect to or implement the jurisdictions conferred
      on the State by Parliamentary enactments. It is true that Mining
      Policy to be framed by the State has to confine to the jurisdiction
      conferred on it as per the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules framed
      thereunder. There are other related issues concerning Mining
F     like protection of environment and forests for which the State
      has to declare its policy for implementation of its objective.
      Several other aspects relating to mining like, rehabilitation,
      reclamation and restoration have to be effectively implemented
      by the State for which also, it may be required to frame a policy.
      Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy, 2012 was already framed
G     by the State of Meghalaya, even before directions were issued
      by the NGT. In pursuance of NGT directions, it was draft
      guidelines of 2015, which were prepared by State of Meghalaya.
      Thus, direction of NGT to declare Mining Policy by the State of

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                    311
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

Meghalaya cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. However,       A
the State in its Mining Policy can only include those areas where
it has jurisdiction under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules
framed thereunder. A perusal of the entire Policy documents
indicate that Policy has been framed by the State as per
the Act, 1957 and Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960.
                                                                    B
[Paras 89, 90, 91] [324-F-G; 385-A-E]
     Whether for mining the minerals from privately owned/
community owned land in hills districts of Meghalaya, obtaining
a mining lease is a statutory requirement under the MMDR Act,
1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960?
                                                                    C
       3.1 The Act, 1957 has been enacted in reference to Entry
54 List I of Seventh Schedule. The Legislative power under
Entry 23 is subject to the provision of List I with respect to
regulation and development under the control of the Union. When
the Union has declared to have taken under its control the
regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent       D
provided in the Act, legislative power of the State to the above
extent is denuded. Section 4 of the Act contains general
restriction on undertaking prospecting and mining operation.
Section 4 is couched in terms of an injunction. No person shall
undertake any mining operations in any area, except under and       E
in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance
permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a
mining lease, granted under this Act and rules made thereunder.
The use of word ‘no person’ in Section 4(1) is without an
exception. There is nothing in Section 4(1) to indicate that
restriction contained in Section 4(1) does not apply with regard    F
to a person who is owner of the mine. Further, word ‘any area’
under Section 4(1) also has significance which does not have any
exception. Further phrase ‘except under and in accordance with
terms and condition with a mining lease granted under the Act’
are also significant which make the intent and purpose of           G
prohibition clear and loud. [Paras 95, 97, 99, 100] [386-C-F;
387-B; 388-A-B]
     3.2 Section 5 contains restriction on the grant of
prospecting licences and mining lease. The proviso to Section
                                                                    H
312            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     5(1) contains a further restriction that no mining lease shall be
      granted with regard to any minerals specified in Para A of First
      Schedule except with the previous approval of the Central
      Government. Coal is in Para A of First Schedule. Section 13
      provides for Rule making power of Central Government in
      respect of minerals. Reading clause (a) and clause (f) of Section
B
      13(2) makes clear that the Rules can be made for grant of mining
      lease in respect of land in which minerals vest in the
      Government as well as in respect of any land in which minerals
      vest in person other than Government. The statutory scheme,
      thus, is clear that lease can be granted with regard to both the
C     categories of land, land in which Government is owner of
      minerals and land in which minerals vest in person other than
      Government. The Tribals, owners of the minerals shall expressly
      fall in Rule making power of the Government under Section 13(2)
      (f). [Paras 100, 101, 103] [388-B; 389-B-C; 390-A-B]
D           3.3 The Central Government in exercise of power under
      Section 13 has framed Rules, namely, Minerals (Concession)
      Rules, 1960. The statutory scheme delineated by Section 13(2)(f)
      and the Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960 clearly contemplate
      grant of mining lease, with regard to both the categories of land,
      that is, land in which minerals vest in the Government, and the
E     land in which minerals vest in a person other than the
      Government. There is no exception that when owner himself wants
      to win the minerals he does not require any mining lease.
      [Paras 104, 105] [390-C-D; 391-B]
            Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition Para 321
F           – referred to.
             3.4 The word ‘mining lease’ has been given specific
      meaning under Act, 1957. It is well settled principle of
      interpretation that the provisions of an Act including definition of
      a term is to be interpreted in a manner which may advance the
G     object of the legislation. The essential characteristic of mining
      lease is that it is granted for the purpose of undertaking mining
      operation and mining operation means any operation undertaken
      for the purpose of winning the mineral. Applying said definition
      in the Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960 under Chapter V, it
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                       313
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

cannot be said that no mining lease is contemplated with respect       A
to land where mineral vests exclusively in a private person.
[Para 111] [394-E-F]
      Sri Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu v. Dar Dass Dey & Co.
      and Others (1979) 3 SCC 106 ; State of Karnataka
      and Others v. Subhash Rukmayya Guttedar and Others               B
      (1993) 3 Suppl. SCC 290 – referred to
      3.5 The Mines Act, 1952 is an Act to amend and
consolidate the law relating to the regulation of labour and safety
of mines. The Act contains various provisions regarding
inspection of mining operation and management of mines.                C
Section 18 contains duties and responsibilities of owners, agents
and managers. There are various other provisions in the Mines
Act, 1952 which are mandatory to be followed before working
any mine. Section 16 obligates the owner, agent or manager of a
mine to give notice before the commencement of any mining
operation to the District Magistrate of the District in which the      D
mine is situate. Section 75 of the Mines Act, 1952 also
empowers the District Magistrate to institute prosecution against
any owner, agent or manager for any offence under the Mines
Act, 1952. In exercise of the power under Section 57 of Mines
Act, 1952 a new set of regulations has been framed, namely, Coal       E
Mines Regulations, 2017. The Regulations contain several
regulatory provisions which need to be followed while working a
mine by the owner or his agent. The enforcement of Mines Act,
1952 and the Regulations, 2017 have to be ensured in the public
interest by the state of Meghalaya. [Paras 113, 114, 116, 118]
[394-H; 395-A-D; 396-E-F; 397-C-D]                                     F

      3.6 Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 pro-
vided for requirements of prior environmental clearance with
regard to projects enumerates therein. Notification dated
14.09.2006 was issued by the Ministry of Environment and
Forests in exercise of power under Section 3(3) of the                 G
Environment Protection Act, 1986. Schedule to the notification
listed the projects or activities requiring prior environmental
clearance. “Mining of minerals” included at Item No.1(a) but even
for mining project requirement of minimum 5 hectares area was
required for applicability of the project. Substituting Item No.1(a)   H
314            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     of Notification dated 14.09.2006 a new notification dated
      15.01.2016 has been issued. As per statutory regime brought in
      force by notification dated 15.01.2016, environmental clearance
      is required for a project of coal for mining of any extent of area.
      The notification dated 15.01.2016 being a statutory provision shall
      operate on its own force and no order of any Court is required for
B
      enforcement of notification dated 15.01.2016. While
      implementing statutory regime for carrying mining operations in
      the Hills District of the State of Meghalaya, the State of Meghalaya
      has to ensure compliance of not only MMDR Act, 1957 but Mines
      Act, 1952 as well as Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
C     [Paras 119-121] [397-E-G; 398-F-H]
            Whether under the MMDR Act, 1957 and Mineral
      Concession Rules, 1960, it is the State Government, who is to
      grant lease for mining of minerals in privately owned/community
      owned land or it is the owner of the minerals, who is to grant
D     lease for carrying out mining operations?
            4.1 Chapter IV of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960
      deals with grant of mining leases in respect of land in which the
      minerals vest in the Government and Chapter V deals with
      procedure for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining lease in
E     respect of land in which the minerals vest in a person other than
      the Government. Chapter IV contains Rules 22 to 40 and
      Chapter V contains Rules 41 to 52 and the procedure and
      manner of applying for mining lease and grant of lease as con-
      tained in Chapter IV is not made applicable to the procedure as
      given in Chapter V except that by virtue of Rule 45(i) certain
F     conditions of mining lease as contained in Rule 27 under Chap-
      ter IV are made applicable for mining lease under Chapter V.
      [Para 123] [399-C-D]
            4.2 Rule 22(1) provides that an application for the grant of
      a mining lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the
G     Government shall be made to the State Government in Form I
      through such officer or authority as the State Government may
      specify in this behalf. In Chapter V, there is no such rule, which
      requires making an application for lease to the State

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                      315
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

Government. There is a marked difference between the rules            A
contained in Chapter IV and rules contained in Chapter V. Rule
27(2) provides that a mining lease may contain such other
conditions as the State Government may deem necessary in
regard to the matters enumerated therein. Whereas Rule 45(iii)
provides that every mining lease may contain such other
                                                                      B
conditions, not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Act
and these rules, as may be agreed upon between the parties.
The above provision gives an indication that in the lease executed
by Chapter V, the omission of word “State Government” in Rule
45(iii) is indicative of the fact that conditions, which are to be
added has to be agreed upon between the parties. It is provided       C
in Rule 45(i) that in clauses (c) and (d) of Rule 27 for the words
“State Government” the word “lessor” shall be substituted, which
gives a clear indication that State Government is not a lessor in a
lease granted under Chapter V. [Paras 124, 125] [399-E-G;
400-F]
                                                                      D
       4.3 Under Rule 27(5), if the lessee makes any default in
the payment of the royalty or the payment of dead rent or
commits breach of any of the conditions, the State Government
shall give notice to the lessee and determine the lease and
forfeit the whole or part of the security deposit. Whereas under
rule 45(iv), the said power has been vested in the lessor, which      E
also indicates that it is lessor, who will determine the lease and
not the State Government. Rule 47 provides for submission of
copy of licence or lease to the State Government within three
months of the grant of such licence or lease. Requirement of
submitting the licence or lease copy to the State Government          F
indicate that the State Government is not the authority, who is
granting the lease, otherwise there was no requirement of
submitting a copy to the State Government, if it was contemplated
that State Government shall grant the lease. [Para 126]
[401-B-E]
                                                                      G
     4.4 Prior to MMDR Act, 1957, earlier Central Legislation
which was governing the field was Mines and Minerals
(Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, under which rules have
been framed by Central Government namely, Mineral

                                                                      H
316           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     Concession Rules, 1949. Rule 14 of Chapter III contemplated
      application for prospecting license. Chapter IV of the Rules,
      1949 contained the heading “grant of Mining Lease in respect of
      land in which the minerals belong to Government”. The
      provisions of Rule 27 of Chapter IV provide for application for
      mining lease and there were several other rules under Chapter
B
      IV, which in substance have been retained in Chapter IV of Rules,
      1960. Chapter V of Rules, 1949 contained the heading “grant of
      mineral concessions by private persons.” The heading of
      Chapter V under Rules, 1960 is “procedure for obtaining a
      prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of land in which
C     the minerals vest in a person other than the Government.” Rule
      47 of Chapter V of Rules, 1949 provide for “conditions in a
      mining lease”, which are in substance similar as Rule 45 of Rules,
      1960. Rule 47(iv) of the Rules, 1949 was akin to present Rule
      45(i) of the Rules, 1960. [Para 127] [401-G-H; 402-A-C]
D           4.5 Thus, the Chapter V of Rules, 1949 dealt with the
      mining lease granted by private persons, i.e., the category where
      the minerals were not owned by the Government but was owned
      by private persons. Chapter V of the Rules, 1960 contains
      substantially similar provisions. Thus, Chapter V of Rules, 1960
      has to be treated to be dealing with minerals owned by private
E     owners. The earlier statutory regime, which was enforced as per
      Rules, 1949 made it amply clear that mineral concessions are to
      be granted by private persons also, which is in substances
      retained in Chapter V of Rules, 1960. Thus, mining lease to be
      granted as per Chapter V of Rules, 1960 is mining lease by the
F     owner of mineral and similar concept has to be borrowed and
      read in Chapter V. Absence of any procedure to make an
      application for mining lease to the State Government in Chapter
      V of the Rules, 1960 and lessor being the private persons and
      not the State Government, clearly indicates that State
      Government is not to grant the lease in respect of land of
G     privately owned/ community owned owners. [Para 128]
      [402-F-H; 403-A]
           4.6 Another reason for not providing any application to
      State Government for grant of mining lease in respect of
      minerals, which vests in the private owners and community
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                      317
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

owners is that; without consent or willingness of private owners/     A
community owners of minerals, no authority is empowered to
grant any mining lease with regard to minerals, of which he is the
owner, it is the owner of the minerals may be private persons or
community owners, who is entitled to grant lease of minerals as
per the provisions of Chapter V of Rules, 1960. As per the
                                                                      B
statutory provisions contained in Rules, 1960 especially
Chapter V, a mining lease for minerals, which belongs to a
private owner or a community owner, it is not the State
Government, which is entitled to receive any application or grant
any mining lease, but it is the private owner or community owner,
who is entitled to grant a lease for mining minerals owned by         C
them. [Paras 129, 130] [403-A-D]
      Whether the State of Meghalaya has any statutory control
over the mining of coal from privately owned/community owned
land in hills districts of State of Meghalaya?
      5.1 As per Rule 42(2), except with the previous approval        D
of the Central Government, no prospecting licence or mining
lease shall be granted in respect of any mineral specified in the
First Schedule to the Act. Thus, previous approval of Central
Government is mandatory before grant of mining lease of coal.
Rule 63 provides that the approval of the Central Government          E
has to be obtained through the State Government. Thus, the
State Government has to be aware that any previous approval of
the Central Government for mining coal has been obtained or
not. Thus, restriction being statutory and without any exception
State Government cannot say that it has no role to play with
regard to mining of coal. Rule 50 empowers the State                  F
Government with the approval of the Central Government to
direct the parties concerned not to undertake any mining
operations, if it has reasons to believe that the grant or transfer
of mining lease is in contravention of any of the provisions of
Chapter V. Thus, when mining operations of coal are being             G
conducted without prior approval of Central Government, State
is not powerless to direct the parties not to undertake any
prospective mining operations in the area. The power given under
Rule 50 is not only enabling power, but is a statutory obligation
on the State to exercise the power in the public interest. Rule 52
                                                                      H
318           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     gives the State Government ample power to prosecute and
      punish mining leases or his transferees or assignees on violation
      of the rules or contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter
      V, which is ample power to the State to ensure that the Act is
      faithfully followed. The State was advised by the Comptroller
      and Auditor General of India in its report ended 31st March, 2013
B
      in para 4.5.1 to regulate mining by following Mines and Minerals
      (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. [Para 133-136]
      [404-C-E, H; 405-A-B, E-G]
             5.2 The State is thus well aware of its statutory obligation
      which is reflected in Mining Policy of 2012 and Draft Guidelines,
C     2015 but still before this Court their contention that no mining
      lease is to be obtained for privately owned/community owned land
      in Hills District of State of Meghalaya is unacceptable and not in
      a good spirit. Our country being governed by the Constitution of
      India, all the States are to implement Parliamentary Acts in true
D     spirit and in the present case the State having been advised time
      and again by Comptroller and Auditor General and being well
      aware of its statutory obligation it comes ill from the State to
      contend before this Court that there is no requirement of mining
      lease for winning the minerals. [Para137] [405-H; 406-A-C]
E           Whether the power to allot land for mining purposes is
      vested in Autonomous District Councils?
             6.1 Para 3 of Schedule VI of the Constitution enumerates
      the power of District Council and Regional Council to make laws.
      Certain legislation framed by District Council are the Khasi Hills
F     District (Trading by Non Tribals) Regulation, 1954, the United
      Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Management and
      Control of Forest) Rules, 1960, the Khasi Hills Autonomous Dis-
      trict (Trading by Non Tribals) Rules, 1959, all framed in exercise
      of power under para 3 of Sixth Schedule. The power to make law
      entrusted to Autonomous District Council under para 3 of
G     Schedule VI is power to make law referable to List 2 and List 3
      of the Seventh Schedule. With regard to regulation and
      development of mineral, the Union has made declaration by
      Section 2 of 1957 Act and the power of the State Legislature is
      denuded in that respect. The logical corollary of the above
H     principle is that power of Autonomous District Council shall also
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                     319
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

be denuded in so far as regulation and development of minerals       A
to the extent which is covered by 1957 Act. Rule 4 of United
Khasi Jaintia Hills District (Trading by non Tribals) Rules,1959,
which contemplates form of licence and one of the licence
referred to is under Rule 4 is licence in Form E.
[Paras 138, 139] [406-F-H; 407-A-B]
                                                                     B
      6.2 The United Khasi Jaintia Hills District (Trading by
Non-Tribal) Rules, 1959 has been repealed insofar as Jaintia Hills
Districts are concerned by the Jaintia Hills Autonomous District
(Trading by Non-Tribal) Regulation Act, 2011. Rules, 1959 is still
in force in Khasi Hills Autonomous Districts, since, no other
regulations have been placed repealing the Rules, 1959.              C
Regulations, 2011 have nothing to do with the mining of coal.
Paragraph 9 of the Schedule VI confines to the licences or leases
of minerals granted by Government of the State. Schedule VI
which constitute the District Councils and Regional Councils
enumerates their powers. Para 9 only deals with share of the         D
royalties to District Councils as agreed upon between the
Government of the State and the District Councils. Further
paragraph 12(A)(a) itself contemplates that any law made by
District Council or Regional Council which is repugnant to any
law of the State shall be void. Thus, the status of law made by
District Council or Regional councils has to give way to the law     E
made by the State. There can be no doubt that District Council
and Regional Council cannot make any law which may be
repugnant to the provisions of the Parliamentary Act. Thus,
District Council does not have any power to make any law with
regard to grant of mining lease. The mining leases for winning       F
the major minerals has to be granted in accordance with 1957
Act and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. [Paras 140-144]
[407-E-F; 408-B, G-H; 409-A-B]
      Whether the order of National Green Tribunal dated
17.04.2014 directing for complete ban on mining is unsustainable?    G
      Whether the complete ban on mining of coal in the State of
Meghalaya as directed by NGT deserved to be vacated/modified
in the interest of State and Tribals?
      7.1 The use of natural resources plays major role in
carrying out development. A fine balance has to be maintained in     H
320           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     utilisation of natural resources and its conservation and
      preservation. One cannot be sacrificed for the interest of other.
      The concept of Sustainable Development has been evolved and
      is being pursued. By order of NGT dated 17.04.2014, the Rat
      hole mining/illegal mining was prohibited throughout the State of
      Meghalaya. In OA No.73 of 2014 in which said order was passed,
B
      sufficient materials were brought on the record including experts
      report which proved that illegal coal mining in the State of
      Meghalaya is degrading the environment. There is no error in
      the order of NGT reaffirming its ban order in the facts of the
      case. The revenue earned by the State from coal mining plays
C     substantial part in the economy of the State. It is also amply
      demonstrated from the record that tribals are the owners of the
      land who carry on mining of coal in their land by which they earn
      their substantial livelihood. [Paras 146, 147, 150] [409-F-G;
      410-D-E; 412-B-C]
D           State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s Hind Stone and Others
            (1981) 2 SCC 205 : [1981] 2 SCR 742 – relied on.

            Lafarge Umiam Mining (pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India &
            Others (2011) 7 SCC 338 : [2011] 7 SCR 954 –
E           referred to.
             7.2 Although the manner in which the mining is being
      carried out by the tribals cannot be approved which is clearly in
      violation of statutory regime under 1957 Act and 1960 Rules but
      in event the mining is carried out by tribals or their assignees as
F     per the provisions of 1957 Act and 1960 Rules, there can be no
      objections in carrying such mining under the regulation and
      control of State of Meghalaya and the ban order dated 17.04.2014
      of the tribunal shall not come in its way of carrying mining
      operations. The ban order is for the illegal coal mining which was
      rampant in the State of Meghalaya and cannot be extended to
G     valid and legal mining as per 1957 Act and 1960 Rules.
      [Para 151] [412-D-F]
            Whether NGT had any jurisdiction to constitute committees
      to submit reports, to implement the orders of NGT, to monitor
      storage/transportation; of minerals and to prepare action plan
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                         321
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

for restoration of environment? Whether the NGT committed                A
error in directing for constitution of fund, namely, Meghalaya
Environment Protection and Restoration Fund?
      8.1    Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of NGT Act provides
that Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by
the Code of Civil Procedure but shall be guided by the principles        B
of natural justice. What sub-section (1) meant to convey is that
Tribunal is not shackled with the procedure laid down by the CPC
for conducting its proceedings. Sub-section (2) of Section 19
empowers the Tribunal, powers to regulate its own procedure.
Section 19(4) vests some powers as are vested in civil court,
while trying a suit, in respect of matters enumerated therein.           C
The use of expression “shall not be bound by the procedure laid
down by the CPC” is not akin to saying that procedure as laid
down by the CPC is in no manner relevant to the Tribunal.
Further, Section 19(1) also does not mean that Tribunal cannot
follow any procedure given in the CPC. One provision of CPC              D
inserted by Act 104 of 1976 with effect from 01.02.1977 is Order
XXVI, which is relevant for present inquiry. [Para 154]
[414-E-G]
      8.2 Rule 10A of Order XXVI CPC provides that where any
question arising in a suit involves any scientific investigation which   E
cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be conveniently conducted
before the Court, the Court may, if it thinks necessary or
expedient in the interests of justice so to do, issue a commission
to such person as it thinks fit, directing him to inquire into such
question and report thereon to the Court. Rule 10A is enabling
power to the courts to obtain report from such persons as it thinks      F
fit when any question involves with the scientific investigation.
The powers under Rule 10A which are to be exercised by the
Court can very well be used by the NGT to obtain reports by
experts. The NGT as per the statutory scheme of the NGT has
to decide several complex questions pertaining to pollution and          G
environment. The scientific investigation and report by experts
are necessary requirement in appropriate cases to come to
correct conclusion to find out measures to remedy the pollution
and environment. There is no dearth of jurisdiction in the NGT

                                                                         H
322           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     to appoint a committee to submit a report. While asking expert
      to give a report the NGT is not confined to the four corners of
      Rule 10A rather its jurisdiction is not shackled by strict terms of
      Order 26 Rule 10A s per Section 19(1). [Para 155] [415-C-E]
            8.3 Under Section 35 of the NGT Act, 2010, Central
B     Government is empowered to make rule for carrying out the
      provisions of the Act. Rules have been framed in exercise of
      powers under Section 35, namely, National Green Tribunal
      (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011. The said Rules have been
      framed in exercise of powers under Section 4(4) as well as
      Section 35. The Rules, 2011 are Rules also for practices and
C     procedure of the Tribunal. [Para 156] [415-F-G]
             8.5 Rule 24 empowers the Tribunal to make such orders
      or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give
      effect to its order or to secure the ends of justice. Rule 24 gives
      wide powers to the Tribunal to secure the ends of justice. Rule
D     24 vests special power to Tribunal to pass orders and issue
      directions to secure ends of justice. Use of words ‘may’, ‘such
      orders’, ‘gives such directions’, ‘as may be necessary or
      expedient’, ‘to give effect to its orders’, ‘order to prevent abuse
      of process’, are words which enable the Tribunal to pass orders
E     and the above words confer wide discretion. [Para 157]
      [416-B-C]
            8.4 The enabling powers give to the Tribunal under Rule
      24 is for purpose and object to decide the subjects which are to
      be examined, decided and an appropriate relief is to be granted
F     by the Tribunal. Further, subjects contain wide range of subjects
      which require technical and scientific inputs. The Tribunal can
      pass such orders as it may think fit necessary or expedient to
      secure ends of justice. The object for which said power is given
      is not far to seek. To fulfil objective of the NGT Act, 2010. NGT
      has to exercise a wide range of jurisdiction and has to possess
G     vide range of powers to do justice in a given case. The power is
      given to exercise for the benefit of those who have right for clean
      environment which right they have to establish before the
      Tribunal. The power given to the Tribunal is coupled with duty to
      exercise such powers for achieving the objects. There is no lack
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                      323
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

of jurisdiction in the NGT to direct for appointment of committee     A
or to obtain a report from a committee in given facts of the case.
[Para 159, 160, 161] [416-E-H; 417-D]
      L. Hirday Narain v. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly
      (1970) 2 SCC 355 : [1971] 3 SCR 683 – relied on.
      Professor Justice G.P. Singh in Principles of Statutory         B
      Interpretation, 14th Edition – referred to.
      8.5 A Fund has been constituted by the Tribunal, namely,
“Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund”.
The NGT could have passed any order or direction to secure
ends of justice which power especially conferred by Rule 24 di-       C
rection to constitute Fund is thus also saved under such power.
[Paras 162, 163] [417-E; 418-D-E]
      Whether NGT by constituting Committees has delegated
essential judicial powers to the Committees and has further
encroached the constitutional scheme of administration of Tribal      D
areas under Article 244(2) and Article 275(1) and Schedule VI of
the Constitution?
       9.1 The Tribunal by its various directions has asked for
reports from State officials and the committees. The various
instances where the NGT directed for report or investigation          E
and submission of report by committees were with the object of
ensuring the implementation of the orders passed by it and to
decide the environmental issues raised before it. In no manner
constitution of committee can be said to be delegation of
essential judicial powers of the NGT to the committee. The            F
Katakey committee was constituted by the Tribunal on
31.08.2018. The Constitution of the committee and its functions
entrusted were with the object to implement the orders passed
by the Tribunal. For the restoration of environment, NGT vide
its order dated 31.08.2018 has directed the committee to submit
its action plan and reports by e-mail. The Tribunal, thus, had kept   G
complete control on all steps which were required to be taken by
the committee and issued directions from time to time. Thus,
the submission of the appellant that the essential judicial powers

                                                                      H
324           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     of the NGT had been delegated to the committee is not tenable.
      Looking to the enormous work of restoration of environment
      which has to be supervised on the spot the committee was
      constituted. However, the State is always at liberty to obtain
      particular direction if aggrieved by any act of the committee. The
      matter being pending before the Tribunal of acts of the
B
      committee are under direct control of the Tribunal and if the
      committee oversteps in any direction the same can very well be
      corrected by the Tribunal on the matter being brought before it.
      [Para 165-167] [418-G-H; 419-A, D-H; 420-A]
            9.2. It is not case of the appellant that District and
C     Regional Councils have framed any law for restoration of
      environment which is being breached by the committee or its
      acts. The District and Regional Councils are free to exercise all
      their powers and the committee constituted by the Tribunal is
      only concerned with the Environmental degradation and illegal
D     coal mining. The committees’ report or direction of the Tribunal
      in no manner encroaches upon the administration of Tribal areas
      by the District and Regional Councils. [Para 168] [420-D-E]
           Whether direction to deposit Rs.100/- crores by the State
      of Meghalaya by order dated 04.01.2019 of NGT impugned in
E     C.A.No.2968 of 2019 is sustainable?
            10.1 The NGT by its order dated 31.08.2018 constituted a
      committee headed by Justice B.P. Katakey, Former Judge of
      Gauhati High Court with representatives from Central Pollution
      Control Board and Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad. The
F     committee visited different sites, held various meetings, various
      presentations were also made before the committee by Meghalaya
      State Pollution Control Board and other bodies namely North
      Eastern Centre for Technology Application and Reach, North
      Eastern Space Application Centre. The committee observed that
      the coal mining activities which includes the extraction of coal
G     and transportation is going on in the State of Meghalaya, at least
      in East Jaintia Hills District, where such mining activities are
      most, despite the ban imposed by the NGT by its order dated
      17.4.2014. The fact that on 13.12.2018, 15 coal mine workers

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                      325
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

were trapped in an ongoing coal mining operation, who all have        A
been reported to be dead itself proves beyond any doubt that
order dated 17.04.2014 banning mining in the entire State of
Meghalaya was neither been enforced nor serious endeavours
were taken by the State or its authorities to save the
environmental pollution. With regard to restoration of the
                                                                      B
environment and restoration of the victims, action plans were
formulated by the committee. [Paras 169, 171, 174] [420-E-F;
421-C-E; 422-E-F; 423-C-D]
        10.2 The report being placed on website on 31.12.2018
itself, there was no question of serving copy of the report of the
committee to the Stakeholders. Additional Chief Secretary of          C
the Government of Meghalaya was himself the Member Secretary
and Coordinator of the committee under the orders of the Tribunal
dated 19.09.2018. All proceedings of the committee, its meetings
and minutes, were with the knowledge and participation of the
coordinator/ Additional Chief Secretary of the State of Meghalaya.    D
A perusal of the direction to deposit Rs.100/- crores by the State
of Meghalaya by order dated 04.01.2019, indicates that although
the State of Meghalaya was present and was heard but no kind of
objection was raised regarding acceptability of the report. The
report obtained by the NGT through the committee was to take
effective steps towards protection of environmental pollution and     E
for restoration of damaged environment. Pollution of the various
rivers and streams and steps for treating the acidic water was
urgently required. Several presentations before the committee
were also made and different steps regarding restoration of
environment were to be taken as noticed and indicated in the          F
report of the committee. The NGT by its order dated 25.03.2015
constituted a fund namely ‘Meghalaya Environment Protection
and Restoration Fund’ to be maintained by the State under the
direct control of the Chief Secretary of the State of Meghalaya. It
is reiterated in the report of the committee that an amount of
Rs.433 Crores is already lying in the said fund, which has not        G
been spent. [Paras 176-177] 423-F-H; 424-A-C]
     10.3 The amount, which has been directed by NGT to be
deposited by State of Meghalaya is neither a penalty nor a fine

