Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL /APPELLATE JURISDICTION & CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.   562  of 2009

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors.   ... Petitioner (s)

Versus

State of Karanataka & Ors.     ...   Respondent(s) WITH  

SLP  (C)  Nos.7366-7367  of  2010,  SLP  (C)  Nos.32690- 32691  of  2010,  WP  (Crl.)  No.66  of  2010,  SLP  (C)  Nos.17064-17065 of 2010, SLP (C) No……(CC No.16829 of  2010), SLP (C) No……….(CC No. 16830 of 2010), WP (C)  No.411 of 2010,    SLP (C) No.353 of 2011 and WP (C)  No.76 of 2012

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

W.P. (C) No.562 of 2009

1. What  should  be  the  appropriate  contours  of  this  Court’s  

jurisdiction  while  dealing  with  allegations  of  systematic  

plunder of natural  resources by a  handful  of opportunists

Page 2

2

seeking  to  achieve  immediate  gains?   This  is  the  core  

question that arises in the present proceeding in the context  

of  mining  of Iron Ore  and allied minerals  in  the  State  of  

Karnataka.

2. Over exploitation, if not indiscriminate and rampant mining,  

in  the  State  of  Karnataka,  particularly  in  the  District  of  

Bellary, had been purportedly engaging the attention of the  

State  Government  from time to  time.   In  the  year  2006,  

Justice U.L. Bhat Committee was appointed to go into the  

issues which exercise, however, did not yield any tangible  

result.  Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Lokayukta  

of the State and a Report dated 18.12.2008 was submitted  

which,  prima  facie,  indicated  indiscriminate  mining  of  

unbelievable proportions in the Bellary district of the State.  

It  is  in  these  circumstances,  that  the  petitioner-  Samaj  

Parivartana  Samudaya  had  instituted  the  present  writ  

petition under Article 32 of the Constitution complaining of  

little or no corrective action on the part of the State; seeking  

this  Court’s  intervention  in  the  matter  and   specifically  

praying for the reliefs noted hereinbelow.

Page 3

3

“(A) To  issue  a  Writ  of  mandamus  or  any  other  appropriate  writ,  order  or  direction,  directing  immediate  steps  be  initiated  by  both  the  Respondent  States  and  the  Union  of  India  to  stop all  mining and other  related  activities  in  forest areas of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka  which  are  in  violation  of  the  orders  of  this  Hon’ble Court dated 12.12.1996 in W.P (C) No  202 of 1995 and the Forest (Conservation) Act,  1980.  

(B) To  issue  a  Writ  of  mandamus  or  any  other  appropriate  writ,  order  or  direction,  directing  as  null and  void retrospectively all ‘raising contracts’ /  sub leasing because which are in violation of the  Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)  Act,  1957  and  initiate  penal  action  against  the  violators.  

(C) To  issue  a  Writ  of  mandamus  or  any  other  appropriate  writ,  order  or  direction,  directing  the  stoppage  of  all  mining  along  the  border  and  in  forest  areas  in  the  Bellary  Reserve  Forest  till  a  systematic survey of both the interstate border and  the  mine  lease  areas  along  the  entire  border  is

Page 4

4

completed  by  the  Survey  of  India  along  with  a  representative of the Lokayukta of Karnataka.  

(D) To  issue  a  Writ  of  mandamus  or  any  other  appropriate writ, order or direction, directing action  against all the violators involved either directly or  indirectly in illegal mining including those named in  the Report of the Lokayukta of Karnataka (Part-I).

(E) To  issue  a  Writ  of  mandamus  or  any  other  appropriate  writ,  order  or  direction,  directing  the  recovery of the illegal wealth accumulated through  the illegal mining and related activities; and

(F) To  issue  a  Writ  of  mandamus  or  any  other  appropriate writ,  order  or  direction, directing null  and void notification No. CI  33 MMM 1994 dated  15.3.2003  and  other  related  notifications/orders  dereserving lands for mining operations.”

3. The  writ  petition  was  entertained  and  the  Central  

Empowered Committee (hereinafter for short “the CEC”) was  

asked to submit a report on the allegations of illegal mining in  

the Bellary region of the State of Karnataka.  The very initial

Page 5

5

order of this Court is dated 19.11.2010 and was restricted to  

six mining leases granted in favour of M/s. Bellary Iron Ore Pvt.  

Ltd., M/s. Mahabaleswarapa & Sons, M/s. Ananthapur Mining  

Corporation and M/s.  Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt.  Ltd.  

What  followed thereafter  is  unprecedented in  the history of  

Indian  environmental  jurisprudence.   It  is  neither  necessary  

nor feasible to set out the series of Reports of the CEC and the  

various orders of the Court passed from time to time.  Rather,  

a brief indication of  the core Reports of the CEC and the main  

orders passed by the Court will suffice to understand what had  

happened  so  to  enable  the  Court  to  unravel  the  course  of  

action for the future.