                                                                      H
326            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     imposed on the State. The amount has been directed to be
      deposited for carrying out steps regarding restoration of
      environment. The said amount cannot be said to be amount of
      damages to be paid by the State. State of Meghalaya has very
      limited source of revenue and putting an extra burden on the
      State of Meghalaya to make payment of Rs.100 Crores from its
B
      own financial resources and budgetary amount may cause great
      hardship to the State of Meghalaya. Ends of justice be served in
      modifying the direction of NGT dated 04.01.2019 to the extent
      that State is permitted to transfer an amount of Rs.100 Crores
      from the amount lying in the MEPRF to the Central Pollution
C     Control Board. The Central Pollution Control Board as directed
      by NGT shall utilise the said amount of Rs.100 Crores only for
      restoration of the environment. [Para 179] [424-D-G]
            Whether NGT’s order dated 31.03.2016 that after
      15.05.2016 all remaining coal shall vest in the State of Meghalaya
D     is sustainable?
             11. The mining of coal in contravention of Section 4(1)
      invites penalties as enumerated in Section 21. The present is
      not a case where any kind of penalty has been imposed on the
      miners except that the amount of royalty as payable on mining of
E     coal is being collected by the State as penalty. It is true that the
      State Government has power under Section 21(5) to recover from
      such person the minerals so raised, or, where such material has
      already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover
      from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, but it
      is for the State Government to exercise its power under Section
F     21(5) by way of penalty. The NGT has not given any reason as to
      how coal shall automatically vest in the State. The right of
      recovery of mineral as contemplated under Section 21(5) does
      not amount to say that proprietary right of owner of the minerals
      is lost rather State under Section 21(5) exercises its power to
G     recover the mineral which has been raised without any lawful
      authority. Thus, coal extracted and lying in open after 15.05.2016
      was not automatically vested in the State and the owner of the
      coal or the person who has mined the coal shall have the
      proprietary right in the mineral which shall not be lost. [Para 182[
      [486-E-H]
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                       327
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

      Whether assessed and unassessed coal which has already           A
been extracted and lying in different Districts of Meghalaya be
permitted to be transported and what mechanism be adopted for
disposal of such coal?
       12.1 Several I.A.s were filed by different applicants
seeking direction to transport already extracted coal lying at         B
different places in hills districts of State of Meghalaya. The State
Government itself came with a case that huge quantity of coal in
the four hills districts, which has been extracted is lying waiting
for orders of transportation. In the instant case, illegal coal
mining is going on in spite of ban by NGT by its order dated
17.04.2014. The Katakey committee report has also opined that          C
all the extracted coal lying in different districts is a coal, which
has been illegally mined after the imposition of ban by the order
dated 17.04.2014. All coals being illegally mined, the State is
fully entitled to impose a penalty, i.e., to realise the royalty and
the amount of MEPR Fund. The coal being major mineral and              D
useful for different industries and projects, appropriate disposal
of extracted coal is also of a paramount importance.
[Paras 183, 184, 185] [427-A; 429-D; 430-A]
      12.2 Entire extracted coal lying at various places is directed
to be taken over by Coal India Ltd, a Government of India unit,        E
who may dispose of the same as per its normal method of
disposal and proceeds be distributed as per directions issued by
this Court hereinafter. The NGT has already directed that for all
extracted coal lying at different places, it is the State, which is
the receiver-cum-custodian of the coal. The State having carried
out the assessment of the coal lying in the said four districts        F
including the details of the quantities and the details of owners
being available with it, it may ensure that the entire coal are
handed over to the Coal India Ltd., as per the mode and manner
to be formulated by Katakey Committee, in consultation with
officers of the Coal India Ltd. and State of Meghalaya. The            G
Katakey committee and its various members and participants
have done a commendable job in studying and examining various
aspects of environment in the State of Meghalaya and several
valuable suggestions have been given by the committee, which

                                                                       H
328           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     are also being implemented to mitigate the suffering of the
      citizens consequent to the illegal coal mined. [Paras 186, 187]
      [430-A-E]
              12.3 Commissioner and Secretary of the State in the
      Department of Mining and Geology alongwith the officers of Coal
B     India Ltd. are directed to deliberate with the Katakey
      committee to finalise a comprehensive plan for transportation
      and handing over of the coal to Coal India Ltd. for disposal/
      auction as per rules of Coal India Ltd. Disposal/auction by Coal
      India Ltd. shall be beneficial to both the owners of the mines as
      well as to the State of Meghalaya. It is for the Coal India Ltd. to
C     decide as to venue, where they shall receive the coal, i.e., either
      at any of its depot or any other place in State of Meghalaya and it
      is for the Coal India Ltd. to finalise the process of disposal and
      auction of the coal. It shall be the duty of the State of Meghalaya
      and its officers especially Deputy Commissioner of the area
D     concerned to enter details of quantity of the coal, name of the
      owner and place from where it is collected. Coal India Ltd. shall
      also take steps to ensure weighment of the coal when it is
      received by it and since all consequent steps regarding disposal,
      price grade of the coal shall be determined as per the weight of
      the coal received by the Coal India Ltd. from different places.
E     The expenses of transportation shall be borne by the State of
      Meghalaya, Coal India Ltd. or by both, which expenses shall be
      deductible from the price received of the coal. The State of
      Meghalaya shall be entitled to royalty and payment towards MERP
      Fund as well as taxes out of the price of the coal. After deduction
F     of cost of transportation, the payment of royalty and payment to
      MERP fund and taxes plus 10% of value of the coal to be given
      to Coal India Ltd. for the above exercise, balance amount shall
      be disbursed to the owner of the coal towards its price, which
      disbursement shall be the responsibility of the State. The Coal
      India Ltd. after taking its expenses for transportation with 10%
G     of price of the coal shall remit the entire amount to the State and
      it is for the State after deducting the royalty and payment to the
      MERP Fund and taxes to pay back the balance of the amount to
      the owner. The coal, which has been seized by the State in
      illegal transportation or illegal mining for which different cases
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                        329
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE

have been registered by the State shall, however, be dealt by the       A
State in accordance with Section 21 of the Act, 1957 and on being
satisfied, the State can take a decision to recover the entire
quantity of coal so illegally raised without lawful authority and the
said cases has to be separately dealt with in accordance with law.
Thus, all I.A.s filed by different applicants seeking order of
                                                                        B
transportation of the different quantities stand disposed of in view
of the directions as given above. The Katakey committee in
consultation with State of Meghalaya and officers of Coal India
Ltd. would finalise appropriate mode and manner to affect the
transport and disposal of the coal in the above manner.
[Paras 188-190] [430-E-H; 431-A-D]                                      C
                       Case Law Reference
      [2017] 12 SCR 956            distinguished       Para 69
      [2013] 7 SCR 863            referred to          Para 73
      [1967] SCR 373              followed             Para 74          D
      (1979) 3 SCC 106            referred to          Para 108
      (1993) 3 Suppl. SCC 290 referred to              Para 110
      [1981] 2 SCR 742            relied on            Para 145
      [2011] 7 SCR 954            referred to          Para 146         E

      [1971] 3 SCR 683            relied on            Para 160
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.10720
of 2018
      From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2018 of the National      F
Green Tribunal at New Delhi in Original Application No. 73 of 2014
                                With
      Civil Appeal Nos. 10611/2018, 10907/2018, 5272/2016, 2968/2019,
      Civil Appeal No.5295 of 2019 @ D. No.3067/2018.                   G
     A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG, Shekhar Naphade, Raju Ramachandran,
Amrendra Sharan, Colin Gonsalves, Sanjay R. Hegde, Anupam Lal Das,
Nidhesh Gupta, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, R. Basant, Siddharth Luthra,

                                                                        H
330            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     Sr. Advs., Amit Kumar, AG (State of Meghalaya), Sammarth Khanna,
      Ms. Ekta Gupta, Ms. Sukriti Bhatnagar, Durga Dutt, Shaurya Sahay,
      Atul Kumar, Ms. Rekha Bakshi, T.K. Nayak, Prakash Singh Negi, Chetan
      Joshi, Ms. Laxmi Iyer, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Kumar Abhishek, Avijit
      Mani Tripathi, Yoginder Handoo, P. Yobin, Prashant Bhatnagar, Saurabh,
      Prithvi Pal, Naresh Kumar Nagar, Amit Kumar, Avijit Roy, V. Senthil
B
      Kumar, Satish Kumar, Theerthe Gowda N.M., G.Sughumaran,
      Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Pranay Ranjan, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Gurmeet Singh
      Makker, Tayenjam Momo Singh, Ms. T. Archana, Ranjan Mukherjee,
      S. Bhowmick, K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Deniel Stone Lyngdoh, Upendra
      Mishra, Dr. Gajendra Pal Singh, Ms. Olivia Bang, Satya Mitra, Arvind
C     Kumar Sharma, Ahanthem Henry, A. Rohen Singh, Vivek Kumar,
      Phillemon N., Kumar Mihir, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Ms. Anuradha Arputham,
      Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Geetanjali, M/s. Arputham Aruna and Co,
      Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Ms. Japneet Kaur, Ms. Vriti Gujral, Ms. Pallavi
      Singh, Dileep Tandon, Ms. Neha Tandon, R.B. Phookan, Shailesh
      Madiyal, Subhro Sanyal, Ms. Soumya Roop Sanyal, Somesh Chandra
D
      Jha, Sameer Kumar, Ms. Heena Rohra, Nirnay Gupta, Kawaljeet Singh
      Bhatia, Advs. for the appearing parties.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1.Natural resources of the country are
E     not meant to be consumed only by the present generation of men or
      women of the region where natural resources are deposited. These
      treasures of nature are for all generations to come and for intelligent use
      of the entire country. The present generation owes a duty to preserve
      and conserve the natural resources of the nation so that it may be used
      in the best interest of coming generations as well and for the country as
F     a whole.
             2. These appeals have been filed challenging various orders passed
      by National Green Tribunal wherein several directions were issued,
      measures to be taken to check and combat the unregulated coal mining
      in Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya which coal mining resulted not
G     only loss of lives but damaged the environment of the area.
            Details of appeals
            3. Civil Appeal Nos. 10720 of 2018, 10611 of 2018 and 10907 of
      2018 have been filed against order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the
H     National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Civil Appeal
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                                331
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

No.5272 of 2016 has been filed by KA Hima Nongstoin Land Owners,                A
Coal Traders and Producers Association against the order dated
10.05.2016 of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Civil Appeal (Diary No.3067) of 2018 has been filed by Lber Laloo
against order dated 25.03.2015 of National Green Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi and Civil Appeal No.2968 of 2019 has been filed
                                                                                B
against order dated 04.01.2019 of National Green Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi by which State of Meghalaya has been directed to
deposit Rs.100 crores with the Central Pollution Control Board.
        4. All the appeals having been filed against the orders of National
Green Tribunal (NGT), it is necessary to notice the details of various
proceedings before the NGT to appreciate the grievances raised in the           C
appeals. The Gauhati High Court on the basis of a News item to the
effect that on 06.07.2012, 30 coal labourers were trapped inside a coal
mine at Nongalbibra in the District of South Garo Hill and 15 of them
died inside the coal mine, registered PIL suo moto No.(SH) 3 of 2012.
Vide order dated 10.12.2012 of the Gauhati High Court the matter was            D
directed to be transferred to NGT in which notice was issued by the
Tribunal on 30.01.2013. Transferred matter was registered as Original
Application NO.11(THC)/2012.All Dimasa Students Union Dima Hasao
District Committee filed an Original Application No.73 of 2014 before
National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench making serious complaints with
regard to rat-hole mining operation, which has been going on in Jaintia         E
Hills in the State of Meghalaya for last many years without being
regulated by any law. It was alleged that in the course of rat-hole coal
mining by flooding water several employees and workers have died.
The applicant had also brought before the Tribunal a detailed report of
one Dr. O.P. Singh, Professor, Department of Environmental Studies,             F
North-Eastern Hills University, Shillong, Meghalaya where entire
aspects of the coal mining in the State of Meghalaya were discussed.
The NGT admitted the application and took the view that illegal and
unscientific miningneither can be held to be in the interest of people of
the area,the people working in the mines nor in the interest of
environment. After hearing applicant, the Tribunal on 17.04.2014 passed         G
an order directing the Chief Secretary of Meghalaya, Director General
of Police, State of Meghalaya to ensure that rat-hole mining/illegal
mining is stopped forthwith throughout the State of Meghalaya and any
illegal transport of coal shall not take place until further orders passed by
                                                                                H
332            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     the Tribunal. After the passing of the order dated 17.04.2014 various
      applications were filed before the Tribunal by different Associations and
      persons claiming interest in the subject matter of the application.
      Application No. 317/2019 was filed by Western Coal Miners and
      Exporters Association for being impleaded in O.A. No.73 of 2014, which
      was allowed. Another application M.A.No.306 of 2014 was filed by
B
      Khasi Hills District Autonomous District Council, Shillong, East Khasi
      Hills District, Meghalaya (one of the appellants before us) for impleadment
      claiming to be a constitutional body and entitled in the sharing primarily
      of the royalty on the coal produced/mined, which application was
      allowed.
C             5. The Tribunal clubbed O.A.No.13 of 2014, O.A.No.73 of 2014
      and O.A.No.11(THC)/2012. Miscellaneous applications were filed
      before the Tribunal praying for vacating the order dated 17.04.2014.
      Against order dated 17.04.2014, C.A.No.5756 of 2014 was filed by a
      coal mine owner. The miscellaneous application was also filed by the
D     State Coordination Committee of the Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya
      (one of the appellants before us) for their impleadment, which was
      allowed. This Court dismissed the Civil Appeal filed against the order
      dated 17.04.2014 passed by the Tribunal, however, granted liberty to the
      appellant to approach the Tribunal for modification of the order. The
      Tribunal also noticed in its order dated 09.06.2014 that there has been
E     serious air, water and environmental pollution being caused by the
      illegal, unregulated and indiscriminate rat-hole mining being carried on in
      various parts of the State of Meghalaya. Serious pollution to the
      upstream was also noticed. The Tribunal, however, noticed that there
      are documents on record to show that right from the year 2003, there
F     has been serious air and water pollution in the mining areas of Meghalaya
      which is injurious and has not only resulted in degradation of
      environment, particularly the streams and underground water, but has
      also seriously jeopardised the human health. It was further noticed that
      Transportation of coal in an illegal, unregulated, indiscriminate and
      unscientific manner has resulted in serious diseases to the people. The
G     report of the Committee dated 09.06.2014 was noticed by the Tribunal.
      By order dated 09.06.2014 while permitting the transportation of the
      already extracted coal lying in open near the mining sites, constituted a
      committee for supervising such transportation. Various other directions
      were issued to the committee as well as to the State and its authorities.
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                               333
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       6. By a subsequent order dated 01.08.2014 the Tribunal noticed          A
that the committee earlier constituted by order dated 09.06.2014 failed
to perform the functions assigned to it, hence, a new committee was
constituted. The Tribunal from time to time issued various directions.
We need to notice four orders passed by the Tribunal in detail which are
subject matter of challenge in these appeals. The orders which are
                                                                               B
subject matter in these appeals are orders dated 25.03.2015, 10.05.2016,
31.08.2018 and 04.01.2019.
      Order dated 25.03.2015
        7. In order dated 25.03.2015 NGT noticed that the rampant,
illegal, unscientific and life-threatening mining activity, particularly rat   C
hole mining is going on in the State of Meghalaya for years. The NGT
noticed the report of Commissioner appointed by it and opined that in
spite of order dated 17.04.2014 fresh mining was going on. The Tribunal
also noticed that State of Meghalaya has promulgated a Mining Policy
of 2012 which does not deal with rat hole mining. The State Government
was also directed to formulate and declare Mining Policy and Guidelines        D
for the State of Meghalaya to deal with all aspects of mining, which
Policy was yet to see the light of the day. The Tribunal also noticed that
the order of the Tribunal has been violated by illegal mining despite
complete prohibitory orders. It was noticed that the State Government
has found as many as 73 cases of illegal transportation of coal in one         E
District. Further, 15 more cases of specific violation of the NGT orders
had already been registered by the State Government. In all 11 Districts
of State of Meghalaya, 308 cases of violation have been registered and
a total number of 605 trucks and 2675.63 tonnes of coal has been seized.
The stand of the State for a non-compliance and its inability to comply
with the direction was also noticed to the following effect:                   F

      “(a) Lack of forces of carry out counter insurgency operations
      and implementation of NGT orders.
      (b) The State Government proposes to approach the Central
      Government for claiming an exemption, in terms of para 12A(b)            G
      of the VIth Schedule of the Constitution of India and from the
      condition of previous approval of the Central Government under
      the Mine and Mineral Rule Regulation Act, 1957 in respect of
      reconnaissance, prospecting and mining of coal and from the
      operations of Coal Mines Nationalisation Act.”
                                                                               H
334            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A            8. The Tribunal issued directions that the Additional Secretary,
      North East in the Ministry of Home, Central Government shall, within a
      period of two weeks, hold a meeting with the Chief Secretary of the
      State of Meghalaya and other concerned Authorities and consider the
      proposal of the State of Meghalaya. The Tribunal also expressed its
      disapproval for the conduct of the State in not formulating appropriate
B
      Policy and Guidelines. The Tribunal further observed that the mining in
      the State cannot be permitted, unless appropriate policy is prepared by
      the State Government.
             9. The Tribunal also noticed that there is huge environmental
      degradation and pollution of the water in the State of Meghalaya and
C     observed that serious steps are required to be taken for cleaning
      polluted waterbodies, with the above objective the Tribunal authorised
      the State Government to collect 10% on the market value of the coal in
      addition to the royally payable to it. In this regard following directions
      were issued:
D             “It is also undisputable that there has been huge environmental
            degradation and pollution of the waterbody in the State of
            Meghalaya, because of this illegal, unscientific mining. No one
            has even thought of restoration of the area in question, to bring to
            some extent, if not completely, restoration of ecology and
E           environment in question. Serious steps are required to be taken
            for cleaning polluted waterbodies and ensure that no further
            pollution is caused by this activity and the activity which would be
            permitted to be carried on finally including transportation of coal.
            On the basis of `Polluter Pay Principle’. We direct that the State
            Government shall in addition to the royalty payable to it, shall also
F           collect 10% on the market value of the coal for every consignment.
            Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
            keeping in view the notifications of the Central Government dated
            10.05.2012 and that of the State Government dated 22.06.2012,
            we may notice that in the report of Comptroller and Auditor
G           General of India for the period ending 31st March, 2013 under
            7.5.18 of Chapter 7 of which the invoice value of the coal has
            been taken Rs. 4850/- per metric tonne.
              Thus, we direct that the State Government shall in addition to
            the royalty payable to it, also collect 10% of the said market value
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                               335
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      of the coal per metric tonne from each person. The amount so             A
      collected shall be deposited in the account to be titled as ‘Meghalaya
      Environment Protection and Restoration Fund’ to be maintained
      by the State under the direct control of the Chief Secretary of the
      State of Meghalaya.
      This amount shall only be used for restoration of environment and        B
      for necessary remedial and preventive measures in regard to
      environment and matters related thereto.”
      10. Certain other directions were issued by the Tribunal vide
order dated 25.03.2015.
      Order dated 10.05.2016                                                   C

       11. Order dated 10.05.2016 has been challenged by KA Hima
Nongstoin Land Owners, Coal Traders and Producers Association. The
NGT vide its order dated 23.12.2015 had permitted transportation of
coal for the period till 15.05.2016. By order dated 31.03.2016, NGT
refused to further extend the time for transportation and directed that        D
after 15.05.2016 all extracted coal shall vest in the State. Aggrieved
against order dated 31.03.2016 KA Hima Nongstoin Land Owners, Coal
Traders and Producers Association filed C.A.No.4793 of 2016 before
this Court, which was disposed of by granting liberty to the appellant to
file application before the NGT. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this       E
Court M.A.No.427 of 2016 was filed before the NGT. By order dated
10.05.2016 applications, M.A. Nos.400 and 427 of 2016 were dismissed.
By the same order the State of Meghalaya was directed to place on
record the exact current quantity of coal and value thereof including the
status of the coal lying and mined anywhere in the State of Meghalaya
as on 01.04.2015 and the exact quantity of coal lying as on 16.05.2016.        F
The state was also directed to submit its proposal as to how the State
shall deal with the coal that is vested in the State primarily for the
reasons that entire coal is illegally extracted coal.
      Order dated 31.08.2018
                                                                               G
      12. On 31.08.2018, the Tribunal noticing the earlier proceedings
also noted that few issues are pending before this Court arising out of
orders passed by the Tribunal. In paragraph 10 of the order following
has been noticed:

                                                                               H
336        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     “10. At this stage, we may note that following issues are pending
      before the Hon’ble Supreme Court arising out of orders passed
      by this Tribunal:
      i)    Civil Appeal No(s). 5272/2016 titled as Ka Hima Nongstoin
            Land Owners, Coal Traders and Producers Association Vs.
B           All Dimasa Students Union, Dima Hasao District Commit-
            tee and Ors., wherein following order was passed on
            21.09.2016:
           “Having heard counsel for the parties, it is directed that the
           petitioners, as well as the respondents, who have mined the
C          coal, are permitted to transport the coal on payment of royalty
           and other fees as fixed by the National Green Tribunal (for
           short, ‘the Tribunal’) and other relevant status. The extracted
           coal can be transported from 1st October, 2016 till 31st May,
           2017. It is further directed that no other extraction shall take
           place in the meantime.
D
           The finding of the Tribunal that the coal is vested in the State
           on the ground that it is illegally extracted coal, shall be adverted
           to at the time of final hearing. The miners shall keep the
           accounts and if, ultimately, it is held that the coal belongs to the
           State, they will refund the amount with interest. The quantum
E          of interest shall be determined at the time of final hearing.
           Needless to say, these observations have been made without
           prejudice to the contentions to be raised by the learned counsel
           for the parties. The tribunal can proceed with regard to the
           other aspects which are pending before it.”
F           The above order shows that question whether coal is vested
      in the State is to be gone into before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
            Thereafter, on 28.03.2018, by the said order, time for
      transporting already extracted coal was extended up to 31.05.2018
      but it was clear that no further extraction shall be allowed.
G
           ii) Civil Appeal Diary No. 3067/2018 titled as Lber Laloo
      Vs. All Dimasa Students Union, Dima Hasao District Committee
      and Ors., raising the question whether ban on mining can be
      continued. We are informed that in the said matter, the issue of
      mining plan has also been raised.”
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                               337
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       13. The Tribunal further directed that ban on rat hole mining shall     A
continue subject to further orders of this Court. Ban on transportation of
extracted coal will also continue subject to further orders. Following
directions were issued in paragraph 13:
      “13. Accordingly, we direct that orders of ban of rat-hole mining
      will continue, subject to further orders of the Hon’ble Supreme          B
      Court. Ban of transportation of the already mined material will
      also continue subject to further orders of the Hon’ble Supreme
      Court. The State of Meghalaya will be the receiver/custodian of
      the available extracted coal as on date, subject to further orders
      of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. If any further coal not so far
      recorded in the inventory is available, a separate inventory may         C
      be made and if it is found that the extraction was illegal, royalty in
      terms of orders already passed may also be collected. This may
      be determined by the Secretary of Mining of the State of
      Meghalaya. While one view is that there is extracted coal and not
      accounted for, the other view put forward that it is result of illegal   D
      mining. This aspect may be gone into by the Secretary of Mining,
      State of Meghalaya in the first instance. The same be
      cross-checked by a joint team of representatives of Central
      Pollution Control Board and Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad.”
      14. The Tribunal also deliberated on restoration of the                  E
environment and rehabilitation of the victims for which funds were
available. The Tribunal constituted a committee headed by Justice B.P.
Katakey, Former Judge of the Gauhati High Court with representatives
from Central Pollution Control Board and Indian School of Mines,
Dhanbad. Paragraphs 14 to 28 of the order are relevant in this context
which are as follows:                                                          F

       “14. Only last question which remains is of restoration of the
      environment and rehabilitation of the victims for which funds are
      available. We are of the view that for this task, it will appropriate
      that we constitute an independent Committee. This Committee
      will be headed by Justice B.P. Katakey, Former Judge of the              G
      Guwahati High Court with representatives from Central Pollution
      Control Board and Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad.
      15. The Committee will take the following steps:
      · Take stock of all actions taken so far in this regard.
                                                                               H
338      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     · Prepare time bound action plan to deal with the issue and ensure
      its implementation.
      16. The Committee may requisition services of such technical
      experts as may be necessary and may also carry out visits to sites
      whenever necessary. They will be entitled to all logistic support
B     for performing these functions which shall be provided under the
      directions of the Chief Secretary, Meghalaya.
      17. The Committee may also set up website for receiving and
      giving information on subject.
      18. The Committee may also involve educational institutions for
C     awareness and feedback about results.
      19. All authorities concerned in the State of Meghalaya shall
      cooperate and coordinate with the Committee. The Committee
      can seek such technical assistance as may be required from any
      relevant authority.
D
      20. The Chief Secretary, Meghalaya to provide all facilities to
      said Committee to perform its functions. The Committee may
      send its periodical reports to the Tribunal by e-mail at
      filing.ngt@gmail.com.
      21. The Committee may assume its charge within two weeks
E
      from today. The Committee may prepare Action Plan which shall
      have targets of ensuring compliance. It may meet at such intervals
      as considered appropriate but twice in every month and fix targets
      for compliance.
      22. The Committee will be free to take up all incidental issues.
F
      The committee will be free to seek any further directions from
      this Tribunal by e-mail.
      23. The Chief Secretary of State of Meghalaya may determine
      remuneration of the Chairman in consultation with him and the
      Chief Secretary of the State of Meghalaya will also provide all
G     logistic support including security if needed for their proper
      functioning.
      25. The Committee will be entitled to take the help of the technical
      experts in execution of this order. The Committee may frame its

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                             339
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      action plan for implementation within one month from today and         A
      implementation may be completed within six months as far as
      possible. The timelines may be laid down. A copy of the action
      plan may be sent to this Tribunal by e-mail at filing.ngt@gmail.com.
      Thereafter, reports may be sent at least once in two months. The
      Committee may also assess the damage to the environment as
                                                                             B
      well as to the individuals as already suggested in the Report.
      27. The State of Meghalaya will make available all the relevant
      records to the Committee for the purpose. The State will also
      determine the remuneration to be paid to the Chairman of the
      Committee in consultation with him within one month from today.
                                                                             C
      28. The Committee will be at liberty to take technical assistance
      from any quarter which may be facilitated by the State of
      Meghalaya. The Committee may also supervise any issue arising
      out of receivership/custodianship of the already extracted coal,
      including any environmental issues which any arise out of storage
      of the extracted material and the steps required to be taken for       D
      the purpose.
      The Report of the Committee may be furnished to this Tribunal
      by e-mail at filing.ngt@gmail.com.
      A copy of this order may be sent to all the concerned authorities      E
      by e-mail for compliance.
      All pending matters will stand disposed of in above terms.
      List for consideration of the Report on 06th March, 2019.”
      Order dated 04.01.2019
                                                                             F
       15. Justice Katakey submitted its report before the Tribunal on
02.01.2019. Committee’s various proceedings which were part of the
report were noticed in detail by the NGT. In paragraph 21 of the order
following was noticed:
      “21. Under issue number D, it was noted that the Meghalaya             G
      State Pollution Control Board in its report in September, 1997 had
      noted that unplanned and unscientific coal mining activities were
      taking place. This had achieved dangerous dimensions in the last
      two decades creating ecological disturbance and adverse

                                                                             H
340            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           environmental impacts. This showed that though cognizance of
            the problem was taken in the year 1997, the problem continues
            even 20 years thereafter. The State Pollution Control Board had,
            in the year 1997, recommended steps to check illegal mining
            including generation of awareness, legislative measures, use of
            technology, carrying out of study but none of the recommendations
B
            were implemented even after 21 years.”
            16. The Tribunal after considering the report of the committee
      and other materials on record came to the conclusion that the State of
      Meghalaya had failed to perform its duties to act on the
      recommendation of the report of the Meghalaya State Pollution Control
C     Board submitted in the year 1997. The Tribunal opined that interim amount
      be deposited towards restoration of the environment. Paragraphs 31 to
      33 are as follows:
            “31. Paying capacity and the amount which may act as deterrent
            to prevent further damage is also well recognised. Net Present
D           Value of the ecological services foregone and cost of damage to
            environment and pristine ecology, the cost of illegal mined material,
            and the cost of mitigation and restoration are also relevant factors.
            The Committee may go into these aspects to determine the final
            figure.
E           32. We are satisfied that having regard to the totality of factual
            situation emerging from the record, damages required to be
            recovered are not, prima facie, less than Rs. 100 Crores.
            Accordingly, by way of an interim measure, we require the State
            of Meghalaya to deposit Rs. 100 crores within two months with
F           the CPCB in this regard.
            33. We have already noted the extent of damage found and the
            value of the illegally mined material, apart from clandestine mining
            for which sufficient material is not available. The State had
            collected, as noted in the earlier order, royalty of Rs. 400 crores
G           which by now must be higher figure.”
            17. The State of Meghalaya has filed two appeals being
      C.A.No.10720 of 2018 and C.A.No.2968 of 2019. C.A.No.10720 of
      2018 has been filed questioning the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by
      the Tribunal by which the Tribunal directed that order of the ban of
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                               341
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

rat-hole mining will continue and further constituted Justice B.P. Katakey     A
committee to take steps for restoration of the environment and
rehabilitation of the victims. The other Civil Appeal No.2968 of 2019 has
been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh questioning the order dated
04.01.2019 by which State of Meghalaya was directed to deposit
interim amount of Rs.100 crores towards restoration of the
                                                                               B
environment.
       18. Against the same order dated 31.08.2018 two other appeals
have been filed being C.A.No.10611 of 2018 by the State Coordination
Committee of Coal Owners, Miners and Dealers Forum and
C.A.No.10907 of 2018 by Garo Hills Autonomous District Council
aggrieved by the perpetual ban of coal mining by order dated 31.08.2018        C
without considering illegality of the ban in the first place. The appellants
are also aggrieved by appointment of State Government receiver/
custodian of the extracted coal when there is no dispute of the owner-
ship of the coal and further the question of vesting of the coal in the
State is pending consideration in this Court in C.A.No.5272 of 2016.           D
       19. C.A.No.10907 of 2018 is filed by Garo Hills Autonomous
District Council which is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated
31.08.2018 by which it has confirmed the ban on coal mining which was
in force for over four years and further direction by the Tribunal to
constitute a committee for the disposal of funds in excess of Rs.400           E
crores. The appellants are aggrieved by the above and alleged that the
Tribunal failed to consider that constituting the committee without
considering the roles and responsibilities of the District Council has the
effect of virtually excluding the Council from issues concerning
administration of forests and lands which are within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Council. The ban on coal mining has effectively closed     F
the doors on a major source of revenue for the functioning of the
District Council, which is empowered in terms of Sixth Schedule of the
Constitution to collect taxes.
       20. C.A.No.5272 of 2016 by KAHima Nongstoin Land Owners,
Coal Traders and Producers Association has been filed against order            G
dated 10.05.2016 by which Miscellaneous Applications No.400 and 420
of 2016 were dismissed. The appellants had prayed for modification and
clarification and/or recall of the final order dated 31.03.2016 by which
Tribunal directed for vesting of the duly assessed already extracted coal
                                                                               H
342            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     with the State of Meghalaya and refusing to extend the time for
      transportation of the already extracted coal. The appellants claim for
      propriety rights of its members over such coal, which were mined as per
      prevailing custom prior to 17.04.2014.
             21. Now, remains appeal being Civil Appeal of 2019(@ Diary
B     No.3067 of 2018) filed on behalf of the Lber Laloo. The appellant has
      filed this appeal against the order dated 25.03.2015. Aggrieved by the
      blanket ban on mining activities imposed in the State of Meghalaya by
      the NGT which, according to the appellant, is adversely affecting the
      lives and livelihood of the miners in the State of Meghalaya. As a result
      of ban on coal mining large number of the families are affected in the
C     State of Meghalaya, who are dependent for their livelihood on coal
      mining.
            Submissions
             22. We have heard Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior
D     counsel, Shri Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel, Shri Amit Kumar,
      Advocate General, for the State of Meghalaya. We also heard Shri Ranjan
      Mukherjee appearing for the State of Meghalaya. Shri Ranjit Kumar,
      learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant in C.A. Diary No.3067
      of 2018 and Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel, appearing
      for the appellant in C.A.No.10907/2018. Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned
E     senior counsel has been heard as amicus curiae. We have also heard
      learned counsel for respondent No.1 in C.A. No.5272 of 2016 (who
      was the applicant before the NGT). Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior
      counsel has been heard for the private respondents in C.A.No.5272 of
      2016. Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General has
F     been heard for the Union of India. We have also heard other learned
      counsel who were permitted to intervene in the matter and raise various
      arguments in respect of their different IAs.
             23. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel led the
      arguments on behalf of the State of Meghalaya. Shri Naphade submits
G     that jurisdiction of NGT constituted under National Green Tribunal Act,
      2010 is confined to Sections 14,15 and 16. Section 16 is not attracted in
      the present case. Section 14 deals with original jurisdiction of NGT and
      it takes within its compass or all of civil cases where a substantial
      question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right
      relating to environment) is involved and such question arises out of the
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                              343
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. The                 A
jurisdiction depends upon two conditions which are required to be
satisfied cumulatively and they are: (1) substantial question whichrelates
to environment and (2) implementation of the enactments specified in
Schedule I. It is submitted thatMines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation)Act, 1957(hereinafter referred to as “MMDR Act, 1957”)not
                                                                              B
being specified in Schedule I, the National Green Tribunal could not
have exercised jurisdiction to examine violation of MMDR Act, 1957. It
is submitted that the NGT committed error in holding that the coal
mining in State of Meghalaya is unregulated. The NGT proceeded on
erroneous premise that the Tribals of Meghalaya cannot do coal mining
without obtaining lease from the State Government. It is submitted that       C
Tribals who are owners of the land are also owners of the sub-soil and
the minerals in the land. The land in the State of Meghalaya was
property of men and villages. The Khasi Hills, Jaintia Hills and Garo
Hills have different land tenure system of their own, which does not
provide for vesting of land or minerals in the State right from
                                                                              D
pre-Independence period.
       24. Shri Naphade submits that the ownership of minerals vests
with the owner of the land unless the owner of the land is deprived of
the same by some valid process of law, for example, the provision
contained in Land Revenue Codes of different States, which
categorically state that the ownership of minerals exclusively vests in       E
the State Government. However, in the State of Meghalaya, there exists
no such law that deprives the owner of the land from owning the
minerals beneath it.
       25. Shri Naphade submits that under MMDR Act, 1957, State
has no legislative or executive power with regard to coal, which is a         F
major mineral. It can neither exercise any jurisdiction of granting any
mining lease to the Tribals nor it has any jurisdiction to frame any mining
policy. It is submitted that the provisions of the MMDR Act deal with
lease and prospecting licence. The Tribals of Meghalaya are owners of
the minerals located in their land. Since they are the owners, there is no    G
question of they being required to obtain either a prospecting licence or
a mining lease. The concepts of lease and licence necessarily involve
minimum two parties to the transaction- in case of a license, there has to
be a licensor and licensee. The owner of minerals cannot give licence
or lease to himself or grant a prospecting licence. The State is not the
                                                                              H
344            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     owner of the minerals and, therefore, it cannot on its own grant
      prospecting licence or lease as it has no proprietary right in respect of
      such minerals. State can neither be a licensor nor a lessor in such
      situation.
             26. Shri Naphade reiterates that the whole premise of NGT that
B     the coal mining in the State of Meghalaya is unregulated is fully
      erroneous. Referring to north-eastern area under which the State of
      Meghalaya was established as full-fledged State, it is submitted that
      administration of Tribal areas is to be governed as per Sixth Schedule of
      the Constitution of India and various orders passed by the NGT directly
      interfered in the administration of Tribal area which is vested in the
C     Autonomous District Councils. It is submitted that NGT failed to
      consider the relevant statutory matrix including the provisions of Sixth
      Schedule and legislation framed by the Autonomous District Councils. It
      is submitted that NGT has no jurisdiction to constitute any committee for
      the purpose of enforcing its orders. The constitution of committees
D     including constitution of Justice B.P. Katakey, former Judge of the Gauhati
      High Court by the impugned order dated 31.08.2018 is beyond the
      jurisdiction of NGT. The constitution of the committee is interference
      with the jurisdiction of Autonomous District Council. It is further
      submitted that NGT has also no jurisdiction to create any fund. The
      Tribunal by constituting the committee and by constituting a fund has
E     created a parallel Government. The Tribunal not being a constitutional
      court it cannot issue a continuous mandamus. It is submitted that
      Tribunal although issued several directions to the State of Meghalaya to
      frame mining policy whereas the State has no jurisdiction regarding
      framing of mining policy under MMDR Act, 1957, the State is denuded
F     with any legislative powers with regard to regulation and development
      of minerals, which have been declared by the Union to have taken under
      its control. Referring to EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 issued under
      Environment Protection Act, 1986, he submitted that environment
      clearance for mining was required only when area of mining was more
      than five hectares. In Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya, mining area
G     consists of small area which being not more than five hectares, there
      was no requirement of obtaining an environment clearance. He does not
      dispute that after 15.01.2016 by the EIA notification now the
      requirement of area of being not more than five hectares having been
      deleted environment clearance is required as on date with regard to
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                               345
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

carrying mining operations. The Tribals are dependent for their                A
livelihood on coal mining and, therefore, by complete ban on coal mining
with effect from 17.04.2014, large number of Tribals are deprived from
their livelihood and it is obligatory for the State to espouse the cause of
the Tribals, who individually were not before the NGT. There being no
jurisdiction in the State of Meghalaya to grant mining lease as per
                                                                               B
special nature of land tenure in the Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya
and further minerals are not vested in the State of Meghalaya, the NGT
erred in holding that State has failed to carry on its obligation and failed
to check coal mining in the State of Meghalaya, it is Central
Government which have all jurisdiction and authorities under Act, 1957
to make necessary Rules and issue necessary directions and State alone         C
cannot be blamed. Referring to Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 framed
under Section 13 of MMDR Act, 1957, it is submitted that even though
Rule 13(f) refers to mining application with regard to land of which
minerals vest in persons other than the Government, he submits that this
provision shall not apply for owner when he himself carries on the
                                                                               D
mining, the question of taking lease may arise when ownerof the land
give land to some other person to mine the minerals.
       27. Shri Naphade, however, submits that the provisions of the
Mines Act, 1952 are applicable and have to be complied with. He
referred to the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988,
where cess can be charged by the State.                                        E

       28. Shri Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for
the State of Meghalaya in C.A. No.2968 of 2019 submits that NGT vide
impugned order dated 04.01.2019 has directed the State of Meghalaya
to deposit Rs. 100 crores as an interim measure which is wholly
unsustainable. The NGT has passed the order dated 04.01.2019 relying           F
on first interim report of the Committee headed by Justice B.P. Katakey,
former Judge of the Gauhati High Court. The constitution of committee
was itself beyond the jurisdiction of the NGT. Shri Sharan adopts the
submissions made by Shri Naphade and in addition to those submissions,
submits that order dated 04.01.2019 has been passed in violation of            G
principles of natural justice since no opportunity was given to the State
of Meghalaya to respond to the report of the committee used against it
for imposing a penalty of Rs.100 crores. The order impugned has been
made by the NGT contrary to the findings recorded in the report of the

                                                                               H
346            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     committee of Justice B.P. Katakey. The impugned order dated 04.01.2019
      has been passed by the NGT without any assessment of damage of
      environment whatsoever. The Tribunal also did not notice its earlier
      order dated 25.03.2015 wherein penalty has already been imposed on
      actual polluters, i.e., coal miners and transporters based on Polluters
      Pay Principle for which Fund, namely, Meghalaya Environment
B
      Protection and Restoration Fund (hereinafter referred to as “MEPRF”)
      has already been created. The NGT passed order dated 04.01.2019
      without considering the concerned statutory provisions to determine as
      to who is responsible for implementation of the mining statutes and the
      environmental legislation in the State of Meghalaya. The state of
C     Meghalaya has limited source of revenue and putting extra burden of
      Rs.100 Crores shall shatter the economy of the state.
             29. Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel, in support
      of appellant, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council in Civil Appeal No.
      10907 of 2018 submits that the NGT while passing order dated 31.08.2018
D     has ignored the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. By order dated
      31.08.2018, the NGT could not have constituted the committee.
      Referring to Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, Shri Raju Ramachandran
      submits that under para 2, District Councils, Regional Councils have
      been constituted and also Hills District Council is a Council created under
      the Sixth Schedule of the constitution framed under Article 244(2) and
E     Article 275(1) of the Constitution of India. The constitution of
      committee by the NGT has virtually affected District Autonomous Council
      from issues concerning administration of forests and lands within the
      exclusive jurisdiction of the council. The ban of coal mining has deprived
      the appellant from major source of Revenue. Under para 8 of Sixth
F     Schedule, Autonomous District Council is entitled to share the Revenue
      from minerals royalty collected by the State Government. The impugned
      order has been passed without hearing and taking note of existence of
      shareholders or stake of shareholders. Shri Raju Ramachandran further
      submits that NGT has disposed of OA Nos.73/2014, 13/2014 and 186/
      2014 by order dated 31.08.2018after this, it could not have passed any
G     order.
            30. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of C.A. No. 5272
      of 2016 submits that the appeal filed by the appellant is only for seeking
      protection of the proprietary rights of its members over the coal which

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                              347
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

was mined as per prevailing custom prior to 17.04.2014. It is submitted       A
that by order dated 31.03.2016, NGT had taken the view that all coal
after 2016 shall vest in the State. The appellant had previously approached
this Court by filing C.A.No.4793 of 2016 against the order dated
31.03.2016 wherein this Court granted the liberty to the appellant to
approach the NGT for filing application for clarification of the order.
                                                                              B
The application of the appellant for clarification was rejected by the
NGT without giving any reason. The NGT had overreached the scope
of its jurisdiction and authority in directing for vesting of the coal
extracted by the members from their land in the State. It is further
submitted that MMDR Act, 1957 was enacted by the Parliament to
regulate the mining activities in the country which does not in any           C
manner purport to declare the proprietary rights to the State in the
minerals.
       31. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel in support of C.A.(D)
No.3067 of 2018 submits that the Tribunal committed error in stopping
the entire coal mining in the State of Meghalaya. Referring to Section 15     D
of NGT Act, 2010, Shri Ranjit Kumar submits that relief, compensation
and restitution can be granted as provided in Section 15. It is submitted
that by stopping entire coal mining from 17.04.2014 the livelihood of
appellant and several similarly situated persons had been adversely
affected. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have lifted the ban.
Order impugned infringes right under Article 21 of the Constitution of        E
India. The Tribunal has acted beyond its power under Section 15 of
NGT Act, 2010. The finding of the Tribunal on mining that in the State of
Meghalaya mining is unregulated is not correct,whereas, a miner is
required to get registered and it has to pay royalty fixed by the State of
Meghalaya.                                                                    F
      32. Shri Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2, State of Meghalaya in C.A.No.3067(D) of 2019
submits that even if rat-hole mining has been banned, all mining cannot
be banned. He submits that the Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy,
2012 has been formulated with an aim to facilitate systematic, scientific     G
and planned utilisation of mineral resources and to streamline mineral
based development of the State. The State of Meghalaya has been
created to follow the customary rights and practices of coal mining in
the Tribal areas of Meghalaya. In this regard letter of Central

                                                                              H
348             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     Government dated 02.07.1987 has also been relied. The draft guidelines
      for coal mining activities in the State has also been framed in the year
      2015. Although, NGT has directed Ministry of Environment and Forests
      to look into the matter but no objection has been communicated to the
      State except certain miner discrepancies.
B            33. Shri A.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General
      appearing for the Union of India submits that provisions of MMDR Act,
      1957 are also applicable in the Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya. The
      request submitted by the Government of Meghalaya for issuance of
      Presidential Notification under Paragraph 12A(b) of the Sixth Schedule
      of the Constitution of India for exempting the State of Meghalaya from
C     certain provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957 has not been acceded to.
      The Office Memorandum dated 12.03.2019 issued by the Government
      of India, Ministry of Coal has been referred to and relied by the learned
      Additional Solicitor General in this regard. It is submitted that no prior
      approval for mining rights in respect of area containing coal has been
D     given under MMDR Act, 1957 by Ministry of Coal, Government of
      India for the State of Meghalaya.
              34. It is submitted that it is entirely impermissible for the appellant
      or any other private person to claim any rights for illegal or unlawful
      mining of coal in derogation of the law in force in the State of Meghalaya.
E     It is further submitted that generation of revenue would not be a ground
      for claiming permission to carry out mining in contravention/derogation
      of the law in force. A draft guideline submitted by the State Government
      of Meghalaya by letter dated 24.09.2015 was examined by the Ministry
      of Coal, Government of India on which decision was taken that the
      guidelines submitted by the Government of Meghalaya were not in
F     conformity with the existing statutory provisions of MMDR Act, 1957.
      Hence, the State of Meghalaya may reframe the guidelines in
      conformity with MMDR Act, 1957 and submit. In the revised proposal
      dated 25.07.2016 the State of Meghalaya had proposed certain
      amendments in MMDR Act, 1957 and exemption from the application
G     of the MMDR Act, 1957 through a Presidential notification under
      Para 12A(b) of the Sixth Schedule.It had already been communicated
      by Central Government that exemption from applicability of MMDR
      Act, 1957 cannot be acceded to.
           35. Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel, appearing as
H     amicus curiae, has raised various submissions. Learned amicus curiae
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                               349
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

has submitted a Report in two volumes titled “CURSE OF                         A
UNREGULATED COAL MINING IN MEGHALAYA”, a citizen’s
Report from Meghalaya 01/12/2018. In Volume I under the head
‘INTRODUCTION’ the Report states:
      “INTRODUCTON
      Meghalaya has a resource curse. Although, we have been                   B
      endowed with abundant forests and minerals, these resources have
      not contributed to the good of our society, because they have
      been extracted without any regulation or concern for the larger
      common good. This unregulated, narrow, self-interest based use
      of natural resources has exacerbated socio-economic inequality,          C
      destroyed the environment, heightened criminality, and torn as
      under our egalitarian tribal social fabric.
      It also violates Section 39(b) of the Constitution which provides
      that the ownership and control of the material resources of the
      community should be so distributed so as to best subserve the            D
      common good and, therefore, the State cannot distribute the
      material resource of the community in any way it likes. The process
      of distribution must be guided by the constitutional principles
      including the doctrine of equality and larger public good.
      The National Green Tribunal’s landmark order regarding                   E
      Unregulated and illegal coal mining in our state therefore came as
      a wakeup call for Meghalaya society at large. This order has
      been criticised and appealed against by a small section of locals
      most of who are coal mine owners, transporters, politicians and
      administrators who have ‘illegally’ benefitted out of this unregulated
      mining and who want things to get back to business as usual. Coal        F
      Miners and politicians who are miners, truck owners, weigh bridge
      operators etc. have been filed appeals with the Honourable
      Supreme Court, asking the Hon’ble Court to rescind NGT orders
      so that mining can once again begin.”
      36. Learned amicus curiae submits that State of Meghalaya still          G
continues with the illegal mining. Shri Gonsalves submits that Section 4
of MMDR Act, 1957 by use of words “no person” clearly prohibits
mining operation without obtaining mining lease in accordance with the
Act. Referring to Section 5,he submits that for Schedule A minerals
permission of Central Government is required which has not been
                                                                               H
350            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     obtained. Shri Gonsalves submits that for mining, the leases are required
      and permission be sought. He submits that there are 53 mines per
      kilometre in Tribal areas of Meghalaya. He submits that all extracted
      coal which is claimed to be lying assessed or unassessed in the State of
      Meghalaya is result of illegal mining and Coal India Ltd. be directed to
      take over the entire coal.
B
            37. Shri Gonsalves has also referred to various reports of
      Comptroller and Auditor General of India which has been brought on
      record in Volume II – A Citizen’s Report from Meghalaya 06/01/2019.
             38. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel, appearing on
C     behalf of private respondent in Civil Appeal No.5272 of 2016 has
      refuted the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.
      Shri Nidhesh Gupta submits that as per Entry 54 of List I regulation of
      mines and minerals development has been declared by the Parliament
      under MMDR Act, 1957. Section 2, by declaration as contained in
      MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government is denuded of all legislative
D     and executive powers under Entry 23 of List II read with Article 162 of
      the Constitution of India. Section 4 sub-section (1) makes it clear that no
      person can undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining
      operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms
      and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence.
E     As per Section 5 sub-section (1) A State Government shall not grant a
      reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease to any
      person unless such person is an Indian National and satisfies such
      conditions as may be prescribed. The proviso to Section 5(1) provides
      that in respect of any mineral specified in Part A and Part B of the First
      Schedule, no reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease
F     shall be granted except with the previous approval of the Central
      Government. The contention on behalf of the State of Meghalaya that
      the MMDR Act, 1957 does not apply to State of Meghalaya is based on
      an erroneous reading of the statutory provisions.
             39. Section 13 empowers the Central Government to make rules
G     for regulating the grant of reconnaissance permits, prospecting licences
      and mining leases in respect of land in which minerals vest in the
      Government and also in respect of any land in which the minerals vest in
      a person other than the Government. In exercise of powers under
      Section 13 of the Act, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 have been
H     framed.
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                              351
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       40. Chapter V deals with the procedure for obtaining a                 A
prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of a land in which the
minerals vest in a person other than the Government. The said Chapter
contains provisions from Rule 41 to Rule 52. Rule 41 stipulates that the
provisions of the said Chapter apply only to the grant of prospecting
licences and mining leases in respect of land in which minerals vest
                                                                              B
exclusively in a person other than the Government. Therefore, mining
leases in respect of land where minerals vest in a person other than the
Government are covered by the said Chapter and matters concerning
grant of prospecting licences and mining leases are detailed therein.
      41. As per Section 23C, the State Government is empowered to
make Rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of       C
minerals. No Rules have been framed by the State of Meghalaya under
Section 23C. The contention on behalf of State of Meghalaya that
MMDR Act applies only in the cases where minerals vest in
Government, therefore, MMDR Act does not apply in the State of
Meghalaya, is completely misconceived.                                        D
       42. Learned counsel also relies on the stand taken by the Union
of India in the Status Report dated 24.07.2018. Shri Gupta submits that
approximate price of coal is Rs.10,000/- per metric ton. Referring to
notice inviting tenders by the State of Meghalaya, it is submitted that
amount of Rs.1,000/- per metric ton was contemplated. It is submitted         E
that selling the coal on much low price is causing loss to Revenue as
well as loss to other stakeholders. The allegations have been by Shri
Gupta that sale of coal at such low price raises suspicion of under hand
dealing. It is submitted that legal position be laid down by this Court and
the orders of the NGT be upheld.
                                                                              F
      43. In addition to above, we have also heard several learned
counsels who have filed IA for impleadment and IAs for direction
including direction to transport coal belonging to them. We have heard
Shri Siddharth Luthra, Shri R. Basant, Smt. Meenakshi Arora, Senior
Advocates and other learned counsel.
                                                                              G
      44. On 10.05.2019, we had passed an order permitting
transportation of coal to the extent of 75,050 metric ton which was
balance quantity from 1,76,655 metric ton of coal, for transportation of
which this Court had passed order on 04.12.2018. The order dated
10.05.2019 permitted transportation of the coal, for which Transport
                                                                              H
352            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     challans had already been issued after 04.12.2018 under the terms and
      conditions as indicated in the order dated 10.05.2019. In the order dated
      10.05.2019, we had also held that applicants need not be impleaded,
      however, they were permitted to intervene in the matter.
            45. The counsel appearing for different applicants claim
B     transportation of different quantity of coal which according to them has
      now been assessed. Still some of the applicants claims transportation of
      the coal which is yet to be assessed. In different applications, different
      quantities are claimed to be transported which according to the
      applicant is lying in different districts of the State of Meghalaya.
      I.A.No.22981 of 2019 and I.A. No. 22991 of 2019 are applications by
C     an applicant claiming to be auction purchaser. Learned counsel
      submitted that he was declared highest bidder, he pleaded for extension
      of time to deposit the amount but after the order dated 15.01.2019, he
      was not permitted to transport the coal nor he could deposit the balance
      auction money.
D             46. Shri Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for State
      of Meghalaya has filed an additional affidavit of Commissioner and
      Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Mining and Geology
      Department dated 06.04.2019. In the affidavit, it is stated that in
      pursuance of the order of NGT dated 31.08.2018, the State Government
E     vide notification dated 14.09.2018 has constituted a team to assist the
      Commissioner and Secretary to deal with the directives given in para 13
      of the order of the NGT. It is submitted that in pursuance of the order of
      the State Government dated 14.09.2018, the members of the committee
      have carried out assessment of unassessed extracted coal appearing in
      the datasheet of inventory in different hills district. The report dated
F     04.10.2018 of Deputy Commissioner, west Khasi hills, is filed as
      Annexure A-3, containing the statement of unassessed extracted coal
      has been brought on record. Another report dated 22.10.2018 and
      16.11.2018 of west Khasi hills district containing the statement of
      assessment of unassessed extracted coal has been brought on record.
G     By report dated 12.11.2018 of Deputy Commissioner, South west Khasi
      hills, datasheet of coal inventory has been brought on the record. Report
      dated 30.10.2018, Deputy Commissioner, South Garo hills, has also been
      brought on record. There were reports referring to different assessment
      carried out by the committee according to the affidavit which has been

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                              353
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

filed on behalf of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of        A
Meghalaya, the total quantity of coal stock which has now been
assessed in different reports stands at 32,56,715 metric ton.
      47. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the State of
Meghalaya that above assessment of coal has been also verified by
technical committees appointed by the State of Meghalaya. Certain             B
reports of technical committees have also been brought on the record
along with the affidavit.
      48. Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned Amicus Curiae has challenged
the assessment made by the committees appointed by the State
Government as well as verification by technical committee report. It is       C
submitted by Shri Gonsalves that report of technical committee wants to
undo what has been done in the proceedings before the tribunal and this
Court. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that for transportation, five
extensions were granted by NGT and four extensions were granted by
this Court. Shri Gonsalves referred to Katakey committee report in
support of his submissions.                                                   D

       49. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel, has also refuted
the claim of the different applicants as well as the steps taken by the
State of Meghalaya in assessing the coal and verifying the same by
technical committee. Shri Gupta submits that the coal which is now
claimed to be assessed is nothing but illegally extracted coal. It is         E
submitted that in pursuance of several orders passed by NGT and this
Court substantial transportation of coal has been permitted, still the
enormous quantity of coal is claimed which is nothing but an excuse to
obtain an order of transportation of such illegally mined coal.It is
submitted that State of Meghalaya is hand in glove with illegal miners.       F
Shri Gupta submits that the cost of winning coal by rat hole mining is
negligible and after payment of royalty of Rs.675/- and Rs.485/-
towards Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund i.e.
total payment of Rs.1160/-, the coal is transported. The market price of
the coal is approximately Rs.10,000/- per metric ton. The claim of
different applicants with regard to unassessed coal is false. It is           G
submitted that all illegally mined coal should be vested in the State and
no permission of transport as prayed by the different applicants be granted
by this Court. Learned senior advocate submits that all applications
praying for different directions deserve to be rejected.
                                                                              H
354            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A            50. Learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective
      submissions have placed reliance on various judgments of this Court
      which shall be referred to while considering the submissions of the
      parties.
            51. From the submissions of the parties as noted above and the
B     materials on record in these appeals following points arise for
      consideration.
            52. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
            1. Whether orders passed by the National Green Tribunal are
               without jurisdiction being beyond the purview of Sections 14,
C              15 and 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010?
            2. Whether provisions of Mines and Minerals Development
               Regulation Act, 1957 are applicable in Tribal areas within the
               State of Meghalaya, included in Sixth Schedule of the
               Constitution?
D
            3. Whether for mining the minerals from privately owned/
               community owned land in hills districts of Meghalaya, obtaining
               a mining lease is a statutory requirement under the MMDR
               Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960?
            4. Whether under the MMDR Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession
E
               Rules, 1960, it is the State Government, who is to grant lease
               for mining of minerals in privately owned/community owned
               land or it is the owner of the minerals, who is to grant lease
               for carrying out mining operations?
            5. Whether the State of Meghalaya has any statutory control
F
               over the mining of coal from privately owned/community owned
               land in hills districts of State of Meghalaya?
            6. Whether the power to allot land for mining purposes is vested
               in Autonomous District Councils?
G           7. Whether the order of National Green Tribunal dated 17.04.2014
               directing for complete ban on mining is unsustainable?
            8. Whether the complete ban on mining of coal in the State of
               Meghalaya as directed by NGT deserved to be vacated/
               modified in the interest of State and Tribals?
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                              355
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      9. Whether NGT had any jurisdiction to constitute committees to         A
         submit reports, to implement the orders of NGT, to monitor
         storage/transportation; of minerals and to prepare action plan
         for restoration of environment?
      10. Whether the NGT committed error in directing for constitution
          of fund, namely, Meghalaya Environment Protection and               B
          Restoration Fund?
      11. Whether NGT by constituting Committees has delegated
          essential judicial powers to the Committees and has further
          encroached the constitutional scheme of administration of
          Tribal areas under Article 244(2) and Article 275(1) and            C
          Schedule VI of the Constitution?
      12. Whether direction to deposit Rs.100/- crores by the State of
          Meghalaya by order dated 04.01.2019 of NGT impugned in
          C.A.No.2968 of 2019 is sustainable?
      13. Whether NGT’s order dated 31.03.2016 that after 15.05.2016          D
          all remaining coal shall vest in the State of Meghalaya is
          sustainable?
      14. Whether assessed and unassessed coal which has already
          been extracted and lying in different Districts of Meghalaya
          be permitted to be transported and what mechanism be                E
          adopted for disposal of such coal?
      53. Now we proceed to consider the above points in seriatim.
      Point No.1
       54. The State of Meghalaya submits that NGT while imposing             F
ban on mining and by forming committee and creating a “Meghalaya
Environment Protection and Restoration Fund” has gone beyond its
jurisdiction as conferred on it by NGT Act, 2010. The Tribunal has no
inherent jurisdiction, its jurisdiction flow from Sections 14, 15 and 16 of
the Act.
                                                                              G
      55. It is relevant to notice few provisions of NGT Act, 2010 to
comprehend the jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal. The National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010 was enacted to provide for the effective and
expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and
conservation of forests and other natural resources including
                                                                              H
356            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and giving relief
      and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters
      connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2 is definitions.
      Section 2(c)defines environment in the following manner:
            “2(c) “environment” includes water, air and land and the inter-
B           relationship, which exists among and between water, air and land
            and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism
            and property;
            56. Section 2(m) defines substantial question relating environment
      which is to the following effect:
C           “2(m) “substantial question relating to environment” shall include
            an instance where,— (i) there is a direct violation of a specific
            statutory environmental obligation by a person by which,— (A)
            the community at large other than an individual or group of
            individuals is affected or likely to be affected by the
D           environmental consequences; or (B) the gravity of damage to the
            environment or property is substantial; or (C) the damage to
            public health is broadly measurable; (ii) the environmental
            consequences relate to a specific activity or a point source of
            pollution;”

E           57. Chapter III of the Act deals with jurisdiction, powers and
      proceedings of the Tribunal. Sections 14 and 15 which are relevant in
      the present case are as follows:
            “14. Tribunal to settle disputes.—(1) The Tribunal shall have the
            jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating
F           to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating
            to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the
            implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.
            1. Ins. by Act 7 of 2017, s. 182 (w.e.f. 26-5-2017).
            (2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions
G           referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and pass
            order thereon.
            (3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section
            shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a
            period of six months from the date on which the cause of action
H           for such dispute first arose:
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                                357
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

          Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the           A
    applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the
    application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further
    period not exceeding sixty days.
    15. Relief, compensation and restitution.—
    (1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide,—                                B

       (a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and
           other environmental damage arising under the enactments
           specified in the Schedule I (including accident occurring
           while handling any hazardous substance);
                                                                                C
       (b) for restitution of property damaged;
       (c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas,
            as the Tribunal may think fit.
    (2) The relief and compensation and restitution of property and
    environment referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section          D
    (1) shall be in addition to the relief paid or payable under the
    Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).
    (3) No application for grant of any compensation or relief or
    restitution of property or environment under this section shall be
    entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of            E
    five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation
    or relief first arose:
     Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant
    was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within
    the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not           F
    exceeding sixty days.
    (4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the damage to public health,
    property and environment, divide the compensation or relief
    payable under separate heads specified in Schedule II so as to
    provide compensation or relief to the claimants and for restitution         G
    of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit.
    (5) Every claimant of the compensation or relief under this Act
    shall intimate to the Tribunal about the application filed to, or, as
    the case may be, compensation or relief received from, any other
    court or authority.”                                                        H
358            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A            58. The submission which has been pressed by the State is that
      neither MMDR Act, 1957 nor Mines Act, 1952 is prescribed in Schedule
      I of the Act,hence, coal mining is not within the purview of Schedule I
      and not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The submission further is
      that for applicability of Section 14 both the component of sub-section (1)
      of Section 14 that (i) a substantial question relating to environment and
B
      (ii) such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments
      specified in Schedule I has to be satisfied.
             59. It is relevant to notice that before the NGT no such plea was
      taken by the State of Meghalaya or any of the parties questioning the
      jurisdiction of the NGT. However, the issue being a jurisdictional issue,
C     we have permitted the learned counsel for the appellant to raise the
      issue. The NGT took cognizance when application, O.A.No.73 of 2014
      on 17.04.2014 was admitted and order was issued. The jurisdiction of
      the Tribunal to entertain O.A.No.73 of 2014 has to be found out from
      the case set up and pleadings in O.A.No.73 of 2014 for which we need
D     to scrutinise the application. O.A.No.73 of 2014 has been brought on
      record as Annexure - A3 in C.A.No.5272 of 2016. The application was
      filed by one All Dimasa Students Union Dima Hasao District
      Committee. In the application following were the respondents:
            1. The State of Meghalaya through the Principal Secretary, For-
E           est and Environment Department, Government of Meghalaya,
            Shillong. 2. The Chairperson, State Pollution Control Board,
            Meghalaya, Shillong. 3. The State of Assam through the Principal
            Secretary, Forest and Environment Department Government of
            Assam, Dispur. 4.The Chairperson, State Pollution Control Board,
            Assam, Dispur. 5. The Central Pollution Control Board, Parvesh
F           Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi – 110032 through its Chairper-
            son. 6. North Easter Electric Power Corporation Ltd. through its
            Chairman and Managing Director Brooklyn Compound, Lower
            New Colony, Shillong – 793003. Meghalaya.
            60. Paragraph 3 of the application states the case of the applicant
G     and facts in brief. Paragraph 3 and (I) to (VI) are as follows:
            “3.The Applicant above named beg to present the present
            Application to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Tribunal about the
            adverse impact of unscientific opencast mining operations being
            still undertaken in the Jaintia Hills in Meghalaya on the ecology
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                       359
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

    and socio-economy of the concerned area including Dima             A
    Hasao District of Assam. It is stated that the Acid Mine
    Drainage (for short (AMD’) generated from the aforesaid
    mining operations has resulted in making the water of the river
    Kopili (an inter-state river flowing through the State of
    Meghalaya and Assam) and its tributaries highly acidic which
                                                                       B
    in turn has not only caused serious far reaching damage to the
    environment, water bodies, soil, agriculture, economy, and
    industry of the concerned area but also resulted in causing
    erosion/corrosion of the critical underwater Hydro Power
    Equipments of the Kopili Hydro-Electric Project (for short
    `KHEP’) of the North-Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd        C
    (for short `NEEPC0') situated in Umrongso, Dima Hasao,
    District of Assam in as much as the said acidic water is
    ultimately led to the reservoirs of the said project.
                             FACTS IN BRIEF
   I. That the Applicant is the Secretary of the Dima Hasao            D
      Students Association and filing the present Petition in a
      representative capacity to espouse the cause of the people
      of Dima Hasao, Assam who are constantly and
      continuously facing the adverse affect of the aforesaid
      illegal activities in the State of Meghalaya.                    E
   II. That the Kopili River is an inter-state river in North-East
       India that flows through the States of Meghalaya and Assam
       and is the largest south bank tributary of the river
       Brahmaputra in Assam, The Kopili river originates from the
       black mountains of Lum Bah-bo Bah-Kong in Meghalaya             F
       and flows north-west into the Brahmaputra Valley in Assam.
       The said river demarcates the Jaintia Hills in Meghalaya
       and Dirria Hasao in Assam. The river flows for a total length
       of 290 kms and has a catchment area of 16, 420 Kms.
   III. That the Kopili Hydro-Electric Project (KHEP) of NEEPCO        G
        (a Government of India undertaking)is one of the pioneering
        Hydro-Electric Project in the North Eastern Region of India.
        The Kopili Hydro-Electric Plant is a 275 MW storage type
        hydro electric plant consisting of two dams which have
        created two reservoirs namely Kopili reservoir is used in
                                                                       H
360      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A        the Khandong powerhouse through a 2759 metre tunnel to
         generate power. The tail water from this powerhouse is led
         to the Umrong reservoir is used in Kopili powerhouse through
         a 5473 metre tunnel to generate power. Although, the dam,
         powerhouse and residential colony of. kopili Hydro Electric
         Planer (KHEP) are located in the Dima Hasao District
B
         (formerly known as North Cachar Hills District) of Assam,
         the catchment and reservoirs are spread in two states namely
         Meghalaya and Assam. It is further stated that the Kopili
         River and its tributaries feed water to the reservoirs of the
         project. The Kharkor is a major tributary of river Kopili and
C        drains a vast area of Jaintia Hills Districts of Meghalaya.
         The Jaintia Hills being well known for coal mining areas is
         contributing acidic water in the form of Acid Mine Drainage
         (AMD) to the river Kharkor through its different tributaries
         such as Urn Pai, Myntriang, Urn Ropang, Sarbang, Mostem
         etc. as these streams drain through the active and inactive
D
         coal mining areas of Jaintia Hills. The acidic water finally
         reaches to Khandong and Umrong reservoirs of KHEP. As
         a result, the water of the reservoirs has become highly acidic.
         The water pollution in streams of catchment area varies
         from brownish to reddish orange. The same polluted water
E        through various tributaries of rivers Kharkor and Kopili is
         perpetually reaching to the reservoirs of the KHEP. As a
         result, the water of reservoirs has become highly acidic. In
         recent years, it has been found that acidity of reservoir water
         is a major threat to equipments and machinery due to
         corrosion/metal decay and erosion. Components such as
F
         cooling water header pipe, Bends, throttling valves, pressure
         equalizer pipe of turbine etc. made up of different metals
         and alloys are getting severely affected and incurring
         high maintenance cost.
      IV. That the said adverse impact of the aforesaid mining
G         operation which has not only affected the ecology and
          socio-economy of the area but also severely affected the
          generation of hydro-electricity at the Kopili Hydro-Electric Plant
          has been subject matter of various studies. In fact, a detailed

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                             361
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      project report of pilot project for remediation of Acid Mine           A
      Drainage (AMD) in the catchment of Kopili River at the
      upstream of Kopili Hydro Electric Plant (KHEP), Umrongso,
      Dima Hasao, Assam was d o n e b y D r. O . P. S i n g h ,
      Professor, Department of Environmental Studies, North-
      Eastern Hills University, Shillong, Meghalaya. Similarly, a
                                                                             B
      detailed article based on detailed investigation by Shri Pankaj
      Sharma and others was published under the heading “Acid
      mine discharge — Challenges met in a hydro power
      project” in the International Journal of Environmental
      Sciences, Volume I, No.6, 2011. Both the aforesaid
      publications gives an in depth analysis of the aforesaid               C
      problem as well as suggests remedial measures to improve
      the situation. However, it is stated that no proper and
      effective remedial measures have been taken by the
      concerned authorities / State Respondents to abort the
      aforesaid menace and the ill-effect of the same are still continuing
                                                                             D
      and the same are being constantly faced by the innocent
      citizens / water bodies etc of the area including the people
      of Dima Hasao district of Assam. Copies of the detailed project
      report of pilot project for remediation of Acid Mine Drainage
      (AMD) in the catchment of Kopili River at the upstream of
      Kopili Hydro Electric Plant (KHEP), Umrongso, Dima Hasao,              E
      Assam and the article published under the heading “Acid mine
      discharge — Challenges met in a hydro power project” in the
      International Journal of Environmental Sciences, Volume I, No.6,
      2011 are annexed herewith and marked as
      ANNEXURE-P/1 & P-2 respectively. The ill-effect of
                                                                             F
      the aforesaid operations has also been the subject matter of
      news items in various newspapers including one published by
      the Assam Tribune on June, 20, 2012 under the heading
      “Concern over contamination of Kopili Water” and another
      one published in the Telegraph on 20.06.2013 under the
      heading “Two Kopili power units shut down — Mining in                  G
      Jaintia Hills affects machines”. Copies of the news items
      published in the Assam Tribune dated 20.06.2012 and the
      Telegraph dated 20.06.2013 are annexed herewith and
      marked as ANNEXURE-P/3 & P-4 respectively.”
                                                                             H
362            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A            61. In paragraph 3(V) the appellant has extracted a report of one
      Dr. O.P. Singh, Professor, North-Eastern Hills University, Shillong,
      Meghalaya. Certain paragraphs of report stated that Acid Mine
      Drainage(AMD) is the greatest environmental problem of coal industry
      and main source of water pollution in and around mining areas. The
      report mentioned that AMD degrades the water quality of the area in
B
      terms of lowering the pH of the surrounding water resources and
      increasing the level of total suspended solids, total dissolved solids and
      some heavy metals. Following is the part of the paragraph 4.1.4 of the
      report which is extracted in paragraph 3(V):
            “4.1.4 Impact of AMD on Environment, Socio-economy and
C           Industry
            Impact on Environment and Water Resources: Acid mine
            drainage is the greatest environmental problem of coal
            mining industry and main source of water pollution in and
            around mining areas. The influx of untreated AMD into
D           streams severely degrades both water quality and aquatic
            habitat turning water unfit for desired uses and often
            producing an environment devoid of most aquatic life. AMD
            degrades the water quality of the area in terms of lowering
            the pH of the surrounding water resources and increasing
E           the level of total suspended solids, total dissolved solids
            and some heavy metals. Acidity and high concentration of
            SO 42; iron and other metals prove to be toxic and corrosive
            to most aquatic animals and plants. Precipitate of iron
            hydroxide increases the load of suspended solids which
            impair light penetration and visibility resulting into low
F           productivity and disruption of normal functioning of the
            contaminated aquatic ecosystem. AMD can also be toxic
            to vegetation when discharged to the shallow soil water
            zones and wetlands (Van Green et al., 1999; Singh and
            Agrawal, 2004; Gosh, 1991).
G           Aquatic communities of rivers and streams comprise of
            phytoplanktoris, periphyton, macrophytes, zooplanktons,
            invertebrates and vertebrate species. They play important
            role in normal functioning of the aquatic ecosystem and
            are indicative of good health of water bodies. Generally,
H           a variety of species with representatives of almost all insect
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                                             363
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      orders, including a high diversity of insects belonging to                             A
      the taxonomic orders of Ephemeroptera (mayflies),
      Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies)
      commonly referred to as EPT taxa. Any physical, chemical
      or biological change in waterbodies affects one or all
      species and disturbs the normal functioning of the aquatic
                                                                                             B
      e c o s y s t e m . L i k e m a n y o t h e r pollutants, AMID
      contamination causes a reduction in the diversity and total
      numbers, or abundance, of these aquatic communities
      including benthic macroinvertebrates, fishes, etc. As a
      result, the community structure is altered and water bodies
      affected by AMD possess a lower percentage of EPT taxa                                 C
      (Campbell et al., 2000). Moderate AMD contamination
      eliminates the more sensitive species whereas severely
      contaminated conditions are characterized by dominance
      of c e r t a i n t a x o n o m i c re p re s e n t a t i v e s o f p o l l u t i o n
      tolerantorganisms.
                                                                                             D
      As a consequence of depletion of aquatic invertebrates,
      the fishes do not get adequate supply of food and suffer
      indirectly from AMD contamination AMD also has direct
      effect on fishby causing various physiological
      disturbances. However, the primary cause of fish death in
      acid waters is loss of sodium ions from the blbod. Less                                E
      availability of oxygen to the cells and tissues leads to
      anoxia and death as acid water increases the permeability
      of fish gills to water, adversely affecting the gill function.
      Severe anoxia occurs below pH 4.2. Low H that is not
      directly lethal may adversely affect fish growth rates and                             F
      reproduction.”
       62. Further, paragraph 4.2.3 of the report dealt with coal mining in
Jaintia Hills and paragraph 4.2.4 dealt with impact of coal mining in
Jaintia Hills and paragraph 4.2.5 dealt with degradation of water quality
due to coal mining. Paragraphs 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 which were                      G
extracted in O.A.No.73 of 2014 are produced as below:
      “4.2.3      Coal Mining in Jaintia Hills
      Extraction of coal has been taking place in all three
      regions, however, ‘major production occurs in Jaintia Hills. The
      mining activity in Jaintia Hills is a small scale venture                              H
364     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     controlled by individuals who own the land. Primitive mining
      method commonly known as ‘rat-hole’ mining is in
      practice in Meghalaya. In this method the land is first
      cleared by cutting and removing the ground vegetation and
      then digging pits ranging from 5 to 100 m2 into the ground
      to reach the coal seam. Thereafter, tunnels are made into
B
      the seam sideways to extract the coal which is brought into
      the pit by using a conical basket or a wheel barrow
      manually. Coal seams are reached by excavating the side
      edge of the hill slopes and then coal is extracted through a
      horizontal tunnel. The coal from the tunnel or pit is taken
C     out and dumped on nearby un-mined area, from where it is
      carried to the larger dumping places near highways for its
      trade and transportation. Finally, the coal is carried by
      trucks to the larger dumping places near highways for its
      trade and transportation. Entire road sides in and around
      mining areas are used for piling of coal which is a major
D
      source of air, water and soil pollution. Off road movement
      of trucks and other vehicles in the area causes further
      damage to the ecology of the area.
      Every year new areas are brought under mining and area
      under coal mining in Jaintia Hills is increasing day-by-
E     day as shown in Figure 4,5.”
      “4.2.4 Impact of Coal Mining in Jaintia Hills and
      Beyond
      Mining operation, undoubtedly has brought wealth and
F     employment opportunity in the area, but simultaneously has
      led to extensive environmental degradation and erosion of
      traditional values in the society. Environmental problems
      associated with mining have been felt severely because of
      the region’s fragile ecosystems and richness of biological
      and cultural diversity. The indiscriminate and unscientific
G     mining and absence of post-mining treatment and
      management of mined areas are making the fragile
      ecosystems more vulnerable to environmental degradation
      and leading to large scale land cover/land use changes.
      The current modus operandi of surface mining in the area
H     generates huge quantity of mine spoil or overburden
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                                       365
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

    (consolidated and unconsolidated materials overlying the                           A
    coal seam) in the form of gravels, rocks, sand, soil etc.
    which are dumped over a large area adjacent to the mine
    pits. The dumping of overburden and coal destroys the
    surrounding vegetation and leads to severe soil and water
    pollution. Large scale denudation of forest cover, scarcity
                                                                                       B
    of water, pollution of air, water and soil, and degradation
    of agricultural lands are some of the conspicuous
    environmental implications of coal mining in Jaintia
    Hills.Further, entire coal mining area of the Jaintia Hills
    has become full of mine pits and caves. These open, unfilled
    pits are the places where surface water percolates and                             C
    disappears. As a result, smaller streams and rivers of the
    area, which served as life lines for the people, are either
    completely disappearing from the face of the earth or
    becoming seasonal instead. Consequently, the area is
    facing acute shortage of clean drinking and irrigation
                                                                                       D
    water. Besides, a vast area has become physically
    disfigured due to haphazard dumping of overburden and
    mined coal, and caving in of the ground and subsidence
    of land.
    Continuous discharge of Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and
    toxic c h e m i c a l s f ro m c o a l m i n e s , s t o r a g e s i t e s a n d   E
    exposed overburden have polluted the river system of the
    area. Acidic water on reaching to land and agricultural
    fields has affected the traditional agriculture and
    agricultural productivity of the area (Das Gupta et al,
    2002; Swer and Singh, 2004)                                                        F
    “4.2.5 Degradation of Water Quality due to Coal Mining
    The water bodies of the area are the greatest victims of the
    coal mining. The water bodies are badly affected by
    contamination of Acid Mines Drainage (AMD) originating
    from mines and spoils, leaching of heavy metals, • organic                         G
    enrichment and silting by coal and sand particles. Pollution
    of the safer is evidenced by the colour of the water which
    in most of the rivers and streams in the mining area varies
    from brownish to reddish orange. Low pH (between 2-3),
    high conductivity, high concentration of sulphate, iron and                        H
366     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     toxic heavy metals, low dissolved oxygen (DO) and high
      BOD are some of the physic-chemical and biological
      parameters which’ characterize the degradation of water
      quality. Analysis of physic-chemical and biological
      parameters of water in the mining area shows severe
      degradation of water quality.
B
      The colour of the water in mining area generally varies
      from brownish to reddish orange. Siltation of coal
      particles,’ sand, soil etc. and contamination of AMD and
      formation of iron hydroxide are some of the major causes
      of change in water colour. Formation of iron hydroxides
C     [Fe (CH)31 is mainly responsible for orange or red colour
      of water in the mining areas. Iron hydroxide is a yellowish
      insoluble material commonly formed in water bodies of
      the coalfields. It is this material that stains streams and
      responsible for red to orange color of water. When elevated
D     levels of iron are introduced into natural waters, the iron
      is oxidized and hydrolyzed, thereby forming precipitate of
      iron hydroxides.
      The water in coal mining areas has been found highly
      acidic. The pH of streams and rivers varies between 2.31
E     to 4.01. Solids such as fine particles of coal, sand, mud
      and other mineral particles were found deposited at the
      bottom of the water bodies. Besides, water was also found
      turbid and coloured due to suspended precipitates of iron
      hydroxides. Dissolved oxygen was found to be low in
      water bodies of coat mining areas, the lowest being 4.24
F     mg/L in river Rawaka and stream Metyngka of Rymbai.
      The waters of the mining areas have been found containing
      sulphate concentration between 78 to 168 mg/L. Electrical
      conductivity is a rapid measure of the total dissolved solids
      present in ionic form. Water in coal mining areas was found
G     having high conductivity. Deposition of silt at the bottom
      of the rivers and streams is another important problem in
      coal mining areas. Water bodies of the mining area appear
      to contain various types of organic matter which is
      evident by low Dissolved Oxygen (D00 and high
H     Biochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD).
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                              367
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

    As a result, the rivers, streams and springs which had                    A
    supported extremely rich biodiversity and traditional
    agriculture, and were source of potable and irrigation water
    in the area have become unfit for human consumption.
    Further, there is an overall decline in agricultural
    productivity due to contamination of soil with coal particles,
                                                                              B
    seepage of Acid mines drainage and scarcity of water. The
    water of many rivers and streams have almost become
    devoid of aquatic life”.
    4.2.6 Causes of Deterioration of Water Quality
    Major causes of deterioration of water quality, as                        C
    evidenced by above observations are AMD discharge,
    siltation and organic enrichment. As in any other coal
    mining area, Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) is the main
    source of water pollution in the coal mining areas of Jaintia
    Hills. As discussed in previous chapter, Amp is formed by a
    series of complex geochemical and microbial reactions that                D
    occur when water comes in contact with pyrite (Iron sulfide)
    found in coal and exposed rocks of overburden. Iron sulfide
    in presence of oxygen, water and bacteria forms sulphuric
    acid, is referred to as AMD. In the process, iron hydroxide,
    a yellowish orange precipitate is also formed. The                        E
    prercipitate of iron hydroxide together with other
    contaminants auses turbidity and changes in colour of the
    water which reduces the penetration of light and affects
    the aquatic life. Extremely low pH conditions in the water
    accelerate weathering and dissolution of silicate and other
    rock minerals, there b y c a u s i n g t h e re l e a s e o f o t h e r   F
    elements such as aluminium, manganese, copper, cadmium
    etc. into the water. Hence, water contaminated with AMD
    is often coloured and turbid with suspended solids, highly
    acidic (low pH), and contains high concentration of
    dissolved metals and other elements. Most of the streams                  G
    and rivers of Jaintia Hills in coal mining areas are severely
    contaminated with AMD and thus becomes water has
    become highly acidic. The pH and other parameters of
    some AMD affected water bodies are summarized in Table
    4.1.
                                                                              H
368             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A             Table 4.1: Summary of water quality parameters in some Coal
              mining rivers/reservoir.

      S I.          Riv ers/       Col ou r   pH         Su l pha    E
       o.          S treams &     of                    te          Con du c
                    Loc ati on     Wat er                con te n    ti vi ty
B                                                        ts          (pS/ Cm
                                                         (mg/ L)     )

        1.          Myntriang       Light     2.8        36          56
                                   yellow
                                   Brown is
      2.            Urn Pai                   3 .2       186         160
                    Rawaka,        hRed di    2 .31      166.5       135
C
      3.
                    Rymb ai        sh
                                   brow
       4.           Kenai-um,      Reddi    2 .66        144.0       74
                    Rymbai         sh
                                   brow
       5.           Metyngka,      Reddish      2 .42    16 8.0     27
                    Rymbai         brow
D                                  n
       6.           Urn-           Bro wnis     3 .52    11 8.7     67
                    Mynkseh,       h
                    Lad rymba i    oran ge
       7.          Thwa i-         Brown is 4.01        82.8 7       18
                   Ku ngor,        h
                   Bapun
E
       8.          Umkyrpon ,      Lig ht   3.67        161.3        37
                   Khlieh ria t    O ra n g
                                   e

       9.          Waikh yrw i,
F                  Su tn g a       Brownis 3.96         78.69            -
                                   h

       1 0.        Um Roong                 2.8         896         12 8
       1 1.        Mo stem        Brownish 2.9          616         11 9
       1 2.        Sarban g       Turbid    3.35        150         32
G      1 3.        Um Lurem       Yellowish 5.0         19          3
       1 4.        Khong dong     Clear     4.6         43          34
                   Reservoir

              Source: Present study; GSI, 2006-7;
              Biahwar, 2010
H
         STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                            369
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

               The results show that most of the rivers in the coal mining           A
               areas of Jaintia Hills are severely affected AMD as evident
               from the lower pH values, higher sulphate content and EC
               in water samples”.
n du c
i ty            63. Thus, there were clear allegations in the application that in
S/ Cm    spite of various remedial measures set out in the report no proper and      B
         effective remedial measures have been taken by the concerned
         authorities of the State of Meghalaya. Paragraph 3(VI) is as follows:
               “3(VI). That the various remedial measures are set out in detail
0
               in paragraphs 4.4, 4.5, 5, 5.1 and 5.2 and other relevant
5
               paragraphs of the said report. However, to the best of                C
               knowledge of the Applicant, no proper and effective remedial
               measures have been undertaken by the concerned authorities
               till date and the innocent citizens/ water bodies etc. of the
               concerned areas including that of Dima Hasao District in Assam
               continue to be subjected to the ill-effect of the aforesaid illegal
               mining operation in the State of Meghalaya. That apart,               D
               continuous and irreparable damage on the environment, water,
               soil, agriculture etc. in the concerned areas including Dima
               Hasao district of Assam are also continuing as a result of the said
               illegal mining operations in Jaintia Hills in the State of
               Meghalaya.”                                                           E
               64. Ground A of the application is also relevant to be reproduced
         which is to the following effect:
                                          “GROUNDS
               A. that the aforementioned illegal mining operations in the Jaintia   F
               Hills in the State of Meghalaya have not only caused serious
               and irreparable damage to the ecology, water bodies and the
               socio-economy of the concerned areas including of Dima Hasao
               district of Assam but has also resulted in serious erosion/
               corrosion of the underwater plants and machineries and
               equipments of the Kopili Hydro Power Project of the North             G
               Eastern Electric Power Corporation of India (a Government
               of India undertaking), The ill-effect of the said mining operation
               has been highlighted in detail in the aforementioned detailed
               project report by Dr. O.P.Singh, Professor, North-Eastern Hills
               University as well as the said article published in the
                                                                                     H
370             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           International Journal of Environmental Sciences. Though
            remedial measures were suggested in both the aforesaid
            studies, to the best of the knowledge of the Applicant, no proper
            and effective remedial measures have been undertaken by the
            Respondents herein and the ill-effect of the said activities
            are still continuing to the detriment of the ecology, water bodied
B
            and socio-economy of the concerned areas including Dima
            Hasao district of Assam. It is most respectfully submitted that
            the total inaction on the part of the Respondents herein in spite
            of detailed study on the subject with remedial suggestions are
            totally inexcusable and show the total callous attitude of the
C           State Respondents The menace of illegal opencast mining
            operations in the Jaintia Hills in Meghalaya is still continuing to
            the detriment of the ecology and socio-economic of the
            concerned areas including Dime Hasao district of Assam and
            as such, warrants, in the most respectful submissions of the
            Applicant, immediate intervention by this Hon’ble Tribunal. The
D
            aforesaid inaction has resulted in violation of the various
            enactments mentioned in Schedule I of the National Green
            Tribunal Act 2010 including the Water (Prevention and Control
            of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of
            Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act 1986
E           apart from infringing the fundamental rights of the Applicant
            under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
             65. The pleadings in O.A.No.73 of 2014 as extracted above clearly
      and categorically alleged environmental degradation consequent to
      illegal coal mining. It was further stated that inaction of respondent
F     authorities has resulted in violation of various enactments mentioned in
      Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010 including the Water (Prevention and
      Control Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of
      Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The
      application O.A.No.73 of 2014 thus has clearly made out allegationswhich
      were sufficient for the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction as conferred
G     by Section 14. Both the component as appearing in sub-section 1 of
      Section 14 that is (i) substantial question relating to environment and (ii)
      such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments
      specified in Schedule I, were involved.

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                             371
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       66. The NGT after adverting to the application O.A.No.73 of           A
2014 on 17.04,2014 has undertaken different proceedings and asked for
various reports from different committees including State Pollution
Control Board. By order dated 31.08.2018, the NGT had appointed a
committee headed by Justice B.P. Katakey, former Judge of the Gauhati
High Court which consisted of Prof. Ashok K. Singh, Rajiv Gandhi Chair
                                                                             B
Professor, Department of Environmental Science & Engineering
representative from Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad IIT(ISM), Dhanbad
(826004), Dr. Shantanu Kumar Dutta, Scientist ‘D’ representative of
Central Pollution Control Board. The said committee submitted interim
report on 31.12.2018 and on the subject “Whether coal mining activities
as well as dumping of coal results in adverse environmental effect, if so,   C
the nature and extent thereof?” has been dealt with in Issue No.(D) in
the following manner:
      “Issue No.(D) Whether coal mining activities as well as
      dumping of coal results in adverse environmental effect, if
      so, the nature and extent thereof?                                     D
      (i) The Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board in the month of
      September, 1997 published a report entitled “ENVIRONMENTAL
      IMPACT OF COAL MINING IN JAINTIA HILLS DISTRICT”.
      The then Chairman of the said Board, in his foreword, has admitted
      unplanned and unscientific coal mining activities in the State for     E
      more than hundred years, which achieved dangerous dimensions
      since last two decades and are creating ecological disturbances
      and negative environmental impacts, to the extent that the very
      existence of biological life is threatened in the coal mining areas
      of the State. It has also been admitted that no systematic efforts
      to study such impacts have so far been made by any institution.        F
      The then Member Secretary of the Board, in the preface, has
      projected the adverse impacts on the environment because of the
      coal mining activities. The pH level of in water almost all the
      rivers and streams was found to be below the required level. In
      some rivers and streams, the pH level was found to be as low as        G
      2.4. The Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board, in the said
      report, has observed that the random discharge of AMD and acidic
      run offs from -40- the coal storage areas have also made the


                                                                             H
372     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     rivers, streams and even ground waters highly acidic. The ambient
      air quality of the coal mining and coal storage areas was also
      found to be degraded to certain extent. The Board, therefore,
      observed that – “The uncontrolled and unscientific coal mining
      operations in Jaintia Hills District have already created massive
      ecological disturbances and environmental degradation because
B
      presently neither any pollution control measures are adopted by
      the miners nor any sincere efforts are made for reclamation of
      the mine land”. In the said report, the following recommendations
      were made to minimize the overall adverse environmental impacts
      of the mining activities:-
C        (a) To generate social awareness among the public in general
         and the miners in particular about the adverse environmental
         impacts and the health hazards associated with such unscientific
         and unplanned coal mining activities.
         (b) Preparation of the inventory of the mine owners, areas
D        under mining and rate of land use change to get the first hand
         knowledge about the quantum of the efforts required for better
         management of these activities.
         (c) To enforce suitable legislations on the lines of the National
         Mineral Policy immediately for exploitation of coal in most
E        sustainable manner.
         (d) To engage expert institution for finding out the most suited
         technologies for the coal exploitation with appropriate pollution
         control measures in order to ensure that the environment as a
         whole is not subjected to further degradation.
F
         (e) To engage the expert institution for finding out the suitable
         ways for rehabilitation of the mined land in phase manner so
         that the scarce land resources can be brought back to productive
         uses.
         (f) To look for the alternative transport facilities to control
G
         vehicular pollution.
         (g) To identify the suitable location for the storage of coal for
         sale with adequate facilities to treat dump run offs.
         (h) To study the aspect of the presence of trace elements in
H        the surface and ground water because the low pH values
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                                 373
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

          increase the dissolution power of water. Large numbers of              A
          trace elements are always associated with the coal which gets
          dissolved in low pH waters. These trace elements are serious
          health hazards even in very low concentrations.
          (i) To introduce lucrative schemes for the aforestation in the
          most affected areas.                                                   B
          (j) To develop the State Mineral Policy with the interaction of
          Government Agencies, Social Institutions, Local Elders and
          the Miners, keeping in view the specific land ownership system
          of the State. Nothing of the above recommendations have been
          implemented so far.                                                    C
      (ii) It is, therefore, evident that apart from the water, air pollution,
      there is degradation of surface land because of the coal mining
      activities in the State of Meghalaya. Despite publication of the
      said report by the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board as
      back as in the year 1997, no steps appeared to have been taken             D
      by any authority to check the adverse environmental affect and
      also to remedy the same.”
       67. The present is not a case of mere allegation of applicant of
environmental degradation by illegal and unregulated coal mining rather
there were materials on the record including the report of the experts,          E
the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board published in the month of
September, 1992,the report of Katakey committee appointed by the
Tribunal where environmental degradation of water, air and surface of
the land was proved.
       68. Hence, there was sufficient allegation regarding substantial          F
questions relating to environment and violation of enactments in
Schedule I. We fail to see any substance in the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant that NGT has no jurisdiction to entertain the
case and pass orders. During submission, learned counsel for the
appellant has not even referred to application which was filed by the
applicant in O.A.No.73/2014. There were reports of the Meghalaya                 G
State Pollution Control Board before the State Government pointing out
environmental degradation and the Tribunal having taken up the issue,
the submission on behalf of the State that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction
is not expected from the State Government who is under constitutional
obligation to ensure clean environment to all its citizens. In cases
                                                                                 H
374            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     pertaining to environmental matter the State has to act as facilitator and
      not as obstructionist. Article 48A of the Constitution provides:
            “48A. Protection and improvement of environment and
            safeguarding of forests and wild life The State shall endeavour to
            protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests
B           and wild life of the country.”
            69. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the
      judgment of this Court in Techi Tagi Tara versus Rajendra Singh
      Bhandari and others, 2018(11) SCC 734. This Court had occasion to
      consider Section 14,15 and 2(m) of the National Green Tribunal Act,
C     2010, which involves the question of jurisdiction of NGT. The nature of
      order passed by NGT which was challenged before this court has been
      noticed in para 1 of the judgment, which is to the following effect:-
            “1. This batch of appeals is directed against the judgment
            and order dated 24-8-2016 passed by the National Green
D           Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short “the NGT”)
            in Rajendra Singh Bhandari v. State of Uttarakhand1. On a
            reading of the judgment and order passed by the NGT, it is
            quite clear that the Tribunal was perturbed and anguished
            that some persons appointed to the State Pollution Control
            Boards (for short “SPCBs”) did not have, according to the
E           NGT, the necessary expertise or qualifications to be members
            or Chairpersons of such high-powered and specialised
            statutory bodies and therefore did not deserve their
            appointment or nomination. While we fully commiserate with
            the NGT and share the pain and anguish, we are of the view
F           that the Tribunal has, at law, exceeded its jurisdiction in
            directing the State Governments to reconsider the appointments
            and in laying down guidelines for appointment to the SPCBs,
            however well-meaning they might be. Therefore, we set aside
            the decision of the NGT, but note that a large number of
            disconcerting facts have been brought out in the judgment
G           which need serious consideration by those in authority,
            particularly the State Governments that make appointments
            or nominations to the SPCBs. Such appointments should not
            be made casually or without due application of mind
            considering the duties, functions and responsibilities of the
H           SPCBs.”
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                               375
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       70. In the above background, this Court held that the failure of the    A
State Government to appoint professionals and experience persons to
the key positions in the State Pollution Control Board cannot be classi-
fied as a primary dispute over which the NGT could have jurisdiction.
Following was laid down in paragraph 21: -
      “21. As far as we are concerned, in the context of the Act, a            B
      dispute would be the assertion of a right or an interest or a
      claim met by contrary claims on the other side. In other words,
      the dispute must be one of substance and not of form and it
      appears to us that the appointments that we are concerned
      with are not “disputes” as such or even disputes for the
      purposes of the Act — they could be disputes for a                       C
      constitutional court to resolve through a writ of quo warranto,
      but certainly not for the NGT to venture into. The failure of
      the State Government to appoint professional and experienced
      persons to key positions in the SPCBs or the failure to appoint
      any person at all might incidentally result in an ineffective            D
      implementation of the Water Act and the Air Act, but this
      cannot be classified as a primary dispute over which the NGT
      would have jurisdiction. Such a failure might be of a statutory
      obligation over which, in the present context and not
      universally, only a constitutional court would have
      jurisdiction and not a statutory body like the NGT. While we             E
      appreciate the anxiety of the NGT to preserve and protect the
      environment as a part of its statutory functions, we cannot
      extend these concepts to the extent of enabling the NGT to
      consider who should be appointed as a Chairperson or a
      member of any SPCB or who should not be so appointed.”                   F
       71. The issue involved in the above case was entirely different
which did not directly pertain to environmental degradation. Whether
NGT has jurisdiction to entertain a particular cause is a question which
depends on the facts of each case. To find out as to whether NGT has
jurisdiction to entertain a case, the case set up before the Tribunal has to   G
be looked into to answer the question. The judgment of Techi Tagi Tara
(supra) was on its own facts and does not help the appellant in the
present case.
      72. In view of the foregoing discussion, we reject the submission
of the learned counsel for the State that the Tribunal exceeded its            H
376             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15 in entertaining the application
      O.A.No.73 of 2014. We also record our dis-approval to the stand taken
      by the State in this regard.
            Point No.2
             73. Before we proceed to consider the above points, first of all,
B     we need to notice the nature of land tenure in the Hills Districts of State
      of Meghalaya. Learned counsel for the parties are not at variance on
      the question of nature of land tenure in the Hills Districts of State of
      Meghalaya. By the North-Eastern Area Reorganisation Act, 1971 the
      State of Meghalaya was formed as independent full-fledged State.
C     After the enforcement of the Constitution the area, now comprised in
      the State of Meghalaya, was included in the State of Assam, the
      Administration and control of which area was as per Article 244 of the
      Constitution of India read with Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. In so
      far as the land tenure in the Hills Districts of Meghalaya, there is no
      substantial change after the advent of the Constitution. There was no
D     payment system of land revenue before the advent of the Constitution in
      the Hills Districts of Meghalaya. Learned counsel for the parties have
      referred to various materials pertaining to the land tenure system
      prevalent in the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya. The lands in the
      Khasi Hills District of Meghalaya come under two divisions Ri Raid
E     and Ri Kynti. Ri raid lands are community lands which are set apart
      for the benefit and use of entire community. Ri kynti lands are privately
      owned lands which were also owned by community as well as by
      individuals. The owner of the re kynti land is an absolute proprietor.
      The tenure system in Jaintia Hills classified into two types of lands,
      namely, Hali /irrigated land and High land. Hali lands are further
F     categorised in Raj land, service land, village puja land and private land.
      Proprietary right does not vest in the State in respect to majority of lands
      which are either privately owned or owned by the Tribal community. No
      system of payment of land revenue is prevalent in the Hills District of
      Meghalaya except lands which belong to State. For the purposes of
G     present case where the submission of the appellant is that land in which
      mining operations of coal is being done are lands belonging to Tribals
      who are owners of the land as well as of the sub-soil, we proceed with
      the assumption that Tribal is the owner of the land. It is further the case
      of the appellant that in Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya in land
      which is privately owned by the Tribal or community owned, the Tribals
H     or the community or the clan are owners of both surface right and
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                                  377
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

sub-soil. It is the case of the appellant that the State does not have any        A
right in sub-soil or minerals. The judgment of this in Thressiamma Jacob
and others vs. Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology
and others, 2013(9) SCC 725, is relied on. This Court in the above
case had occasion to consider the question of ownership of sub-soil/
mineral rights in reference to genmom lands in Malabar area of the
                                                                                  B
State of Madras. Holder of the genmom rights also claimed not only as
proprietor of the soil but the owner of the minerals in the soil. This Court
laid down following in paragraph 58:
      “58. For the abovementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that
      there is nothing in the law which declares that all mineral wealth/
      subsoil rights vest in the State, on the other hand, the ownership          C
      of subsoil/mineral wealth should normally follow the ownership of
      the land, unless the owner of the land is deprived of the same by
      some valid process. In the instant appeals, no such deprivation is
      brought to our notice and therefore we hold that the appellants
      are the proprietors of the minerals obtaining in their lands. We            D
      make it clear that we are not making any declaration regarding
      their liability to pay royalty to the State as that issue stands referred
      to a larger Bench.”
       74. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Raja Anand Brahma
Shah vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1967 SC                       E
1081, had laid down that prima facie owner of a surface of the land is
entitled to everything beneath the land unless there is an express or
implied reservation in the grant. In paragraph 13 following has been laid
down:
      “13. In our opinion, a reading of the two sanads supports the case          F
      of the appellant that there is no reservation of mineral rights in
      favour of the Government. The expression used in the sanad of
      1803 A.D. is “You ought to consider him the Raja of immovable
      jagir and of mahal and everything appertaining thereto belongs to
      him.” In effect, the grant to the Raja in the two sanads is a grant
      of the lands comprised in the mahal of Agori and everything                 G
      appertaining thereto and as a matter of construction the grant
      must be taken to be not only of the land but also of everything
      beneath or within the land. Prima facie the owner of a surface of
      the land is entitled ex jure to everything beneath the land and in
      the absence of any reservation in the grant minerals necessarily            H
378            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           pass with the rights to the surface (Halsbury’s Laws of England,
            3rd Edn., Vol. 26, p. 325). In other words, a transfer of the right to
            the surface conveys right to the minerals underneath unless there
            is an express or implied reservation in the grant. A contract
            therefore to sell or grant a lease of land will generally include
            mines, quarries and minerals beneath or within it (Mitchell v.
B
            Mosley). It is manifest that when the sanad was executed in
            favour of the Raja the Government made over the land with all its
            capabilities to the Raja and merely imposed on him a fixed sum of
            revenue in lieu of all the rights the Government had as a proprietor
            of the soil. When neither of the parties knew undiscovered minerals
C           underneath the land and the idea of reservation never entered
            their minds it cannot be held that there was any implied reservation
            in the grant. Nor can afterwards a distinction be drawn between
            the various rights that may exist on the land for the purpose of
            qualifying the original grant and importing into it what neither party
            could have imagined. It was argued on behalf of the respondents
D
            that the assessment was made on the agricultural income, but this
            circumstance cannot derogate from the rights conveyed to the
            Raja in the two sanads because no restriction was placed on the
            use of the land and the use by the Raja was not limited to
            agriculture.”
E            75. Thus, looking to the nature of the land tenure as applicable in
      the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya, the most of the lands are either
      privately or community owned in which State does not claim any right.
      Thus, private owners of the land as well as community owners have
      both the surface right as well as sub-soil right. We are, thus, of the
F     opinion that Tribals owned the land and also owned the minerals,which
      is an inescapable conclusion. We, thus, proceed to examine the issues
      on the premise that in privately owned land or community land minerals
      also vest in the owner. We first need to consider as to whether the
      provisions of MMRD Act, 1957 are applicable in the Tribal area of Hills
      District of State of Meghalaya.
G
            76. Part X of the Constitution separately deals with Scheduled
      and Tribal areas. Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya were treated to
      be Tribal area and were to be governed by Article 244 sub-clause (2)
      read with Schedule VI. Provisions of Article 244 after formation of State
      of Meghalaya is as follows:
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                               379
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      “Article 244. Administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal               A
      Areas.-(1) The provisions of the Fifth Schedule shall apply to the
      administration and control of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled
      Tribes in any State other than the States of Assam, Meghalaya,
      Tripura and Mizoram.
      (2) The provisions of the Sixth Schedule shall apply to the              B
      administration of the tribal areas in the State of Assam, Meghalaya,
      Tripura and Mizoram.”
       77. Sixth Schedule of the Constitution contains ‘Provisions as to
the Administration of Tribal Areas in the States of Assam, Meghalaya,
Tripura and Mizoram’. Paragraph 20 of Sixth Schedule refers to Tribal          C
areas and Part II of which consists of Khasi Hills District, Jaintia Hills
District and Garo Hills District which have been referred as
Autonomous Districts. Sixth Schedule Para 1(1) is as follows:
      “1. Autonomous districts and autonomous regions.-(1)Subject
      to the provisions of this paragraph, the tribal areas in each item of    D
      Parts I, II and IIA and in Part III of the table appended to paragraph
      20 of this Schedule shall be an autonomous district.
       78. Para 2 of Sixth Schedule provides for Constitution of District
Councils and Regional Councils. Para 3 provides for powers of the
District Councils and Regional Councils to make laws which is to the           E
following effect:
      “3. Powers of the District Councils and Regional Councils
      to make laws.—(1) The Regional Council for an autonomous
      region in respect of all areas within such region and the District
      Council for an autonomous district in respect of all areas within        F
      the district except those which are under the authority of Regional
      Councils, if any, within the district shall have power to make laws
      with respect to—
      (a) the allotment, occupation or use, or the setting apart, of land,
           other than any land which is a reserved forest for the
                                                                               G
           purposes of agriculture or grazing or for residential or other
           non-agricultural purposes or for any other purpose likely to
           promote the interests of the inhabitants of any village or town:
                 Provided that nothing in such laws shall prevent the
            compulsory acquisition of any land, whether occupied or
                                                                               H
380               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A                  unoccupied, for public purposes 1 [by the Government of
                   the State concerned] in accordance with the law for the time
                   being in force authorising such acquisition;
            (b) the management of any forest not being a reserved forest;
            (c)    the use of any canal or water-course for the purpose of
B                  agriculture;
            (d) the regulation of the practice of jhum or other forms of shift-
                 ing cultivation;
            (e) the establishment of village or town committees or councils
C                and their powers;
            (f) any other matter relating to village or town administration,
                 including village or town police and public health and sanita-
                 tion;
            (g) the appointment or succession of Chiefs or Headmen;
D
            (h) the inheritance of property;
            (i) marriage and divorce;
            (j) social customs.
            (2) In this paragraph, a “reserved forest” means any area which
E           is a reserved forest under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, or
            under any other law for the time being in force in the area in
            question. (3) All laws made under this paragraph shall be submitted
            forthwith to the Governor and, until assented to by him, shall have
            no effect.”
F            79. Para 9 of the Sixth Schedule which is relevant for the present
      case is as follows:
            “9. Licences or leases for the purpose of prospecting for, or
            extraction of, minerals.—(1) Such share of the royalties accruing
            each year from licences or leases for the purpose of prospecting
G           for, or the extraction of, minerals granted by the Government of
            the State] in respect of any area within an autonomous district as
            may be agreed upon between the Government of the State] and
            the District Council of such district shall be made over to that
            District Council.
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                               381
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      (2) If any dispute arises as to the share of such royalties to be        A
      made over to a District Council, it shall be referred to the Governor
      for determination and the amount determined by the Governor in
      his discretion shall be deemed to be the amount payable under
      sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph to the District Council and
      the decision of the Governor shall be final.”
                                                                               B
      80. Para 12A which is relevant for Meghalaya is as follows:
      “12A. Application of Acts of Parliament and of the
      Legislature of the State of Meghalaya to autonomous
      districts and autonomous regions in the State of
      Meghalaya.—                                                              C
      Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, —
      (a) if any provision of a law made by a District or Regional Council
      in the State of Meghalaya with respect to any matter specified in
      subparagraph (1) of paragraph 3 of this Schedule or if any provision
      of any regulation made by a District Council or a Regional Council       D
      in that State under paragraph 8 or paragraph 10 of this Schedule,
      is repugnant to any provision of a law made by the Legislature of
      the State of Meghalaya with respect to that matter, then, the law
      or regulation made by the District Council or, as the case may be,
      the Regional Council whether made before or after the law made           E
      by the Legislature of the State of Meghalaya, shall, to the extent
      of repugnancy, be void and the law made by the Legislature of
      the State of Meghalaya shall prevail;
      (b) the President may, with respect to any Act of Parliament, by
      notification, direct that it shall not apply to an autonomous district   F
      or an autonomous region in the State of Meghalaya, or shall apply
      to such district or region or any part thereof subject to such
      exceptions or modifications as he may specify in the notification
      and any such direction may be given so as to have retrospective
      effect.
                                                                               G
      81. Now, we revert back to Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957. Act, 1957 has been enacted to provide for
development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of
the Union. Section 1 of the Act is as follows:

                                                                               H
382            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           “Section 1. Short title, extent and commencement. ¯(1) This Act
            may be called the Mines and Minerals (Development and
            Regulation) Act, 1957.
             (2) It extends to the whole of India.
            (3) It shall come into force on such date3 as the Central
B           Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.”
             82. The Act came into effect w.e.f. 01.06.1958. Whether there
      are any indications in the Sixth Schedule or any other provision of the
      law by which it can be contended that Act, 1957 is not applicable in Hills
      District of Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya? We may first refer to
C     Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which is a provision for
      Administration of Tribal areas in the State of Meghalaya. Para 12A
      sub-clause (b) empowers that the President may, with respect to any
      Act of Parliament, by notification, direct that it shall not apply to an
      autonomous district or an autonomous region in the State of Meghalaya,
D     or shall apply to such district or region or any part thereof subject to
      such exceptions or modifications as he may specify in the notification.
      No notification has been issued by the President under Para 12A(b) of
      the VIth Schedule of the Constitution, although, the said Para 12A(b) is
      in the Constitution with effect from 21.1.1972. Thus, there is nothing in
      Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which may indicate about the
E     inapplicability of Act, 1957 with regard to the Hills Districts of State of
      Meghalaya. At this juncture, we may also notice the report of the
      Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year ended 31st March,
      2013. In para 7.5.1 the report mentions:
            “7.5.1. Introduction
F
            Meghalaya is endowed with sizeable deposits of valuable minerals
            like coal, limestone, uranium, granite and clay. Minerals being
            valuable resource, the extraction needs to be maximised through
            scientific methods of mining with aim to ensure extraction and
            utilisation of minerals. Besides, most of the mineral reserves are
G           in areas which are under forest cover and hence, mining in the
            State has environmental implications. In Meghalaya, individual and
            local communities have ownership over the land and the minerals
            and barring a few reserve forest areas, the State Government
            has no ownership over the minerals. The activities of the Mining
            & Geology (M&G) Department, Government of Meghalaya
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                               383
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      (GOM) are limited to collection of royalty on the minerals exported      A
      outside the State besides geological investigation/exploration of
      minerals. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
      Act, 1957 lays down the legal framework for regulation of mines
      and development of minerals. The Mineral Concession Rules, 1960
      and the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 were
                                                                               B
      accordingly framed under the MMDR Act framed for conservation
      and systematic development of minerals and for regulating grant
      of permits, licences and leases. The GOM has introduced the
      Meghalaya Mineral Cess Act, 1988 to mobilise additional revenue.
      Further with a view to facilitating systematic, scientific and planned
      utilisation of mineral resources and to streamline mineral based         C
      development of the State, the Meghalaya Mines and Mineral Policy,
      2012 has also been notified with effect from 5 November 2012.”
      83. The Comptroller and Auditor General has clearly stated that
Act, 1957 is fully applicable for regulation of mines and regulation of
minerals in the State of Meghalaya.                                            D
       84. Learned counsel for the State of Meghalaya has also filed
before us along with an affidavit of Joint Secretary of Government of
Meghalaya, Mining and Geology Department dated 13.04.1018 by which
Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy, 2012 issued by the Government
of Meghalaya as well as draft guidelines of coal mining activities in the      E
State prepared in the year 2015 has been brought on the record.
       85. Clause 10 of the Policy provides for “Regulatory Framework
for Mine Development and Mining”. Sub-clause b) of Clause 10
required application for mineral concession either fresh or renewal is to
be submitted to the State Government through the Deputy                        F
Commissioner of the District wherein the area applied for is situated
and with NOC from District Council concerned and land owner. Clause
10 also refers to clearance of the Pollution Control Board of Meghalaya
and other requirement. Sub-clause (l) further contemplated that order
for grant of mineral concessions will be issued by the State Government,
with the approval of the Central Government wherever necessary. Thus,          G
the Policy of 2012 contemplated regulatory regime for mining lease by
the State. The Mining and Geology Department of the Government had
framed a draft guidelines for coal mining activity in the State which has
also been brought on record along with the above affidavit dated
13.04.2018.                                                                    H
384             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           86. The above guidelines were prepared after in consultation with
      the Central Government.
              87. The above draft guidelines prepared by the State clearly
      mentions about the unregulated and unscientific mining being carried out
      in the State of Meghalaya. The Policy Guidelines of Coal Mining which
B     is part of the guidelines also contains following statement:
            “The Mines Act, 1952 and the Mines and Minerals (Development
            and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR), together with the rules and
            regulations framed under them constitute the basic laws governing
            the mining sector in India. While the Mines Act, 1952 governs the
C           health and safety of the workers, the MMDR Act, 1957 (including
            all amendments) lays down the legal frame work for the regulation
            of mines and development of all minerals other than petroleum
            and natural gas. The relevant rules in force under the MMDR
            Act, 1957 are the Mineral Concession Rules (MCR), 1960 outlines
            the procedures and conditions for obtaining a Prospecting Licence
D           or Mining Lease. The MCDR, 1988 lays down guidelines for
            ensuring mining on a scientific basis, while conserving the
            environment, at the same time.
            Apart from the mining statutes, which also govern environment in
            mines, India has elaborate environment statutes for protection of
E           environment in mining.”
            88. One submission of Shri Naphade with respect to direction of
      NGT to frame mining policy by the State also needs consideration. Shri
      Naphade submits that the State of Meghalaya having no legislative
      competence with regard to major minerals, National Green Tribunal could
F     not have directed the State of Meghalaya to frame Mining Policy.
             89. There can be no dispute to the preposition that in view of
      MMDR Act, 1957, the legislative competence of State of Meghalaya
      under Entry 23 List II stands denuded. However, under the MMDR
      Act, 1957 as well as the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, several
G     statutory obligations/jurisdictions have been conferred on the State of
      Meghalaya, which shall be referred to later in this judgment.
            90. When under a Parliamentary enactment, State has been given
      some statutory obligations, there is no lack of jurisdiction in the State to

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                             385
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

frame policy to give effect to or implement the jurisdictions conferred on   A
the State by Parliamentary enactments. It is true that Mining Policy to
be framed by the State has to confine to the jurisdiction conferred on it
as per the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder. There
are other related issues concerning Mining like protection of
environment and forests for which the State has to declare its policy for
                                                                             B
implementation of its objective. Several other aspects relating to mining
like, rehabilitation, reclamation and restoration have to be effectively
implemented by the State for which also, it may be required to frame a
policy. We may further notice that Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy,
2012 was already framed by the State of Meghalaya, even before
directions were issued by the NGT. In pursuance of NGT directions, it        C
was draft guidelines of 2015, which were prepared by State of Meghalaya.
We, thus, are of the view that direction of NGT to declare Mining Policy
by the State of Meghalaya cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
However, the State in its Mining Policy can only include those areas
where it has jurisdiction under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules
                                                                             D
framed thereunder.
      91. A perusal of the entire Policy documents indicate that Policy
has been framed by the State as per the Act, 1957 and Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 1960.
       92. The Government of Meghalaya has also made a request to            E
the Government of India in the year 2015 for issuance of Presidential
notification under Para 12A(b) of Sixth Schedule for exempting State of
Meghalaya from certain provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957. After
several deliberations, the Union of India has communicated through its
O.M. dated 12.03.2019 that it is not possible to accede to the request of
the Government of Meghalaya for issuance of Presidential notification        F
under Para 12A(b) of Sixth Schedule. Thus, the request made by the
State of Meghalaya to issue exemption has not also been acceded to.
The request of the State of Meghalaya that exemption be granted by
Presidential notification under Para 12A(b) itself expresses recognition
of the State of Meghalaya that provisions of Act, 1957 are applicable.       G
We, thus, conclude that there is nothing in Sixth Schedule of the
Constitution which in any manner exclude the applicability of Act, 1957
in the Tribal areas of Hills District of State of Meghalaya.


                                                                             H
386            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           Point No.3
             93. We need to scan through the statutory scheme of Act, 1957 to
      find out as to whether Parliamentary legislation requires obtaining lease
      for winning the minerals in so far as mining of coal from privately owned
      land/community owned land are concerned?
B           94. Section 2 of the Act, 1957 contains declaration to the
      following effect:
            “2. Declaration as to expediency of Union Control.¯It is
            hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the
            Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and
C           the development of minerals to the extent hereinafter provided.”
             95. The Act, 1957 has been enacted in reference to Entry 54 List
      I of Seventh Schedule to the following effect:
            “Entry 54. Regulation of mines and mineral development to the
D           extent to which such regulation and development under the control
            of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in
            the public interest.”
             96. At this juncture, we may notice Entry 23 of List II which is to
      the following effect:
E           “Entry 23. Regulation of mines and mineral development subject
            to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and
            development under the control of the Union.”
             97. The Legislative power under Entry 23 is subject to the
      provision of List I with respect to regulation and development under the
F     control of the Union. When the Union has declared to have taken under
      its control the regulation of mines and development of minerals to the
      extent provided in the Act. Legislative power of the State to the above
      extent is denuded. Learned counsel for the appellant have also very
      fairly not disputed the position in law.
G            98. Section 3 of the Act contains definition clause. Section 3(c)
      defines mining lease and Section 3(d) defines a mining operation which
      are to the following effect:
            “Section 3(c) “mining lease” means a lease granted for the purpose
            of undertaking mining operations, and includes a sub-lease granted
H           for such purpose;
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                               387
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      Section 3(d) “mining operations” means anyoperations undertaken          A
      for the purpose of winning any mineral;”
      99. Section 4 of the Act contains general restriction on
undertaking prospecting and mining operation. Section 4 is couched in
terms of an injunction. No person shall undertake any mining operations
in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and                 B
conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as
the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and rules
made thereunder. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 is relevant in the present
case which is as follows:
      4. Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or               C
      lease.¯(1) No person shall undertake any reconnaissance,
      prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in
      accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance
      permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a
      mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder:
                                                                               D
      Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any prospecting
      or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with
      terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or mining lease
      granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force
      at such commencement:
                                                                               E
      Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any
      prospecting operations undertaken by the Geological Survey of
      India, the Indian Bureau of Mines, the Atomic Minerals Directorate
      for Exploration and Research of the Department of Atomic Energy
      of the Central Government, the Directorates of Mining and Geology
      of any State Government (by whatever name called), and the               F
      Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited., a Government company
      within the meaning of clause (45) of section 2 of the Companies
      Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), and any such entity that may be notified
      for this purpose by the Central Government]:
      Provided also that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any        G
      mining lease (whether called mining lease mining concession or
      by any other name) in force immediately before the
      commencement of this Act in the Union territory of Goa, Daman
      and Diu.”
                                                                               H
388            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A            100. The use of word no person in Section 4(1) is without an
      exception. There is nothing in Section 4(1) to indicate that restriction
      contained in Section 4(1) does not apply with regard to a person who is
      owner of the mine. Further, word ‘any area’ under Section 4(1) also has
      significance which does not have any exception. Further phrase ‘except
      under and in accordance with terms and condition with a mining lease
B
      granted under the Act’ are also significant which make the intent and
      purpose of prohibition clear and loud. Section 5 contains restriction on
      the grant of prospecting licences and mining lease in the following words:
            5. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting licences or
            mining leases.¯ (1) A State Government shall not grant a
C           reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease to any
            person unless such person¯
              (a) is an Indian national, or company as defined in 1clause (20)
                  of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013)]; and

D              (b) satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed:
                 Provided that in respect of any mineral specified in Part A
            and Part B of the First Schedule, no reconnaissance permit,
            prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted except with
            the previous approval of the Central Government.
E               Explanation. ¯For the purposes of this sub-section, a person
            shall be deemed to be an Indian national,¯
              (a) in the case of a firm or other association of individuals, only
                   if all the members of the firm or members of the
                   association are citizens of India; and
F
              (b) in the case of an individual, only if he is a citizen of India.
            (2) No mining lease shall be granted by the State Government
            unless it is satisfied that¯
              (a) there is evidence to show the existence of mineral contents
G                  in the area for which the application for a mining lease has
                   been made in accordance with such parameters as may be
                   prescribed for this purpose by the Central Government;
              (b) there is a mining plan duly approved by the Central
                  Government, or by the State Government, in respect of such
H                 category of mines as may be specified by the Central
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                            389
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

             Government, for the development of mineral deposits in the     A
             area concerned:
      Provided that a mining lease may be granted upon the filing of a
      mining plan in accordance with a system established by the State
      Government for preparation, certification, and monitoring of such
      plan, with the approval of the Central Government.                    B
       101. The proviso to Section 5(1) is relevant since it contains a
further restriction that no mining lease shall be granted with regard to
any minerals specified in Para A of First Schedule except with the pre-
vious approval of the Central Government. We in the present case are
concerned with coal which is in Para A of First Schedule.                   C
       102. The next provision which is relevant is Section 13 which
provides for Rule making power of Central Government in respect of
minerals. Section 13 sub-section (1) and Section 13 sub-section (2) in so
far as relevant in the present case are as follows:
      “13. Power of Central Government to make rules in respect             D
      of minerals.¯(1) The Central Government may, by notification in
      the Official Gazette, make rules for regulating the grant of
      reconnaissance permits, prospecting licences and mining leases
      in respect of minerals and for purposes connected therewith.
      (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the     E
      foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the
      following matters, namely:¯
        (a) the person by whom, and the manner in which, applications
            for reconnaissance permits, prospecting licences or mining
            leases in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the     F
            Government may be made and the fees to be paid therefor;
                   ……………………………
        (f) the procedure for obtaining 5 [a reconnaissance permit, a
             prospecting licence or a mining lease] in respect of any
             land in which the minerals vest in a person other than the     G
             Government and the terms on which, and the conditions
             subject to which, such 6 [a permit, licence or lease may be
             granted or renewed;
                         …………………………”
                                                                            H
390            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A            103. When we read clause (a) and clause (f), itmakes clear that
      the Rules can be made for grant of mining lease in respect of land in
      which minerals vest in the Government as well as in respect of any land
      in which minerals vest in person other than Government. The statutory
      scheme, thus, is clear that lease can be granted with regard to both the
      categories of land, land in which Government is owner of minerals and
B
      land in which minerals vest in person other than Government. The Tribals,
      owners of the minerals shall expressly fall in Rule making power of the
      Government under Section 13(f).
             104. The Central Government in exercise of power under Section
      13 has framed Rules, namely, Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960. Chapter
C     IV of the Rules contains a heading “Grant of Mining Lease in respect of
      land the Minerals vest in the Government”. Rules 22 to 40 contain
      various provisions under Chapter IV. Chapter V has a separate heading
      which is “Procedure for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining
      lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in a person
D     other than the Government”. Thus, Chapter V contains provisions
      for grant of lease in respect of minerals which vest in the person other
      than the Government. Rules 41 and 42 which are relevant are quoted
      below:
            “41. Applicability of this chapter: - The provisions of this chapter
E           shall apply only to the grant of prospecting licences and mining
            leases in respect of land in which the minerals vest exclusively in
            a person other than the Government.
            42. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting licence and
            mining lease:- (1) No prospecting licence or mining lease shall
F           be granted to any person unless he has filed an affidavit stating
            that he has–
              (i) filed up-to-date income tax returns;
              (ii) paid the income tax assessed on him, and
              (iii) paid the income tax on the basis of self-assessment as
G
                    provided in the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961). (2)
                    Except with the previous approval of the Central
                    Government, no prospecting licence or mining lease shall
                    be granted in respect of any mineral specified in the First
                    Schedule to the Act.”
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                             391
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       105. The statutory scheme delineated by Section 13(2)(f) and the      A
Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960 clearly contemplate grant of mining
lease, with regard to boththe categories of land, that is, land in which
minerals vest in the Government, and the land in which minerals vest in
a person other than the Government. In statutory provisions there is no
kind of exception as contended by the learned counsel of the appellant
                                                                             B
that when owner himself wants to win the minerals he does not require
any mining lease. The submission is contrary to the express statutory
scheme, in the event submission of appellant is accepted that with
regard to minerals which vest in a private person no mining lease is
required,the whole object of the Union by which it declared to have
taken under its control regulation of mines and development of minerals      C
shall be frustrated.
       106. Another limb of submission of the appellant needs to be
noticed here. Shri Naphade submits that there is no concept of owner of
a land granting lease to himself. He submits that concept of lease is well
known and well recognised concept as contained in Section 105 of             D
Transfer of Property Act. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act is
as follows:
      “Section 105. Lease defined. A lease of immovable property is
      a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain
      time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a      E
      price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or
      any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on
      specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who
      accepts the transfer on such terms.
      Lessor, lessee, premium and rent defined: The transferor is            F
      called the lessor, the transferee is called the lessee, the price is
      called the premium, and the money, share, service or other thing
      to be so rendered is called the rent.”
      107. Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition Para 321
defines nature of mining lease in the following manner:                      G
      “321. Nature of mining lease. A lease may be granted of land
      or any part of land, and since minerals are a part of the land it
      follows that a lease can be granted of the surface of the land and
      the minerals below, or of the surface alone, or of the minerals
                                                                             H
392            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           alone. It has been said that a contract for the working and getting
            of minerals, although for convenience called a mining lease, is not
            in reality a lease at all in the sense in which one speaks of an
            agricultural lease, and that such a contract, properly considered,
            is really a sale of a portion of the land at a price payable by
            instalments, that is, by way of rent or royalty, spread over a number
B
            of years.”
            108. This Court had occasion to consider the concept of mining
      lease under Act, 1957 in SRI TARKESHWAR SIO THAKUR JIU
      vs. DAR DASS DEY & CO. AND OTHERS, 1979(3) SCC 106,
      this Court held that term lease occurring in Section 3(C) of Act 67 of
C     1957 does not appear to have been used in the narrow technical
      sense in which it is defined in Section 105 of the Transfer of
      Property Act but it has all the characteristics of a lease as
      defined in the Transfer of Property Act. In paragraph 31 following
      was laid down:
D           “31. It is important to bear in mind that the term “lease” occurring
            in the definition of “mining lease” given in Section 3(c) of Act 67
            of 1957 does not appear to have been used in the narrow technical
            sense in which it is defined in Section 105 of the Transfer of
            Property Act. But, as rightly pointed out by a Bench of the Calcutta
E           High Court in Fala Krishna Pal v. Jagannath Marwari. a
            settlement of the character of a mining lease is everywhere in
            India regarded as “lease”. A mining lease, therefore, may be
            meticulously and strictly satisfy in all cases, all the characteristics
            of a “lease” as defined in the Transfer of Property Act.
            Nevertheless, in the legal accepted sense, it has always been
F           regarded as a lease in this country.”
            109. This Court proceeded further to consider Section 105 of the
      Transfer of Property Act and opined following in paragraphs 37:
            “37. A right to carry on mining operations in land to extract a
G           specified mineral and to remove and appropriate that mineral, is a
            “right to enjoy immovable property” within the meaning of Section
            105; more so, when — as in the instant case — it is coupled with
            a right to be in its exclusive khas possession for a specified period.
            The “right to enjoy immovable property” spoken of in Section

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                              393
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      105, means the right to enjoy the property in the manner in which       A
      that property can be enjoyed. If the subject-matter of the lease is
      mineral land or a sand-mine, as in the case before us, it can only
      be enjoyed and occupied by the lessee by working it, as indicated
      in Section 108, Transfer of Property Act, which regulates the rights
      and liabilities of lessors and lessees of immovable property.”
                                                                              B
       110. This Court further following the Nageshwar Bux Roy vs.
Bengal Coal Co., LR (1930) 58 IA 29, in State of Karanataka and
others vs. Subhash Rukmayya Guttedar and others, 1993 Supp.(3)
290 laid down following in paragraph 6:
      “6………The question, therefore, is whether the grant of the right         C
      to extract the minor mineral from Government quarry is a lease
      or a licence and whether the contractor is liable to pay the royalty
      in respect of minor mineral extracted from the Government quarry.
      Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act defines a lease of
      immovable property as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property
      made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in       D
      consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of
      crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered
      periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the
      transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. The normal
      connotation of the term lease is the preservation of the demised        E
      estate to be in occupation and enjoyment thereof for a specified
      period or in perpetuities for consideration; the corpus by user
      thereof does not disappear and at the expiry of the term or on
      termination the same is handed over to the lessor subject to the
      terms of the contract, express or implied. A right to carry on mining
      operations in the land on surface or sub-soil is to extract the         F
      specified quantity of the minerals found therein, to remove and
      appropriate that mineral. Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals
      (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 affords the guidance in
      this behalf. It says that the holder of a mining lease or agent, etc.
      is entitled to remove or consume the mineral. It would mean             G
      destruction of the estate leased out and appropriation thereof on
      payment of consideration i.e. royalty. Therefore, it is a right to
      enjoy immovable property within the meaning of Section 105 more


                                                                              H
394            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           so when, as in the instant case, it is coupled with a right to be in
            occupation or enter into possession for a specified period. Section
            3(d) of the Act defines ‘mining operations’ to mean any operation
            undertaken for the purpose of winning any minerals. It is true that
            no right, title or interest has been created in the contractor over
            the mining area. But he has been permitted to remove and use the
B
            minor minerals in the execution of the works as its (sic his) right
            to enjoy immovable property spoken of in Section 105 which means
            the right to enjoy the property in the manner in which that property
            can be enjoyed. In Nageshwar Bux Roy v. Bengal Coal Co.1
            Lord Macmillan speaking for the Board held that:
C               “In considering the character and effect of acts of possession
                in the case of a mineral field, it is necessary to bear in mind the
                nature of the subject and the possession of which it is
                susceptible. Owing to the inaccessibility of minerals in the earth,
                it is not possible to take actual physical possession at once of a
D               whole mineral field: it can be occupied only by extracting the
                minerals and until the whole minerals are exhausted the physical
                occupation must necessarily be partial.”
             111. The word mining lease has been given specific meaning
      under Act, 1957. It is well settled principle of interpretation that the
E     provisions of an Act including definition of a term is to be interpreted in
      a manner which may advance the object of the legislation. The essential
      characteristic of mining lease is that it is granted for the purpose of
      undertaking mining operation and mining operation means any operation
      undertaken for the purpose of winning the mineral. Applying aforesaid
      definition in the Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960 under Chapter V
F     it cannot be said that no mining lease is contemplated with respect to
      land where mineral vests exclusively in a private person.
              112. The examination of a statutory scheme applicable in Tribal
      areas of State of Meghalaya shall not be complete unless we notice two
      more aspects, they are (i) the Mines Act, 1952 and the Regulations
G     framed thereunder; (2) Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and the no-
      tification issued thereunder with regard to mining project.
            113. The Mines Act, 1952 is an Act to amend and consolidate the
      law relating to the regulation of labour and safety of mines. The act

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                                 395
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

contains various provisions regarding inspection of mining operation and         A
management of mines. Section 16 provides a notice to be given to
mining operations by the owner agent or manager of a mine. Section 16
is as follows:
      “Section 16. Notice to be given of mining
      operations.-(1) The owner, agent or manager of a mine shall,               B
      before the commencement of any mining operation, give to the
      Chief Inspector, the Controller, Indian Bureau of Mines and the
      district magistrate of the district in which the mine is situate, notice
      in writing in such form and containing such particulars relating to
      the mine as may be prescribed.
                                                                                 C
            (2) Any notice given under sub-section (1) shall be so given
       as to reach the persons concerned at least one month before the
       commencement of any mining operation.”
       114. Section 18 contains duties and responsibilities of owners,
agents and managers. There are various other provisions in the Mines             D
Act, 1952 which are mandatory to be followed before working any mine.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed that the provisions of
the Mines Act, 1952 are applicable with regard to the coal mining in the
State of Meghalaya. He, however, submits that there are no powers
with the District Magistrate or State Officials under the Mines Act, 1952.       E
Chapter II of the Mines Act, 1952 deals with Inspectors and Certifying
Surgeons. Section 5(3) provided that the District Magistrate may
exercise the powers and perform the duties of an Inspector subject to
the general or special orders of the Central Government. Section 5(3) is
as follows:-
                                                                                 F
      “5(3)The district magistrate may exercise the powers and
      perform the duties of an Inspector subject to the general or
      special orders of the Central Government.”
       115. The above provision clearly empowers the District
Magistrate to exercise the powers and perform the duties of an                   G
Inspector but subject to general and special orders of Central
Government, which means that there may be some restriction on the
power of the District Magistrate as directed by Central Government. In
this context, Shri Naphade has referred to a notification dated 18.09.1953

                                                                                 H
396            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     issued under sub-section 3 of Section 5 of the Mines Act, 1952, which is
      to the following effect:-
            “New Delhi, the 18th September, 1953
            S.R.O. 1789 – In pursuance of sub-section 3 of section 5 of the
            Mines Act, 1952 (XXXV of 1952), the Central Government hereby
B           directs that in exercising the powers and performing the duties of
            an Inspector, the District Magistrate shall not, without prior
            reference to the Chief Inspector, take direct action or issue any
            order in respect of any matter solely connected with the technical
            direction, management or supervision of any mine, even though
C           such direction, management or supervision may appear to him to
            be dangerous or defective.
                                                             [No.M-41(370 52.]
                                                P.N. SHARMA, Under Secy.”

D            116. The restriction as is apparent from the above notification is
      with regard to matters solely connected with the technical direction,
      management or supervision of any mine. The above notification does
      not take away all the functions of the District Magistrate but restriction
      is with regard to area mentioned therein. As noted above, Section 16
      obliged the owner, agent or manager of a mine to give notice before the
E     commencement of any mining operation to the district magistrate of the
      district in which the mine is situate. Section 75 of the Mines Act, 1952
      also empowers the District Magistrate to institute prosecution against
      any owner, agent or manager for any offence under the Mines Act,
      1952. Section 75 is as follows:-
F           “75. Prosecution of owner, agent or manager.—No
            prosecution shall be instituted against any owner, agent or manager
            for any offence under this Act except at the instance of the Chief
            Inspector or of the district magistrate or of an Inspector authorised
            in this behalf by general or special order in writing by the Chief
            Inspector;
G
            Provided that the Chief Inspector or the district magistrate or the
            Inspector as so authorised shall, before instituting such prosecution,
            satisfy himself that the owner, agent or manager had failed to


H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                             397
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      exercise all due diligence to prevent the commission of such           A
      offence.
      Provided further that in respect of an offence committed in the
      course of the technical direction and management of a mine, the
      district magistrate shall not institute any prosecution against an
      owner, agent or manager without the previous approval of the           B
      Chief Inspector.”
       117. We, thus, do not accept the submission of Shri Naphade that
District Magistrate has no jurisdiction under the Mines Act, 1952 to take
any action.
       118. In exercise of the power under Section 57 of Mines Act,          C
1952 a new set of regulations has been framed, namely, Coal Mines
Regulations, 2017. Regulation 2(r) defines “District Magistrate”. The
Regulations contain various regulatory provisions with regard to mines.
Chapter II deals with returns, notices and records. Chapter IV deals
with Inspectors and Mine Officials. The Regulations contain several          D
regulatory provisions which need to be followed while working a mine
by the owner or his agent. The enforcement of Mines Act, 1952 and the
Regulations, 2017 have to be ensured in the public interest by the state
of Meghalaya.
       119. Now we come to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. A         E
notification dated 14.09.2006 was issued by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests in exercise of power under Section 3(3) of the
Environment Protection Act, 1986. Section 3 of the Act, 1986 which
provided for requirements of prior environmental clearance with regard
to projects enumerates therein. Schedule to the notification listed the
projects or activities requiring prior environmental clearance. “Mining of   F
minerals” included at Item No.1(a) but even for mining project
requirement of minimum 5 hectares area was required for applicability
of the project. Substituting Item No.1(a) of Notification dated 14.09.2006
a new notification dated 15.01.2016 has been issued. In place of Item
No.1(a) new entry has been substituted in respect of coal mine lease         G
which is to the following effect:




                                                                             H
398              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A
         (1)       (2)           (3)             (4)                   (5)
         “1(a)   (i) Mining of >50 ha of mining <50 ha of            General
                 minerals      lease areas in   mining       lease   Conditions
                               respect of non-  area in respect      shall apply
                               coal mine lease  of       non-coal    except:
B                                               mine lease           (i) for project
                              >150 ha of mining <150 ha of           or activity of
                              lease area in mining           lease   mining of
                              respect of coal area in respect        minor
                              mine lease        of coal lease        minerals of
                                                                     Category
C                             Asbestos mining                        ‘B2’(up to 25
                              irrespective of                        ha of mining
                              mining area                            lease area);

                                                                     (ii) River bed
                                                                     mining
                                                                     projects on
D                                                                    account of
                                                                     inter-state
                                                                     boundary.
             120. If the project was under Category ‘A’, environmental
      clearance is required from Ministry of Environment and Forests whereas
E     as per new notification dated 15.01.2016 for project ‘B’ environmental
      clearance is required from State Environmental Assessment Authority
      with respect of coal mining lease area of less than or equal to 150
      hectares. Now as per statutory regime brought in force by notification
      dated 15.01.2016 environmental clearance is required for a project of
      coal for mining of any extent of area. We have dealt with the notification
F
      dated 15.01.2016, since it was placed before us and submissions were
      made by learned counsel for the parties. The notification dated 15.01.2016
      being a statutory provision shall operate on its own force and no order of
      any Court is required for enforcement of notification dated 15.01.2016.
      We have dealt the matter only in view to clarify the statutory regime
G     pertaining to mining of coal.
            121. While implementing statutory regime for carrying mining
      operations in the Hills District of the State of Meghalaya, the State of
      Meghalaya has to ensure compliance of not only MMDR Act, 1957 but
      Mines Act, 1952 as well as Environment (Protection)Act, 1986.
H
         STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                              399
          DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

               Point No.4                                                              A
               122. We having held that for carrying out mining operations in
ns       privately owned and community owned land in Hills Districts of
apply    Meghalaya, obtaining a mining lease is a mandatory requirement for
         carrying out the mining, we have to examine the procedure for grant of
 oject   such mining lease and the authority/person, who is competent to grant         B
 ty of   such lease.
of
                123. Chapter IV of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 deals
 of      with grant of mining leases in respect of land in which the minerals vest
y        in the Government and Chapter V deals with procedure for obtaining a
to 25    prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of land in which the           C
ning     minerals vest in a person other than the Government. Chapter IV
a);      contains Rules 22 to 40 and Chapter V contains Rules 41 to 52 and the
r bed
         procedure and manner of applying for mining lease and grant of lease as
         contained in Chapter IV is not made applicable to the procedure as
on       given in Chapter V except that by virtue of Rule 45(i) certain conditions
of       of mining lease as contained in Rule 27 under Chapter IV are made             D
e        applicable for mining lease under Chapter V.
y.
                124. Rule 22(1) provides that an application for the grant of a
         mining lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the
         Government shall be made to the State Government in Form I through
         such officer or authority as the State Government may specify in this         E
         behalf. In Chapter V, there is no such rule, which requires making an
         application for lease to the State Government. There is a marked
         difference between the rules contained in Chapter IV and rules
         contained in Chapter V, few of which are relevant to notice for the
         purposes of this case. Rule 27(2) provides that a mining lease may            F
         contain such other conditions as the State Government may deem
         necessary in regard to the matters enumerated therein. Whereas Rule
         45(iii) provides that every mining lease may contain such other
         conditions, not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and these
         rules, as may be agreed upon between the parties. The above provision
         gives an indication that in the lease executed by Chapter V, the omission     G
         of word “State Government” in Rule 45(iii) is indicative of the fact that
         conditions, which are to be added has to be agreed upon between the
         parties. Most important rule to be noticed is Rule 45 in this context,
         which is to the following effect:-
                                                                                       H
400             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           “45.Conditions of mining lease : - Every mining lease shall be
            subject to the following conditions :-
            (i) the provisions of clauses (b) to (l) and (p) to (u) of sub-rule (1)
            of rule 27 shall apply to such leases with the modification that in
            clauses (c) and (d) for the words “State Government” the word
B           “lessor” shall be substituted ;
            (ia) mining operations shall be undertaken in accordance with the
            duly approved mining plan ;
            (ii) Omitted.;

C           (iii) the lease may contain such other conditions, not being
            inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and these rules, as may
            be agreed upon between the parties;
            (iv) if the lessee makes any default in payment of royalty as
            required by section 9 or commits a breach of any of the conditions
D           of the lease, the lessor shall give notice to the lessee requiring him
            to pay the royalty or remedy the breach, as the case may be,
            within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the notice and if
            the royalty is not paid or the breach is not remedied within such
            period, the lessor without prejudice to any proceeding that may be
            taken against the lessee determine the lease;
E
            (v) the lessee may determine the lease at any time by giving not
            less than one year’s notice in writing to lessor.”


             125. It is provided in Rule 45(i) that in clauses (c) and (d) of Rule
F     27 for the words “State Government” the word “lessor” shall be
      substituted, which gives a clear indication that State Government is not a
      lessor in a lease granted under Chapter V. Rule 27(5) and Rule 45(iv) is
      also relevant to notice. Rule 27(5) provides as follows:-
            “27(5) If the lessee makes any default in the payment of royalty
G           as required under section 9 or payment of dead rent as required
            under section 9A or commits a breach of any of the conditions
            specified in sub-rules (1), (2) and (3), except the condition referred
            to in clause (f) of sub-rule (1), the State Government shall give
            notice to the lessee requiring him to pay the royalty or dead rent

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                              401
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      or remedy the breach, as the case may be, within sixty days from        A
      the date of the receipt of the notice and if the royalty or dead rent
      is not paid or the breach is not remedied within the said period, the
      State Government may, without prejudice to any other proceedings
      that may be taken against him, determine the lease and forfeit the
      whole or part of the security deposit.”
                                                                              B
        126. Under Rule 27(5), if the lessee makes any default in the
payment of the royalty or the payment of dead rent or commits breach
of any of the conditions, the State Government shall give notice to the
lessee and determine the lease and forfeit the whole or part of the
security deposit. Whereas under rule 45(iv), the said power has been
vested in the lessor, which also indicates that it is lessor, who will        C
determine the lease and not the State Government. Other provisions of
Chapter V also support the above conclusion. Rule 47 provides for
submission of copy of licence or lease to the State Government within
three months of the grant of such licence or lease. Requirement of
submitting the licence or lease copy to the State Government indicate         D
that the State Government is not the authority, who is granting the lease,
otherwise there was no requirement of submitting a copy to the State
Government, if it was contemplated that State Government shall grant
the lease. Rule 63 in Chapter V provides that previous approval of the
Central Government to be obtained through State Government, which is
to the following effect:-                                                     E

      “63. Previous approval of the Central Government to be
      obtained through State Government:- Where in any case
      previous approval of the Central Government is required under
      the Act or these rules, the application for such approval shall be
      made to the Central Government through the State                        F
      Government .”
       127. Our above conclusion is reinforced when we look into the
statutory regime regarding grant of mining lease as per the Mineral
Concession Rules, which were inforce prior to enforcement of Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960. Prior to MMDR Act, 1957, earlier Central              G
Legislation which was governing the field was Mines and Minerals
(Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, under which rules have been
framed by Central Government namely, Mineral Concession Rules, 1949.

                                                                              H
402            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                                 [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     Rule 14 of Chapter III contemplated application for prospecting license.
      Chapter IV of the Rules, 1949 contained the heading “grant of Mining
      Lease in respect of land in which the minerals belong to Government”.
      The provisions of Rule 27 of Chapter IV provide for application for
      mining lease and there were several other rules under Chapter IV, which
      in substance have been retained in Chapter IV of Rules, 1960. Chapter
B
      V of Rules, 1949 contained the heading “grant of mineral concessions
      by private persons.” As noted above, the heading of Chapter V under
      Rules, 1960 is “procedure for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining
      lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in a person other than
      the Government.” Rule 47 of Chapter V of Rules, 1949 provide for
C     “conditions in a mining lease”, which are in substance similar as Rule 45
      of Rules, 1960. Rule 47(iv) of the Rules, 1949 was akin to present Rule
      45(i) of the Rules, 1960. Rule 47(iv) of the Rules, 1949 is as follows:-
            “47.Conditions of mining lease : - A mining lease granted by a
            private person shall be subject to the following condition:-
D                                     XXXXXXX
                (iv) the provisions of clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vii), (viii),
            (ix), (x), (xi0 and (xv) of sub-rule (1) of rule 41 shall apply to such
            lease with the modification that in clauses (ii), (iii), (iv) and (xv)
            for the words “State Government” the word “lessor” shall be
E           substituted;
                                   XXXXXXXXX”
             128. Thus, the Chapter V of Rules, 1949 dealt with the mining
      lease granted by private persons, i.e., the category where the minerals
F     were not owned by the Government but was owned by private persons.
      Chapter V of the Rules, 1960 contains substantially similar provisions.
      Thus, Chapter V of Rules, 1960 has to be treated to be dealing with
      minerals owned by private owners. The earlier statutory regime, which
      was enforced as per Rules, 1949 made it amply clear that mineral
      concessions are to be granted by private persons also, which is in
G     substances retained in Chapter V of Rules, 1960. Thus, mining lease to
      be granted as per Chapter V of Rules, 1960 is mining lease by the owner
      of mineral and similar concept has to be borrowed and read in Chapter
      V as noted above. Absence of any procedure to make an application
      for mining lease to the State Government in Chapter V of the Rules,
      1960 and lessor being the private persons and not the State Government,
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                             403
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

clearly indicates that State Government is not to grant the lease in         A
respect of land of privately owned/community owned owners.
       129. Another reason for not providing any application to State
Government for grant of mining lease in respect of minerals, which vests
in the private owners and community owners is that; without consent or
willingness of private owners/community owners of minerals, no               B
authority is empowered to grant any mining lease with regard to
minerals, of which he is the owner, it is the owner of the minerals may
be private persons or community owners, who is entitled to grant lease
of minerals as per the provisions of Chapter V of Rules, 1960.
       130. We, thus, conclude that as per the statutory provisions          C
contained in Rules, 1960 especially Chapter V, a mining lease for
minerals, which belongs to a private owner or a community owner, it is
not the State Government, which is entitled to receive any application or
grant any mining lease,but it is the private owner or community owner,
who is entitled to grant a lease for mining minerals owned by them.
Issue No.4 is answered accordingly.                                          D

      Point No.5
       131. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing for
the State of Meghalaya has submitted that State of Meghalaya has no
control over the mining of the coal by owners of the minerals since it is    E
the owners, who have right to carry on mining, which has been
traditionally going on in the State of Meghalaya for last several decades.
To find out as to whether State of Meghalaya has any statutory control
over the mining operations in State of Meghalaya, which is going on for
last several decades, we have to examine the statutory provisions
governing the field.                                                         F
       132. We have already held that provisions of MMRD Act, 1957
and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 are applicable in the Hills Districts
of the State of Meghalaya. We, in the present case, are concerned with
the mining of coal, which is a major mineral as per the Act, 1957 and
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Rule 42 of Chapter V of the Rules,           G
1960 provides for restrictions on the grant of prospecting licence and
mining lease, which is to the following effect:-
      “42. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting licence and
      mining lease:- (1) No prospecting licence or mining lease shall
                                                                             H
404            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           be granted to any person unless he has filed an affidavit stating
            that he has–
              (i) filed up-to-date income tax returns;
              (ii) paid the income tax assessed on him, and
B             (iii) paid the income tax on the basis of self-assessment as
                    provided in the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961).
            (2) Except with the previous approval of the Central Government,
            no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted in respect
            of any mineral specified in the First Schedule to the Act.”
C           133. As per Rule 42(2), except with the previous approval of the
      Central Government, no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be
      granted in respect of any mineral specified in the First Schedule to the
      Act. Thus, previous approval of Central Government is mandatory
      before grant of mining lease of coal. Rule 63 provides that the approval
D     of the Central Government has to be obtained through the State
      Government. Thus, the State Government has to be aware that any
      previous approval of the Central Government for mining coal has been
      obtained or not. Thus, restriction being statutory and without any
      exception State Government cannot say that it has no role to play with
      regard to mining of coal. All applications for previous approval of
E     Central Government has to be routed through State Government. There
      are other rules in Chapter V itself, which provides for control of the
      State government in the mining of coal. Rule 50 empowers the
      provision for prohibition of working of mines by the State Government,
      which is to the following effect:-
F           “50. Prohibition of working of mines:- If the State Government
            has reason to believe that the grant or transfer of a prospecting
            licence or a mining lease or of any right, title or interest in such
            licence or lease is in contravention of any of the provisions of this
            chapter, the State Government may, after giving the parties an
            opportunity to represent their views and with the approval of the
G
            Central Government, direct the parties concerned not to undertake
            any prospecting or mining operations in the area to which the
            licence or lease relates.”
            134. The above rule empowers the State Government with the
      approval of the Central Government to direct the parties concerned not
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                              405
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

to undertake any mining operations, if it has reasons to believe that the     A
grant or transfer of mining lease is in contravention of any of the
provisions of Chapter V. Thus, when mining operations of coal are
being conducted without prior approval of Central Government, State is
not powerless to direct the parties not to undertake any prospective
mining operations in the area. The power given under Rule 50 is not
                                                                              B
only enabling power, but is a statutory obligation on the State to exercise
the power in the public interest. Rule 51 requires a mining lease to
furnish to the State Government such returns and statements as may be
prescribed. Rule 52 provides for penalty, which is to the following
effect:-
      “52. Penalty:- (1) If the holder of a prospecting licence or a          C
      mining lease or his transferee or assignee fails, without sufficient
      cause, to furnish the documents or information, or returns referred
      to in rule 46, rule 47, rule 48, or rule 51, or acts in any manner in
      contravention of rule 49 or rule 50, he shall be punishable with
      imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or fine            D
      which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.
      (2) If any person grants or transfers or obtains a prospecting
      licence or mining lease or any right, title or interest therein, in
      contravention of any of the provisions of this chapter, he shall be
      punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or
                                                                              E
      fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or both.”
       135. Rule 52 gives the State Government ample power to
prosecute and punish mining leases or his transferees or assignees on
violation of the rules or contravention of any of the provisions of
Chapter V, which is ample power to the State to ensure that the Act is
faithfully followed.                                                          F
      136. The State was advised by the Comptroller and Auditor
General of India in its report ended 31st March, 2013 in para 4.5.1 that to
regulate mining by following Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957.Para 7.5.8 of the same report has made the
following as recommendation No.1:                                             G
      “Recommendation No.1: The M&G Department should take
      necessary measures to regulate mining in the State in accordance
      with the provisions of the MMDR Act and Rules thereunder.”
        137. The State is thus well aware of its statutory obligation which
is reflected in Mining Policy of 2012 and Draft Guidelines, 2015 but still    H
406            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     before this Court their contention that no mining lease is to be obtained
      for privately owned/community owned land in Hills District of State of
      Meghalaya is unacceptable and not in a good spirit.Our country being
      governed by the Constitution of India all the States are to implement
      Parliamentary Acts in true spirit and in the present case the State having
      been advised time and again by Comptroller and Auditor General and
B
      being well aware of its statutory obligation as noticed above it comes ill
      from the State to contend before this Court that there is no requirement
      of mining lease for winning the minerals. The above stand of the State
      taken before this Court gives the impression that instead of
      implementing the Parliamentary enactment and regulatory regime for
C     mineral regulation some vested interests wants to continue the illegal
      regime of illegal mining to the benefit of the few persons which is
      unacceptable and condemnable. We, thus, conclude that the State of
      Meghalaya has jurisdiction and power to ensure that no mining of coal
      should take place except when a mining lease granted under Mineral
      Concession Rules, 1960, Chapter V, as discussed above.
D
            Point No.6
             138. One more point which needs to be considered is as to whether
      power to allot land for mining purpose is vested in Autonomous District
      Council? The submission on behalf of one of the Autonomous District
E     Council which is the appellant before us as well as on behalf of State of
      Meghalaya is that Autonomous District Council being constitutional
      authority constituted under Schedule VI of the Constitution has legisla-
      tive and administrative power. Reference to various legislation framed
      by Autonomous District Council which received the assent of the
      Governor has also been relied on. Para 3 of Schedule VI enumerates
F     the power of District Council and regional council to make laws which
      we have extracted above.
             139. Certain legislation framed by District Council has also been
      referred namely the Khasi Hills District (Trading by Non Tribals)
      Regulation, 1954, the United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous
G     District(Management and Control of Forest) Rules, 1960. The Khasi
      Hills Autonomous District (Trading by Non Tribals) Rules, 1959, all
      framed in exercise of power under para 3 of Sixth Schedule. The power
      to make law entrusted to Autonomous District Council under para 3 of
      Schedule VI is power to make law referable to List 2 and List 3 of the
H     Seventh Schedule. We have already noticed above that with regard to
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                                  407
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

regulation and development of mineral, the Union has made declaration             A
by Section 2 of 1957 Act and the power of the State Legislature is
denuded in that respect. The logical corollary of the above principle is
that power of Autonomous District Council shall also be denuded in so
far as regulation and development of minerals to the extent which is
covered by 1957 Act. We may refer to one Rule 4 of United Khasi
                                                                                  B
Jaintia Hills District (Trading by non Tribals) Rules,1959, which
contemplates form of licence and one of the licence referred to is under
Rule 4 is licence in Form E. Rule 4 is as follows:
      “4. Form of License.-
      ....                                                                        C
      (5) License in form ‘E’ shall be issued for the mining of minerals
      and the sale or purchase of minerals accruing from the autonomous
      district and for the import of minerals into the autonomous district
      for sale therein as specified in Part ‘E’ of the First Schedule on
      payment of prescribed license fee subject to the conditions specified       D
      in the license..
       . . .     .“
       140. It is relevant to notice that the United Khasi Jaintia Hills
District (Trading by Non-Tribal) Rules, 1959 has been repealed insofar
as Jaintia Hills Districts are concerned by the Jaintia Hills Autonomous          E
District (Trading by Non-Tribal) Regulation Act, 2011, Section 18. Rules,
1959 is still in force in Khasi Hills Autonomous Districts, since, no other
regulations have been placed before us repealing the Rules, 1959. In
Regulations, 2011, one aspect needs to be noted in Section 2, which is
definition clause.By clause (viii), “trade” has been defined, which is to         F
the following effect:-
      “(viii) “Trade” means any trade involving buying and selling or business
      for profit and includes exchange of goods or commodities or business
      or import, export and transport of goods/commodities or entry of goods
      into market for sale or trade and business such as construction works
                                                                                  G
      or other work rendered by the contractor or his agent and it also
      includes person and persons engaged by such contractor or agent or
      any other profession or vocation such as barber, cobbler, tailoring,
      cattle rearing (which include piggery, goatary, poultry) milk and dairy
      products, automobiles making or repairing, electrician, furniture makers,
                                                                                  H
408            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           pharmacist, physician, transport and any other similar vocation or
            profession and the term “trade” and “trading” shall be construed
            accordingly.”
             141. The grant of licenses contemplated by Regulations are only
      with respect to the “trade” as defined in 2(viii). The entire Regulations
B     do not refer to any kind of trade in mining of coal or mining operations.
      Thus, the Regulations, 2011 have nothing to do with the mining of coal.
             142. Constitutional provisions of Schedule VI are also relevant to
      be noticed. Paragraph 9 of the Schedule VI refers to Licences or leases
      for the purpose of prospecting for, or extraction of, minerals. Para 9 is
C     as follows: -
            “9. Licences or leases for the purpose of prospecting for, or
            extraction of, minerals. -
            (1) Such share of the royalties accruing each year from
            licences or leases for the purpose of prospecting for, or the
D           extraction of, minerals granted by [the Government of the
            State] in respect of any area within an autonomous district as
            may be agreed upon between [the Government of the State]
            and the District Court of such district shall be made over to
            that District Council.
E           (2) If any dispute arises as to the share of such royalties to be
            made over to a District Council, it shall be referred to the
            Governor for determination and the amount determined by
            the Governor in his discretion shall be deemed to be the
            amount payable under sub-paragraph(1) of this paragraph
F           to the District Council and the decision of the Governor shall
            be final.”
             143. Para 9(1) confines to the licences or leases of minerals
      granted by government of the State. Schedule VI which constitute the
      District Councils and Regional Councils enumerates their powers. Para
      9 refers to licences or leases for extraction of minerals granted by the
G
      Government of the State. Para 9 only deals with share of the royalties to
      District Councils as agreed upon between the Government of the State
      and the District Councils. Further paragraph 12(A)(a) itself
      contemplates that any law made by District Council or Regional Council
      which is repugnant to any law of the State shall be void. Thus, the status
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                             409
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

of law made by District Council or Regional councils has to give way to      A
the law made by the State. There can be no doubt that District Council
and Regional Council cannot make any law which may be repugnant to
the provisions of the Parliamentary Act.
      144. We, thus, are of the view that District Council does not have
any power to make any law with regard to grant of mining lease. The          B
mining leases for winning the major minerals has to be granted in
accordance with 1957 Act and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
      POINT NOS. 7 & 8
      145. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu versus M/s Hind Stone
and others,1981 (2) SCC 205, speaking through Chinnappa Reddy,J.,            C
has made following weighty observations: -
      “6. Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other resources
      constitute a Nation’s natural wealth. These resources are not
      to be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation.
      Every generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations             D
      to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation
      in the best possible way. It is in the interest of mankind. It is in
      the interest of the nation. It is recognised by Parliament.
      Parliament has declared that it is expedient in the public
      interest that the Union should take under its control the              E
      regulation of mines and the development of minerals. It has
      enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and
      Development) Act, 1957.....”
       146. No one can dispute the underlying object in the above
observations of this Court. The use of natural resources also plays          F
major role in carrying out development. A fine balance has to be
maintained in utilisation of natural resources and its conservation and
preservation. One cannot be sacrificed for the interest of other. The
concept of Sustainable Development has been evolved and is being
pursued. In this context, reference be made to the three-Judge Bench
judgment of this Court in Lafarge Umiam Mining (pvt.) Ltd. Versus            G
Union of India & Others, 2011(7) SCC 338. In para 75, following
legal position was noticed: -
      “75. Universal human dependence on the use of environmental
      resources for the most basic needs renders it impossible to refrain
                                                                             H
410            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           from altering the environment. As a result, environmental conflicts
            are ineradicable and environmental protection is always a matter
            of degree, inescapably requiring choices as to the appropriate level
            of environmental protection and the risks which are to be
            regulated. This aspect is recognised by the concepts of “sustainable
            development”. It is equally well settled by the decision of this
B
            Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India that
            environment has different facets and care of the environment is
            an ongoing process. These concepts rule out the formulation of
            an across-the-board principle as it would depend on the facts of
            each case whether diversion in a given case should be permitted
C           or not, barring “no go” areas (whose identification would again
            depend on undertaking of due diligence exercise). In such cases,
            the margin of appreciation doctrine would apply.”
             147. Now we come back to the order of NGT dated 17.04.2014
      by which Tribunal prohibited the Rathole mining/illegal mining
D     throughout the State of Meghalaya. We have noticed above that in OA
      No.73 of 2014 wherein the above order was passed, sufficient
      materialswere brought on the record including experts report which proved
      that illegal coal mining in the State of Meghalaya is degrading the
      environment. The Court also noticed the report of Professor Dr.O.P.Singh
      which noticed that the Meghalaya Pollution Control Board in the year
E     1997 has submitted the report about the environmental pollution
      consequent to illegal mining.
             148. Learned Amicus Curiae has invited our attention to report of
      Comptroller and Auditor General for the year ending 31st March, 2013,
      where the Comptroller and Auditor General has noticed that due to Acid
F     Mine Drainage several locations of Lukha River were severally
      polluted. The report also referred to investigation by the Meghalaya State
      Pollution Control Board in November 2011 and noticed that no effective
      steps were taken to control AMD. Paragraph 7.5.23.1 of the report is as
      follows: -
G           “7.5.23.1 Pollution of rivers due to Acid Mine Drainage from
            coal mines
                  Based on media reports relating to pollution of Lukha
            river in Jaintia Hills, the Meghalaya State Pollution Board

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                              411
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       (MSPCB) conducted (November 2011) an investigation to                  A
       ascertain the water quality of the Lukha River and its feeding
       streams in Jaintia Hills District vis-a-vis a similar investigation
       carried out in February 2007. For this purpose, eight water
       and sediment samples were collected from the same sampling
       locations investigated during 2007. The findings are as
                                                                              B
       follows: -
  Station          pH             Table  1.6
                                    Iron(mg/I)            Sulphate(mg/I)
             BIS norms 6.5-8.5      BIS norms:0.3        BIS norms:200.0
             2007        2011      2007       2011      2007        2011
    St.1      3.0         2.7      3.6         6.2      254.0      566.5      C
    St.2      7.5         5.0      0.13        5.4      13.4       305.0
    St.3      6.8         7.3      0.17        0.4      62.0        8.69
    St.4      4.5         4.3      0.46        4.8      211.8      265.0
    St.5      6.3         5.0      0.32        1.2      188.8      200.0
    St.6      4.3         6.2     0.372       0.26      192.1      118.2
                                                                              D
    St.7      7.9         8.2      1.35       0.18      99.0       29.04
    St.8      7.8         8.1      0.3        0.28      101.5       45.6


                                                                              E
       The water quality characteristics in terms of pH, Sulphate
       and Iron concentrations with respect to Stations 1,2,4 and 5
       indicated that there is significant deterioration of water quality
       in comparison to that of the year 2007 the major cause of
       which was the AMD from coal mining in these areas.                     F
       The investigation made by the MSPCB further revealed that
       the river water on the entire stretch of the sampling locations
       was not suitable for drinking purpose......”
       149. Tribunal being satisfied from the materials on record has
issued the order dated 17.04.2014 which cannot be faulted in the facts        G
and materials which are on record in the present case. One more fact in
the above context need to be noticed i.e. after the order dated 17.04.2014,
several applicants including the appellants of Civil Appeal No.5272 of
2016 filed application for vacating the ban which was not acceded to by
                                                                              H
412             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     the Tribunal. Subsequently the NGT permitted transportation of coal till
      15.05.2016 and directed that after 15.05.2016, all coal within the State
      of Meghalaya shall vest in the State.
             150. The tribunal after considering all pleas and materials
      including reports submitted by the committees affirmed the order dated
B     17.04.2014 and refused to withdraw the ban. We do not find any error in
      the order of NGT reaffirming its ban order in the facts of the present
      case. But the question which has been raised by the appellant before
      this Court is that whether the complete ban as imposed by the NGT
      deserves to be vacated or modified in the interest of the State and tribals.
      The revenue earned by the State from coal mining plays substantial part
C     in the economy of the State. It is also amply demonstrated from the
      record that tribals are the owners of the land who carry on mining of
      coal in their land by which they earn their substantial livelihood.
             151. Though as discussed above the manner in which the mining
      is being carried out by the tribals cannot be approved which is clearly in
D     violation of statutory regime under 1957 Act and 1960 Rules but in event
      the mining is carried out by tribals or their assignees as per the
      provisions of 1957 Act and 1960 Rules, there can be no objections in
      carrying such mining under the regulation and control of State of
      Meghalaya. We thus clarify that in event mining operations are
E     undertaken by the tribals or other owners of hills districts of Meghalaya
      in accordance with mining lease obtained from the State of Meghalaya
      as per 1957 Act and Mineral Concessions Rule, 1960, the ban order
      dated 17.04.2014 of the tribunal shall not come in its way of carrying
      mining operations. The ban order is for the illegal coal mining which was
      rampant in the State of Meghalaya and the ban order cannot be
F     extended to valid and legal mining as per 1957 Act and 1960 Rules.
            Point Nos.9 and 10
             152. The appellants contend that the NGT has no jurisdiction to
      constitute any committee. The NGT vide its different orders has
G     constituted different committees for submitting reports for different
      purposes. The Constitution of which committees are sought to be
      challenged on the ground that the NGT has no jurisdiction to constitute a
      committee. Similarly, order of the Tribunal directing for constituting a


H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                               413
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

fund, namely, Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund            A
has been challenged on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
constitute any fund.
      153. What are the powers and jurisdiction of the Tribunal given
under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 has to be looked into to
consider the above submission? In so far as jurisdiction of the Tribunal is    B
concerned, we have already noticed Sections 14, 15, and 16 of the Act.
Section 19 of the Act deals with procedure and powers of the of the
Tribunal. Section 19 which is relevant for the present case is as follows:
      “19. Procedure and powers of Tribunal. –(1). The Tribunal
      shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of             C
      Civil Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the principles of natural
      justice.
      (2). Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Tribunal shall have
      power to regulate its own procedure.
      (3). The Tribunal shall also not be bound by the rules of evidence       D
      contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
      (4). The Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its
      functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil
      court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit,
      in respect of the following matters, namely:-                            E
          (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person
          and examining him on oath;
          (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
          (c) receiving evidence on affidavits;                                F
          (d) subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the
          Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requisitioning any public record or
          document or copy of such record or document from any office;
          (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or
          documents;                                                           G

          (f) reviewing its decision;
          (g) dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex parte;

                                                                               H
414             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A               (h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for
                default or any order passed by it ex parte;
                (i) pass an interim order (including granting an injunction or
                stay) after providing the parties concerned an opportunity to
                be heard, on any application made or appeal filed under this
B               Act;
                (j) pass an order requiring any person to cease and desist from
                committing or causing any violation of any enactment specified
                in Schedule I;
                (k) any other matter which may be prescribed.
C
            5. All proceedings before the Tribunal shall be deemed to be the
            judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193, 219 and
            228 for the purposes of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code and
            the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of
            section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
D           1973.”
             154. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 provides that Tribunal shall not
      be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure but
      shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. What sub-section (1)
      meant to convey is that Tribunal is not shackled with the procedure laid
E     down by the CPC for conducting its proceedings. Sub-section (2) of
      Section 19 empowers the Tribunal, powers to regulate its own
      procedure. Section 19(2) confers wide powers on the Tribunal in so far
      as its procedure is concerned. Section 19(4) vests some powers as are
      vested in civil court, while trying a suit, in respect of matters enumerated
F     therein. The use of expression “shall not be bound by the procedure laid
      down by the CPC” is not akin to saying that procedure as laid down by
      the CPC is in no manner relevant to the Tribunal. Further, Section 19(1)
      also does not mean that Tribunal cannot follow any procedure given in
      the CPC. One provision of CPC inserted by Act 104 of 1976 with effect
      from 01.02.1977 is Order XXVI, which is relevant for present inquiry.
G     Order XXVI Rule 10A provides as follows:
            “Order XXVI Rule 10A.Commission for scientific
            investigations”- (1) Where any question arising in a suit involves
            any scientific investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                                 415
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      Court, be conveniently conducted before the Court, the Court may,          A
      if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice so to
      do, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit, directing him
      to inquire into such question and report thereon to the Court.

      (2) The provisions of rule 10 of this Order shall, as far as may be,
                                                                                 B
      apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under this rule as
      they apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under rule 9.”
       155. Rule 10A provides that where any question arising in a suit
involves any scientific investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the
Court, be conveniently conducted before the Court, the Court may, if it
thinks necessary or expedient in the interests of justice so to do, issue a      C
commission to such person as it thinks fit, directing him to inquire into
such question and report thereon to the Court. Rule 10A is enabling
power to the courts to obtain report from such persons as it thinks fit
when any question involves with the scientific investigation. The powers
under Rule 10A which are to be exercised by the Court can very well be           D
used by the NGT to obtain reports by experts. The NGT as per the
statutory scheme of the NGT has to decide several complex questions
pertaining to pollution and environment. The scientific investigation and
report by experts are necessary requirement in appropriate cases to
come to correct conclusion to find out measures to remedy the pollution
and environment. We do not, thus, find any dearth of jurisdiction in the         E
NGT to appoint a committee to submit a report. We may further say that
while asking expert to give a report the NGT is not confined to the four
corners of Rule 10A rather its jurisdiction is not shackled by strict terms
of Order 26 Rule 10A s per Section 19(1) as noticed above.
       156. There is one more provision which throws considerable light          F
on the above. Under Section 35 of the NGT Act, 2010 Central
Government is empowered to make rule for carrying out the provisions
of the Act. Rules have been framed in exercise of powers under Section
35, namely, National Green Tribunal(Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011.
The said Rules have been framed in exercise of powers under Section              G
4(4) as well as Section 35. The Rules, 2011 are Rules also for practices
and procedure of the Tribunal. Rule 24 which is relevant for the present
case is as follows:


                                                                                 H
416            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           “Section 24. Order and directions in certain cases.- The
            Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be
            necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to prevent
            abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.”
            157. Rule 24 empowers the Tribunal to make such orders or give
B     such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its
      orderor to secure the ends of justice. Rule 24 gives wide powers to the
      Tribunal to secure the ends of justice. Rule 24 vests special power to
      Tribunal to pass orders and issue directions to secure ends of justice.
      Use of words ‘may’, ‘such orders’, ‘gives such directions’, ‘as may be
      necessary or expedient’, ‘to give effect to its orders’, ‘order to prevent
C     abuse of process’, are words which enable the Tribunal to pass orders
      and the above words confer wide discretion.
             158. Professor Justice G.P. Singh, in Principles of Statutory
      Interpretation, 14th Edition while dealing with enabling word says:

D           “Ordinarily, the words ‘May’ and ‘It shall be lawful’ are not words
            of compulsion. They are enabling words and they only confer
            capacity, power or authority and imply discretion. “They are both
            used in a statute to indicate that something may be done which
            prior to it could not be done”. The use of words ‘Shall have power”
            also connotes the same idea.”
E
             159. The enabling powers give to the Tribunal under Rule 24 is
      for purpose and object to decide the subjects which are to be examined,
      decided andan appropriate relief is to be granted by the Tribunal.Further,
      subjects contain wide range of subjects which require technical and
      scientific inputs. The Tribunal can pass such orders as it may think fit
F     necessary or expedient to secure ends of justice.
             160. The object for which said power is given is not far to seek.
      To fulfil objective of the NGT Act, 2010. NGT has to exercise a wide
      range of jurisdiction and has to possess wide range of powers to do
      justice in a given case. The power is given to exercise for the benefit of
G     those who have right for clean environment which right they have to
      establish before the Tribunal. The power given to the Tribunal is coupled
      with duty to exercise such powers for achieving the objects. In this
      regard reference is made to judgment of this Court in L. Hirday Narain
      vs. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly, 1970(2)SCC 355,where this Court
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                                417
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

was examining provision empowering authority to do something. This              A
Court laid down in paragraph 14:
      “14. The High Court observed that under Section 35 of the Indian
      Income Tax. Act, 1922, the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer
      is discretionary. If thereby it is intended that the Income Tax Officer
      has discretion to exercise or not to exercise the power to rectify,       B
      that view is in our judgment erroneous. Section 35 enacts that the
      Commissioner or Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Income
      Tax Officer may rectify any mistake apparent from the record. If
      a statute invests a public officer with authority to do an act in a
      specified set of circumstances, it is imperative upon him to exercise
      his authority in a manner appropriate to the case when a party            C
      interested and having a right to apply moves in that behalf and
      circumstances for exercise of authority are shown to exist. Even
      if the words used in the statute are prima facie enabling the Courts
      will readily infer a duty to exercise power which is invested in aid
      of enforcement of a right — public or private — of a citizen.”            D
       161. We, thus, are of the considered opinion that there is no lack
of jurisdiction in the NGT to direct for appointment of committee or to
obtain a report from a committee in given facts of the case.
       162. Now coming to the challenge to the Fund which has been
constituted by the Tribunal, namely, “Meghalaya Environment                     E
Protection and Restoration Fund”, it is useful to notice the observation
of the Tribunal in its order dated March 25, 2015 by which the said Fund
was created. The reasons for constitution of Fund are self-explanatory
which are to the following effect:
      “It is also undisputable that there has been huge environmental           F
      degradation and pollution of the waterbody in the State of
      Meghalaya, because of this illegal, unscientific mining. No one
      has even thought of restoration of the area in question, to bring to
      some 16 extent, if not completely, restoration of ecology and
      environment in question. Serious steps are required to be taken           G
      for cleaning polluted waterbodies and ensure that no further
      pollution is caused by this activity and the activity which would be
      permitted to be carried on finally including transportation of coal.
      On the basis of `Polluter Pay Principle’. We direct that the State

                                                                                H
418            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           Government shall in addition to the royalty payable to it, shall also
            collect 10% on the market value of the coal for every consignment.
            Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
            keeping in view the notifications of the Central Government dated
            10.05.2012 and that of the State Government dated 22.06.2012,
            we may notice that in the report of Comptroller and Auditor
B
            General of India for the period ending 31st March, 2013 under
            7.5.18 of Chapter 7 of which the invoice value of the coal has
            been taken Rs. 4850/- per metric tonne. Thus, we direct that the
            State Government shall in addition to the royalty payable to it, also
            collect 10% of the said market value of the coal per metric tonne
C           from each person. The amount so collected shall be deposited in
            the account to be titled as ‘Meghalaya Environment Protection
            and Restoration Fund’ to be maintained by the State under the
            direct control of the Chief Secretary of the State of Meghalaya.
             This amount shall only be used for restoration of environment and
D     for necessary remedial and preventive measures in regard to environment
      and matters related thereto”
             163. As noticed above the NGT could have passed any order or
      direction to secure ends of justice which power especially conferred by
      Rule 24 as noticed above,direction to constitute Fund is thus also saved
E     under such power.
            Point No.11
            164. In respect of constitution of committee by the Tribunal there
      are two other limbs of submission; that,(1) NGT by constituting
      committees has delegated essential judicial power to the committee; (2)
F     the Constitution of committees encroaches the constitutional scheme of
      administration of Tribal areas under Article 244(2) read with Sixth
      Schedule of the Constitution.
              165. The Tribunal vide its various directions has asked for reports
      from State officials and the committees. The various instances where
G     the NGT directed for report or investigation and submission of report by
      committees were with the object of ensuring the implementation of the
      orders passed by it and to decide the environmental issues raised before
      it. In no manner constitution of committee can be said to be delegation
      of essential judicial powers of the NGT to the committee.
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                              419
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       166. Now, we come to the Katakey committee which was                   A
constituted by the Tribunal on 31.08.2018. In paragraphs 14 and 15, the
Tribunal while directing for constitution of committee headed by Justice
B.P. Katakey directed:
      “14. Only last question which remains is of restoration of the
      environment and rehabilitation of the victims for which funds are       B
      available. We are of the view that for this task, it will appropriate
      that we constitute an independent Committee. This Committee
      will be headed by Justice B.P. Katoki, Former Judge of the
      Guwahati 8 Item Nos. 06 to 10 August 31, 2018 R High Court
      with representatives from Central Pollution Control Board and
      Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad.                                        C

      15. The Committee will take the following steps:
      · Take stock of all actions taken so far in this regard.
      · Prepare time bound action plan to deal with the issue and ensure
      its implementation.”                                                    D
       167. The Constitution of the committee and its functions entrusted
were with the object to implement the orders passed by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has already directed for preparing a scheme for the
restoration of the environment and ecology. The environment and
ecology restoration plan was submitted before the Tribunal along with         E
the affidavit dated 03.10.2017 as has been noticed in the order dated
02.01.2018 of the NGT. In the constitution of Katakey committee, thus,
it cannot be said that essential judicial functions were delegated to the
committee by the Tribunal. For the restoration of environment NGT vide
its order dated 31.08.2018 has directed the committee to submit its           F
action plan and reports by e-mail. The Tribunal, thus, had kept complete
control on all steps which were required to be taken by the committee
and issued directions from time to time. We, thus, do not accept the
submission of the appellant that the essential judicial powers of the NGT
had been delegated to the committee. Looking to the enormous work of
restoration of environment which has to be supervised on the spot the         G
committee was constituted. We, however, observe that the State is
always at liberty to obtain particular direction if aggrieved by any act of
the committee. The matter being pending before the Tribunal of acts of
the committee are under direct control of the Tribunal and if the
                                                                              H
420             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     committee oversteps in any direction the same can very well be
      corrected by the Tribunal on the matter being brought before it.
             168. Now, we come to the second limb, that the constitution of
      the committee encroaches the constitutional scheme of the Tribal areas.
      We revert back to the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. Para 3 of the
B     Sixth Schedule enumerates the powers of the District Council and
      Regional Council to make laws.The powers of the District and Regional
      Councils are enumerated under paragraph 3. In the directions of the
      Tribunal to constitute committee for transportation of extracted minerals
      or for preparing time bound action to deal with the restoration of
      environment and to ensure its implementation, there is no interference in
C     the powers of the District or Regional Councils. Action plan for
      restoration of environment is consequence of Tribunal finding out that
      an unregulated coal mining has damaged environment and has caused
      the pollution including water pollution. It is not case of the appellant that
      District and Regional Councils have framed any law for restoration of
D     environment which is being breached by the committee or its acts. The
      District and Regional Councils are free to exercise all their powers and
      the committee constituted by the Tribunal is only concerned with the
      Environmental degradation and illegal coal mining. The committees’
      report or direction of the Tribunal in no manner encroaches upon the
      administration of Tribal areas by the District and Regional Councils.
E
            Point No.12
            169. The NGT vide its order dated 04.01.2019 directed the State
      of Meghalaya to deposit an amount of Rs.100 Crores with the Central
      Pollution Control Board, which was to be spent for restoration of
F     environment. The State of Meghalaya aggrieved by above direction has
      filed Civil Appeal No.2968 of 2019. We have already noticed the
      submission of Shri Amrendra Sharan, Senior Advocate.
            170. Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned Amicus Curiae has refuted the
      submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is
G     submitted that despite the specific ban on coal mining by order dated
      17.04.2014 in the entire State, illegal coal mining had been going on,
      which was proved from the reports and pictures referred to in the
      report. The State is responsible and constitutionally obligated to
      provide clean environment to every citizen. They having entirely failed
      to stop the illegal mining, which is cause of degradation of pollution
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                              421
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

including pollution of river streams, the Tribunal has rightly directed the   A
State of Meghalaya to deposit Rs.100 Crores. Shri Gonsalves submits
that in spite of State Pollution Control Board as well as Comptroller
Auditor General having invited the attention of the State of Meghalaya
towards serious pollution especially in the river water, no steps were
taken by the State of Meghalaya. It is further submitted that restoration
                                                                              B
of environment requires carrying out various projects and unless the
State provides for necessary fund and finances, the restoration of dam-
aged environment cannot be undertaken. It is further submitted that
State had collected huge fund Rs.4,33,07,26,731/-, which amount had
not been spent by the State, although, it was required to take steps for
restoration of environment.                                                   C
       171. The NGT vide its order dated 31.08.2018 constituted a com-
mittee headed by Justice B.P. Katakey, Former Judge of Gauhati High
Court with representatives from Central Pollution Control Board and
Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad. By subsequent order dated 19.09.2018
issued by the Tribunal, additional Chief Secretary to Government of           D
Meghalaya was made the Member Secretary/Coordinator for proper
functioning of the committee. The committee visited different sites,
held various meetings, various presentations were also made before the
committee by Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board and other bod-
ies namely North Eastern Centre for Technology Application and Reach,
North Eastern Space Application Centre. In Para 12(g), following has          E
been stated by the committee:-
      “12(g) Presentation was also made by the Meghalaya State
      Pollution Control Board on the coal mine activities and its impact
      on the land used, water quality, air quality, ecology as well as
      socio-economic impact. The Committee, on the basis of the said          F
      presentation, found the following:-
        (i) Continuation of coal mine activities for a long time in an
            unplanned and unscientific manner as well as without any
            pollution control measures.
                                                                              G
        (ii) Such mining activities are generating huge ecological
             disturbances and negative environmental impacts.
        (iii) Water in rivers and streams in the mining areas have
              become highly acidic in nature with pH value of 2.7 since
              1991-92 due to presence of high percentage of sulphur in
                                                                              H
422           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A                 coal, which reacts after mixing with oxygen in air and
                  water giving rise to AMD problem. No difference of pH
                  level of water in rivers, streams and mine drains have been
                  noticed during monsoon.
             (iv) pH level of water in springs, taps water and hand pumps
B                 also found to be less than permissible limit of drinking
                  water standards.
             (v) Absence of biological life in the water bodies.
             (vi) Ambient air quality of the coal mining areas and coal
                 storage areas exceeds the National Ambient Air Quality
C                Standards on few occasions.
             (vii) Requirement of urgent steps to be taken to generate social
                  awareness about the adverse environmental impacts and
                  the health hazards associated with unplanned and
                  unscientific coal mining activities.
D
            172. Action plans for restoration of environment were also
      discussed and finalised.
             173. On detailed discussion on Issue No.(A), committee with
      details including photographs and maps observed following:-
E          “(vi) From the aforesaid materials available before the Committee,
           it is, therefore, evident that the coal mining activities, which includes
           the extraction of coal and transportation, is going on in the State
           of Meghalaya, at least in East Jaintia Hills District, where such
           mining activities are most, despite the ban imposed by the Hon’ble
           NGT vide its order dated 17.04.2014. Very sincere and honest
F
           efforts are required on the part of the State Government to stop
           the mining activities, which are going on. Such mining activities
           are going on without adopting any safety measures for the workers
           and without caring for adverse environmental affect. A sincere
           desire to stop such illegal mining activities is also necessary on
G          the part of the State and Central Government agencies for
           implementation and monitoring of health, safety and environmental
           regulations.
           (vii) The result of ongoing un-abetted illegal mining, despite the
           ban imposed by the NGT, is the very tragic incident occurred
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                              423
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      very recently on 13.12.2018 in a coal mine in Ksan Village near         A
      Lytein River under Saipung Police Station in East Jaintia Hills
      District, where 15(fifteen) coal mine workers are reported trapped,
      while they were working in the mine. Unfortunately, none of them
      so far could be rescued. For the said incident, Saipung Police
      Station Case No.15(12)/2018 under Section 188/304A/34 IPC read
                                                                              B
      with Section 3(2)(d) of PDPP Act and Section 21(1) of MM(R&D)
      Act against the coal mine owner has been registered. A Magisterial
      enquiry to find out the facts and circumstances leading to the said
      incident, has also been directed.”
       174. The fact that on 13.12.2018, 15 coal mine workers were
trapped in an ongoing coal mining operation, who all have been reported       C
to be dead itself proves beyond any shade of doubt that order dated
17.04.2014 banningmining in the entire State of Meghalaya was neither
been enforced nor serious endeavours were taken by the State or its
authorities to save the environmental pollution. With regard to
restoration of the environment and restoration of the victims, action plans   D
were formulated by the committee.
      175. The first submission raised by Shri Amrendra Sharan
challenging the order is violation of principles of natural justice. The
report dated 31.12.2018 of the committee itself in issue No. f(iv)
noticed: -                                                                    E
      “Website has been opened and all the proceedings of the
      Committee are uploaded in the said website.”
      176. The report being placed on website on 31.12.2018 itself, there
is no question of serving copy of the report of the committee to the
Stakeholders. It is further relevant to notice that Additional Chief          F
Secretary of the Government of Meghalaya was himself the Member
Secretary and Coordinator of the committee under the orders of the
Tribunal dated 19.09.2018. All proceedings of the committee, its
meetings and minutes, were with the knowledge and participation of the
coordinator/ Additional Chief Secretary of the State of Meghalaya.            G
       177. A perusal of the order dated 04.01.2019, which is impugned
in the appeal indicates that although learned counsel for the State of
Meghalaya was present and was heard but no kind of objection was
raised regarding acceptability of the report. The report obtained by the
                                                                              H
424            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     NGT through the committee was to take effective steps towards
      protection of environmental pollution and for restoration of damaged
      environment. Pollution of the various rivers and streams and steps for
      treating the acidic water was urgently required. Several presentations
      before the committee were also made and different steps regarding
      restoration of environment were to be taken as noticed and indicated in
B
      the report of the committee. As noticed above, the NGT vide its order
      dated 25.03.2015 constituted a fund namely ‘Meghalaya Environment
      Protection and Restoration Fund’ to be maintained by the State under
      the direct control of the Chief Secretary of the State of Meghalaya. It is
      reiterated in the report of the committee that an amount of Rs.433 Crores
C     is already lying in the said fund, which has not been spent.
             178. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much emphasis
      that there had been no calculation of the extent of damage nor Tribunal
      could have arrived at on the amount of damages to the extent of Rs.100
      Crores, which was directed to be deposited by the State of Meghalaya
D     with the Central Pollution Control Board.
             179. We are of the view that the amount, which has been directed
      by NGT to be deposited by State of Meghalaya is neither a penalty nor
      a fine imposed on the State. The amount has been directed to be
      deposited for carrying out steps regarding restoration of environment.
E     We further agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the
      appellant that the said amount cannot be said to be amount of damages
      to be paid by the State. We further find force in the submission of the
      learned counsel for the appellant that State of Meghalaya has very
      limited source of revenue and putting an extra burden on the State of
      Meghalaya to make payment of Rs.100 Crores from its own financial
F     resources and budgetary amount may cause great hardship to the State
      of Meghalaya. Ends of justice be served in modifying the direction of
      NGT dated 04.01.2019 to the extent that State is permitted to transfer
      an amount of Rs.100 Crores from the amount lying in the MEPRF to the
      Central Pollution Control Board. The Central Pollution Control Board
G     as directed by the Tribunal (NGT) shall utilise the aforesaid amount of
      Rs.100 Crores only for restoration of the environment. The appeal is
      thus, partly allowed to the above extent.
            Point No.13
            180. Vide order dated 31.03.2016, the NGT had permitted
H     transportation of coal till 15.5.2016 under terms and conditions as
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                             425
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

enumerated therein. The order dated 31.3.2016 further contemplated           A
that no coal in any form whatsoever shall be permitted to be transported
after 15.05.2016 on which date the entire remaining coal shall vest in the
State Government and shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
       181. The main grievance of the appellant is that NGT could not
have directed for vesting of coal in the State. The submission is that       B
members of the appellant-association have proprietary rights in the coal
with which they could not be divested by the Tribunal. We have already
held that private owners of the land are also owners of the minerals and
the minerals belong to the owners/Tribals. We have also found that coal
mining was illegally going on unregulated by any statutory law in the
Hills District of State of Meghalaya without there being any mining lease.   C
The entire mining was, thus, is clear in contravention of Section 4(1) of
Act, 1957 which attracted penalties under Section 21. Section 21 of the
Act is as follows:
      “21. Penalties.¯(1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-
      section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable       D
      with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and
      with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the
      area.
      (2) Any rule made under any provision of this Act may provide
      that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with                E
      imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with
      fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both, and in the
      case of a continuing contravention, with additional fine which may
      extend to fifty thousand rupees for every day during which such
      contravention continues after conviction for the first such            F
      contravention.
      (3) Where any person trespasses into any land in contravention
      of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4, such trespasser
      may be served with an order of eviction by the State Government
      or any authority authorised in this behalf by that Government and      G
      the State Government or such authorised authority may, if
      necessary, obtain the help of the police to evict the trespasser
      from the land.
      (4) Whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised
      or transported, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any
                                                                             H
426            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           land, and, for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or
            any other thing, such mineral tool, equipment, vehicle or any other
            thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially
            empowered in this behalf. (4A) Any mineral, tool, equipment,
            vehicle or any other thing seized under sub-section (4), shall be
            liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take
B
            cognizance of the offence under sub-section (1) and shall be
            disposed of in accordance with the directions of such court.
            (5) Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority,
            any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover
            from such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral
C           has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also
            recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may
            be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such
            person without any lawful authority.
            (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
D           Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence under sub-section (1)
            shall be cognizable.”
             182. The mining of coal in contravention of Section 4(1) invites
      penalties as enumerated in Section 21. The present is not a case where
      any kind of penalty has been imposed on the miners except that the
E     amount of royalty as payable on mining of coal is being collected by the
      State as penalty. It is true that the State Government has power under
      Section 21(5) to recover from such person the minerals so raised, or,
      where such material has already been disposed of, the price thereof,
      and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case
F     may be, but it is for the State Government to exercise its power under
      Section 21(5) by way of penalty. The NGT has not given any reason as
      to how coal shall automatically vest in the State. The right of recovery
      of mineral as contemplated under Section 21(5) does not amount to say
      that proprietary right of owner of the minerals is lost rather State under
      Section 21(5) exercises its power to recover the mineral which has been
G     raised without any lawful authority. We, thus, are of the view that coal
      extracted and lying in open after 15.05.2016 was not automatically vested
      in the State and the owner of the coal or the person who has mined the
      coal shall have the proprietary right in the mineral which shall not be
      lost.
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                             427
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      Point No.14                                                            A
        183. Several I.A.s have been filed by different applicants seeking
direction to transport already extracted coal lying at different places in
hills districts of State of Meghalaya. Different applicants may claim to
different quantities of coal situate at different places. By our order
dated 10.05.2019, we have already permitted transportation of balance        B
coal to the extent of 75050 MTs for which challans were already issued
after the order of this Court dated 04.12.2018. The above quantity of
said 75050 MTs. was balance quantity out of 176655 Mts., for
transportation of which order was passed by this Court on 04.12.2018.
In addition to the aforesaid quantity, claim with regard to different
quantities by different applicants has been laid. It is not necessary for    C
the purpose of the present case to notice different quantities and claims
of different persons for transportation. After the order of the NGT
dated 31.08.2018, the State of Meghalaya has constituted committees to
assist the Commissioner and Secretary, Mining and Geology to prepare
a separate inventory with regard to coal not so far recorded in the          D
inventory available with the NGT. In pursuance of said direction, as
contained in paragraph No.13 of the order, steps were taken and various
committees had made certain assessments with regard to different
quantities of coal lying in four HillsDistricts of State of Meghalaya.
Katakey committee Report dated 31.12.2018 has in chart noticed the
different quantities as was informed by letter dated 13.11.2018 to           E
Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya. While
dealing with issue No.3, in paragraph Nos.(iii), (iv) and (v), following
has been stated:-
      “(iii) The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of
      Meghalaya, Mining & Geology Department, in the ATR submitted           F
      on 13.11.2018 has stated about the availability of 176655 MTs of
      already inventorised coal for transportation, which has also been
      reflected in the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Hon’ble
      Supreme Court. The Commissioner & Secretary, in the said
      ATR, has also stated that 23,25,663.54 MTs of coal, other              G
      than those inventorized coal, remained un-inventorized and
      available for transportation, district-wise break up of which is as
      follows:-


                                                                             H
428         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A      “REPORT ON EXTRACTED COAL REFLECTED AS
          UN-ASSESSED OR NIL IN THE INVENTORY
                   APPROVED BY NGT

      Sl. "ame           of Declared Quantity in MT   Assessed Quantity in
      "o. District                                    MT
B     1.  East      Jaintia        15,46,687.00           13,22,379.00
          Hills District
      2.  West       Khasi          7,29,757.00           7,78,297.99
          Hills District
      3.  South-West                1,25,600.63           2,14,145.55
          Khasi       Hills
C         District
      4.  South       Garo           12,834.00             10,841.00
          Hills District
                     Total        24,14,878.63           23,25,663.54”

         (iv) From the aforesaid District wise break up of extracted coal,
         which was un-inventorised, it appears that the quantity of such
D        coal was highest in East Jaintia Hills District, where the Deputy
         Commissioner, as noticed above, has admitted ongoing coal mining
         activities despite the ban imposed by the Hon’ble NGT vide order
         dated 17.04.2014. The stand of the Government that the quantity
         of coal, as reflected in the aforesaid chart were mined prior to the
E        said ban, appears to be not acceptable, in view of the aforesaid
         admission of the Deputy Commissioner and also what the
         Committee has noticed during its field visit on 12.11.2018. It seems
         that there is an attempt to show the freshly mined coal, i.e. the
         coal mined after the ban imposed by the Hon’ble NGT, as the
         coal left out from the assessment and remained un-inventorised
F        though mined prior to the said ban. The Committee also apprehends
         that such freshly mined coal may be transported taking advantage
         of the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
         Court.
         (v) The Hon’ble NGT vide its order dated 31.08.2018 given the
G        responsibility of going through the said issue to the Secretary of
         Mining, State of Meghalaya in the first instance and to be
         cross-checked by the Joint Team of representatives of the Central
         Pollution Control Board and India School of Mines, Dhanbad. As
         reported, no such cross-check has so far been made.”
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                                429
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

        184. The State of Meghalaya has filed additional affidavit dated        A
06.04.2019 of Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of
Meghalaya, Mining and Geology Department, where details of
assessments made by committees appointed by the State of Meghalaya
has been brought on the record. In the affidavit, it has also been stated
that a technical committee was also constituted to perform the
                                                                                B
verification of the assessments made by the Deputy Commissioners of
respective districts. As per the affidavit, assessment of extracted coal
stocks in above four districts is 32,56,715 MTs whereas in the report
submitted by Katakey committee, the said figure in the above four
districts is 23,25,663.54 MTs. Technical committee submitted their
report, which have been brought on the record alongwith the Additional          C
Affidavit verifying the assessed quantities. In the affidavit of the
Commissioner and Secretary, it has also been sated that the technical
committees have submitted that it is difficult to define with certainty that
which coal was mined prior to ban in 2014 and mined after 2014. From
the above it is clear that the State Government itself has come with a
                                                                                D
case that huge quantity of coal in the four hills districts, which has been
extracted is lying waiting for orders of transportation. Learned Amicus
Curiae and Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel have refuted the
claim made by the applicants as well as the State of Meghalaya. It is
submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that in fact State is not making any
effort to stop the illegal mining, in spite of the ban of 17.04.2014, illegal   E
mining of coal has been permitted and now such illegal mined coal has
also been assessed and State also supports the claim of transportation of
the applicants on the guise that coal lying in open is an environmental
hazard.
       185. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for            F
private respondents in C.A. No.5272 of 2016 has submitted that the
State auctioned coal on a meagre price, whereas market rate of the coal
is approximately Rs.10,000/- per MT. In the present case, we have
noticed that illegal coal mining is going on in spite of ban by NGT by its
order dated 17.04.2014. The Katakey committee report has also opined
that all the extracted coal lying in different districts is a coal, which has   G
been illegally mined after the imposition of ban by the order dated
17.04.2014. All coals being illegally mined, the State is fully entitled to
impose a penalty, i.e., to realise the royalty and the amount of MEPR
Fund. The coal being major mineral and useful for different industries
                                                                                H
430             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     and projects, appropriate disposal of extracted coal is also of a
      paramount importance.
             186. We accept the suggestion of learned Amicus Curiae that
      entire extracted coal lying at various places be directed to be taken over
      by Coal India Ltd, a Government of India unit, who may dispose of the
B     same as per its normal method of disposal and proceeds be distributed
      as per directions issued by this Court hereinafter. The NGT has already
      directed that for all extracted coal lying at different places, it is the State,
      which is the receiver-cum-custodian of the coal. The State having car-
      ried out the assessment of the coal lying in the aforesaid four districts
      including the details of the quantities and the details of owners being
C     available with it, it may ensure that the entire coal are handed over to the
      Coal India Ltd., as per the mode and manner to be formulated by Katakey
      Committee, in consultation with officers of the Coal India Ltd. and State
      of Meghalaya.
              187. The Katakey committee and its various members and
D     participants have done a commendable job in studying and examining
      various aspects of environment in the State of Meghalaya and several
      valuable suggestions have been given by the committee, which are also
      being implemented to mitigate the suffering of the citizens consequent to
      the illegal coal mined.
E             188. We direct that Commissioner and Secretary of the State in
      the Department of Mining and Geology alongwith the officers of Coal
      India Ltd. may deliberate with the Katakey committee to finalise a com-
      prehensive plan for transportation and handing over of the coal to Coal
      India Ltd. for disposal/auction as per rules of Coal India Ltd. Disposal/
F     auction by Coal India Ltd. shall be beneficial to both the owners of the
      mines as well as to the State of Meghalaya. Receiving fair value of the
      coal should be a concern of both the owners and State. It is for the Coal
      India Ltd. to decide as to venue, where they shall receive the coal, i.e.,
      either at any of its depot or any other place in State of Meghalaya and it
      is for the Coal India Ltd. to finalise the process of disposal and auction
G     of the coal. It goes without saying that it shall be the duty of the State of
      Meghalaya and its officers especially Deputy Commissioner of the area
      concerned to enter details of quantity of the coal, name of the owner
      and place from where it is collected. Coal India Ltd. shall also take
      steps to ensure weighment of the coal when it is received by it and since
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                               431
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

all consequent steps regarding disposal, price grade of the coal shall be      A
determined as per the weight of the coal received by the Coal India Ltd.
from different places. The expenses of transportation shall be borne by
the State of Meghalaya, Coal India Ltd. or by both, which expenses
shall be deductible from the price received of the coal. The State of
Meghalaya shall be entitled to royalty and payment towards MERP Fund
                                                                               B
as well as taxes out of the price of the coal. After deduction of cost of
transportation, the payment of royalty and payment to MERP fund and
taxes plus 10% of value of the coal to be given to Coal India Ltd. for the
above exercise,balance amount shall be disbursed to the owner of the
coal towards its price, which disbursement shall be the responsibility of
the State. The Coal India Ltd. after taking its expenses for                   C
transportation with 10% of price of the coal shall remit the entire amount
to the State and it is for the State after deducting the royalty and
payment to the MERP Fund and taxes to pay back the balance of the
amount to the owner.
       189. Another aspect of the matter is also to be noticed. The coal,      D
which has been seized by the State in illegal transportation or illegal
mining for which different cases have been registered by the State, is
not to be dealt with as directed above. The said seized coal shall be
dealt by the State in accordance with Section 21 of the Act, 1957 and on
being satisfied, the State can take a decision to recover the entire
quantity of coal so illegally raised without lawful authority and the said     E
cases has to be separately dealt with in accordance with law.
      190. We, thus, are of the view that all I.A.s filed by different
applicants seeking order of transportation of the different quantities stand
disposed of in view of the directions as given above. Let the Katakey
committee in consultation with State of Meghalaya and officers of Coal         F
India Ltd. finalise appropriate mode and manner to affect the transport
and disposal of the coal in the above manner.
      Conclusions: -
      191. From the foregoing discussions we arrived at following              G
conclusions:-
      1)    The application O.A.No.73 of 2014 has clearly made out
            allegations which were sufficient for the Tribunal to
            exercise its jurisdiction as conferred by Section 14 of the
                                                                               H
432        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Both the component as
            appearing in sub-section 1 of Section 14 that is (i) substantial
            question relating to environment and (ii) such question arises
            out of the implementation of the enactments specified in
            Schedule I, were present.
B     2)    The allegations of the applicant of O.A.No.73 of 2014 of
            environmental degradation by illegal and unregulated coal
            mining were fully proved from materials on the record
            including the report of the experts, report of the Meghalaya
            State Pollution Control Board, the report of Katakey
            committee, which all proved environmental degradation of
C           water, air and surface.
      3)    The stand taken on behalf of the State of Meghalaya before
            this Court that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction cannot be
            approved. The State Government is under constitutional
            obligation to ensure clean environment to all its citizens. In
D           cases pertaining to environmental matter, the State has to
            act as facilitator and not as obstructionist.
      4) According to the land tenure system as applicable in the Hills
         Districts of State of Meghalaya, the most of the lands are
         either privately or community owned in which State does
E        not claim any right. The private owners of the land as well
         as community owners have both the surface right as well as
         sub-soil rights.
      5)       Para 12A sub-clause (b) of Sixth Schedule of the
            Constitution empowers that the President may, with respect
F           to any Act of Parliament, by notification, direct that it shall
            not apply to an autonomous district or an autonomous region
            in the State of Meghalaya, or shall apply to such district or
            region or any part thereof subject to such exceptions or
            modifications as he may specify in the notification. No
G           notification has been issued by the President under Section
            12A(b). There is nothing in Sixth Schedule of the
            Constitution which may indicate about the inapplicability of
            Act, 1957 with regard to the Hills Districts of State of
            Meghalaya.

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                         433
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

    6) There is nothing in Section 4(1) of 1957 Act to indicate that     A
        restriction contained in Section 4(1) does not apply with
        regard to privately owned/community owned land in Hills
        Districts of Meghalaya. Further, word ‘any area’ under
        Section 4(1) also has significance which does not have any
        exception. Further phrase “except under and in accordance
                                                                         B
        with terms and condition with a mining lease granted under
        the Act” are also significant which make the intent and
        purpose of prohibition clear and loud.
    7)    The statutory scheme delineated by Section 13(2)(f) and the
          Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960 clearly contemplate grant
          of mining lease, with regard to both the categories of land,   C
          i.e., land in which minerals vest in the Government, and the
          land in which minerals vest in a person other than the
          Government.
    8)    The Mines Act, 1952 contains various provisions regarding
          inspection of mining operation and management of mines.        D
          The provisions of The Mines Act, 1952 are mandatory to be
          followed before working a mine. The regulations namely Coal
          Mines Regulations, 2017 also contains several regulatory
          provisions which need to be followed while working a mine
          by a mining lease holder. The enforcement of Mines Act,        E
          1952 and the Regulations, 2017 have to be ensured by the
          State in the public interest.
    9) As per statutory regime brought in force by notification dated
        15.01.2016 issued under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,
        environmental clearance is required for a project of coal for    F
        mining of any extent of area. While implementing statutory
        regime for carrying mining operations in the Hills Districts
        of the State of Meghalaya, the State of Meghalaya has to
        ensure compliance of not only MMDR Act, 1957 but Mines
        Act, 1952 as well as Environment (Protection)Act, 1986.
                                                                         G
    10)    In Hill District of State of Meghalaya for carrying coal
          mining operations in privately owned/community owned land
          it is not the State Government which shall grant the mining


                                                                         H
434      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           lease under Chapter V of Rules, 1960, but it is the private
            owner/community owner of the land, who is also the owner
            of the mineral, who shall grant lease for mining of coal as
            per provisions of Chapter V of Rules, 1960 after obtaining
            previous approval of the Central Government through the
            State Government.
B
      11) The State of Meghalaya has ample power and jurisdiction
          under the Act, 1957 and Rules, 1960 to check, control and
          prohibit coal mining operations in Hill Districts of State of
          Meghalaya.
C     12) The Union having made declaration by Section 2 of 1957 Act
          taking under its control regulation and development of
          mineral, the power of Autonomous District Council to
          legislate on the subject shall also be denuded as that of the
          State Legislature.

D     13) In event the mining is carried out by a mining lease holder as
           per the provisions of Act, 1957 and Rules, 1960 with an
           approved mining plan there can be no objections in carrying
           of such mining operations under the regulation and control
           of the State of Meghalaya. We clarify that in event mining
           operations are undertaken in privately owned/community
E          owned land in Hills Districts of Meghalaya in accordance
           with mining lease with approved mining plan as per Act, 1957
           and Mineral Concessions Rule, 1960, the ban order dated
           17.04.2014 of the tribunal of the NGT shall not come in way
           of carrying mining operations.
F     14) Under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code, a
           Court can appoint commission for scientific investigation.
           The power which can be exercised by a Court under Order
           26 Rule 10A of CPC can very well be exercised by the NGT
           also. The NGT while asking expert to give a report is not
G          confined to the four corners of Rule 10A and its jurisdiction
           is not shackled by strict terms of Order 21 Rule 10A by
           virtue of 19(1) of the NGT Act.
      15)    Rule 24 of National Green Tribunal (Practice and
            Procedure) Rules, 2011 empowers the Tribunal to make such
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                           435
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

          orders or give such directions as may be necessary or            A
          expedient to give effect to its order or to secure the ends of
          justice. The power given to the Tribunal is coupled with duty
          to exercise such powers for achieving the objects. There is
          no lack of jurisdiction in NGT in directing for appointment of
          a committee and to obtain a report from a Committee.
                                                                           B
    16) The direction to constitute a fund namely “Meghalaya
        Environment Protection and Restoration Fund”, is also saved
        under the above power.
    17)    NGT by directing for constitution of committee has not
          delegated essential judicial functions. The Tribunal had kept    C
          complete control on all steps which were required to be taken
          by the committees and has issued directions from time to
          time. The State is always at liberty to obtain appropriate
          directions if aggrieved by any act of the committee. The
          matter being pending before the Tribunal all acts of the
          committee are under direct control of the Tribunal and if the    D
          committee oversteps in any direction the same can very well
          be corrected by the Tribunal on the matter being brought
          before it.
    18) NGT by issuing direction to constitute the committee for
        transportation of the extracting mineral, for preparing time       E
        bound action plan to deal with the restoration of
        environment and to ensure its implementation does not in
        any manner interfere with the powers of the District or
        Regional Councils. The District and Regional Councils are
        free to exercise all their powers and committee constituted        F
        by the Tribunal is only concerned with the Environmental
        degradation and illegal coal mining. The committees report
        or direction of the Tribunal in no manner encroaches upon
        the administration of Tribal areas by the District and
        Regional Councils.
                                                                           G
    19) The amount which has been directed by NGT to be deposited
         by State of Meghalaya is neither a penalty nor a fine
         imposed on the State of Meghalaya. We accept the
         submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that State

                                                                           H
436      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           of Meghalaya has very limited source of finances and
            putting an extra burden on the State of Meghalaya to make
            payment of Rs. 100 Crores from its own financial resources
            may cause great hardship to the State of Meghalaya. Ends
            of justice be served in modifying the direction of NGT dated
            04.01.2019 to the extent that State is permitted to transfer
B
            an amount of Rs. 100 Crores from the amount lying in the
            MEPRF to the Central Pollution Control Board. The Central
            Pollution Control Board as directed by the Tribunal shall
            utilize the aforesaid amount of Rs.100 Crores only for
            restoration of the environment in the State of Meghalaya.
C     20) The coal extracted and lying in open after 15.05.2016 does
           not automatically vest in the State of Meghalaya and the
           owner of the coal or the person who has mined the coal shall
           have the proprietary right in the mineral which shall not be
           lost.
D     21)     The suggestion of learned Amicus Curiae that entire
            extracted coal lying at various places in hills districts of
            Meghalaya be directed to be taken over by Coal India Ltd.
            is accepted. The Coal India Ltd. may dispose of the same as
            per its normal method of disposal and proceeds be dealt with
E           as per directions issued.
      22) The State having carried out the assessment of the coal lying
          in the aforesaid four districts including the details of the
          quantities and the details of owners being available with it, it
          may ensure that entire coal is handed over to the Coal India
F         Ltd., as per the mode and manner to be formulated by
          Katakey Committee in consultation with officers of the Coal
          India Ltd. and the State of Meghalaya.
      23) It is for Coal India Ltd. to decide as to venue, where they shall
            receive the coal, i.e., either at any of its depot or any other
G           place in the State of Meghalaya and it is for the Coal India
            Ltd. to finalise the process of disposal and auction of the
            coal. It shall be the duty of the State of Meghalaya and its
            officers especially Deputy Commissioner of the area
            concerned to enter details of quantity of the coal, name of

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,                             437
 DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

            the owner and place from where it is collected. All              A
            concerned shall take steps to ensure weighment of the coal
            when it is received by Coal India Ltd.
      24) The expenses of transportation shall be borne by the State of
           Meghalaya, Coal India Ltd. or by both, which expenses shall
           be deductible from the price received of the coal. The State      B
           of Meghalaya shall be entitled to royalty and payment
           towards MERP Fund as well as taxes out of the price of the
           coal. After deducting its expenses for transportation with
           10% of price of the coal, the Coal India Ltd. shall remit the
           balance amount to the State and it is for the State after
           deducting the royalty and payment to the MERP Fund and            C
           taxes to pay back balance the amount to the owner.
      25) The coal which has been seized by the State in illegal
          transportation and illegal mining for which different cases
          have been registered by the State, is not to be dealt with as
          directed above. The seized coal shall be dealt by the State in     D
          accordance with Section 21 of the Act, 1957 and on being
          satisfied, the State can take a decision to recover the entire
          quantity of coal so illegally raised without lawful authority.
      192. In view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions, all these
appeals are decided in the following manner: -                               E

      1) Civil Appeal No. 10720 of 2018, Civil Appeal No. 10611 of
         2018, Civil Appeal No. 10907 of 2018 and Civil Appeal
         No.5295 of 2019 (arising out of Civil Appeal Diary No. 3067
         of 2018) are dismissed subject to declaration and
         clarification of law as made above.                                 F
      2) Civil Appeal No. 5272 of 2016 is allowed setting aside the
         order of NGT dated 31.03.2016 to the extent it declared that
         all extracted coal after 15.05.2016 shall vest in the State of
         Meghalaya.
                                                                             G
      3)    Civil Appeal No. 2968 of 2019 is partly allowed permitting
            the State of Meghalaya to transfer the amount of Rs.100
            Crores to Central Pollution Control Board from the
            Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund

                                                                             H
438               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A                  which amount shall be used by Central Pollution Control
                   Board only for restoration of Environment.
            4)     All I.As. seeking direction for transportation of coal are
                   disposed of directing: -
            i)     All extracted coal as assessed by State of Meghalaya lying
B                  in different districts of State of Meghalaya which as per
                   order of NGT is in custody of State of Meghalaya shall be
                   handed over to Coal India Ltd. for proper disposal.
            ii)    The Katakey Committee after discussion with Coal India
                   Ltd. and State of Meghalaya shall formulate a mechanism
C                  for transport, weighment of all assessed coal.
            iii) The Coal India Ltd. shall auction the coal so received by it as
                 per its best judgment and remit the proceed to State to the
                 extent as directed above.

D           iv) All coal seized by the State for which cases have already
                been registered shall be dealt by the State in accordance
                with Section 21 of 1957 Act.
             193. Before we close, we record our appreciation for valuable
      assistance rendered by learned counsel for the parties which enable us
      to decide several important issues in these appeals. We also record our
E
      appreciation for assistance rendered by learned Amicus Curiae Shri Colin
      Gonsalves, Senior Advocate.


      Devika Gujral                                           Appeals disposed of.
F




G




H