4. The initial Reports submitted by the CEC in response to the  

orders of the Court having indicated large scale illegal mining  

at the cost and to the detriment of the environment, a stage  

came  when  by  order  dated  29.7.2011  a  complete  ban  on  

mining in the district of Bellary was imposed.  Extension of the  

said ban was made in respect of the mining operations in the  

districts of Tumkur and Chitradurga by order dated 26.8.2011.  

As the materials placed before the Court (including the Report

Page 6

6

of  the  Lokayukta  dated  18.12.2008)  indicated  large  scale  

encroachment into forest areas by leaseholders and ongoing  

mining  operations  in  such  areas  without  requisite  statutory  

approval and clearances,  a  Joint Team was constituted by this  

Court by order dated 6.5.2011 to determine the boundaries of  

initially  117  mining  leases  which  number  was  subsequently  

extended  to  166  by  inclusion  of  the  mines  in  Tumkur  and  

Chitradurga  districts.  The  result  of  the  survey  by  the  Joint  

Team revealed  a  shocking  state  of  depredation  of  nature’s  

bounty by human greed.  Objections of the lease holders to the  

survey came early and were  subjected to a re-examination by  

the  special  team  itself  under  orders  of  the  Court  dated  

23.9.2011 in the course of which 122 cases were re-examined  

and  necessary  corrections  were  effected  in  33  cases.  

Thereafter, the CEC submitted its Report termed as the “Final  

Report”  dated  3.2.2012  which  is  significant  for  two  of  its  

recommendations. The first was for categorization of the mines  

into three categories, i.e., ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ on the basis of the  

extent  of  encroachment  in  respect of   the mining pits and  

over burden  dumps  determined in  terms  of percentage qua  

the  total  lease  area.  The  second  set  of  recommendations

Page 7

7

pertained to the conditions subject to which reopening of the  

mines  and  resumption  of  mining  operations  were  to  be  

considered by the Court. A set of modified recommendations  

along  with  a  set  of  detailed  guidelines  for  preparation  and  

implementation of Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plans (R &  

R) were also submitted to the Court by the CEC on 13.3.2012.  

Before the relevant extracts from the Reports of the CEC dated  

3.2.2012   and 13.3.2012 are noticed, to make the discussion  

on the Report of the Joint Team complete it will be necessary  

to note that in terms of the order dated 10.2.2012 of the Court,  

66 representations were considered by the CEC out of which  

only  4  were  found  tenable.   Accordingly,  corrections  were  

made  in  respect  of  the  said  four  leases  which  corrections,  

however, did not involve any change of category.  The CEC  

placed the cases of two lease holders i.e. M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons  

and M/s. Hothur Traders for consideration of the Court as to  

whether the said two leases placed in Category “C” needed  

upgradation to Category “B” in view of the minimal violation  

committed by them and the circumstances surrounding such  

violations.

Page 8

8

5. We may now proceed to notice the relevant part of the two  

Reports of the CEC  dated  3.2.2012 and 13.3.2012, as referred  

to hereinabove.  

“IV.  CLASSIFICATION  OF  LEASES  IN  DIFFERENT  CATEGORIES  ON  THE  BASIS  OF  THE  LEVEL  OF  ILLEGALITIES FOUND.

27. The  CEC,  based  on  the  extent  of  illegal  mining  found by the Joint Team and as appropriately modified  by the CEC in its Proceeding dated 25th January, 2012  and after considering the other relevant information has  classified  the  mining  leases  into  three  categories  namely “Category-A”, “Category-B” and “Category-C”.

28. The “Category-A” comprises of (a) working leases  wherein no illegality/marginal illegality have been found  and  (b)  non  working  leases  wherein  no  marginal/illegalities  have  been  found.  The  number  of  such leases comes to 21 & 24 respectively.

29. “Category-B”  comprises  of  (a)  mining  leases  wherein illegal mining by way of (i) mining pits outside  the sanctioned lease areas have been found to be up to  10% of the lease areas and/ or (ii) over burden/waste  dumps outside the sanctioned lease areas have been  found to be up to 15% of the lease areas and (b) leases  falling on interstate boundary between Karnataka and  Andhra Pradesh and for which survey sketches have not  been finalized. For specific reasons as mentioned in the

Page 9

9

statement  of  “Category-B”  leases,  M/s.  S.B.  Minerals  (ML No. 2515), M/s. Shantalaxmi Jayram (ML No. 2553),  M/s. Gavisiddeshwar Enterprises (ML No. 80) and M/s.  Vibhutigudda Mines (Pvt.) Ltd. (ML No. 2469) have been  assigned in “Category-B”.  The numbers of such leases  in “Category-B” comes to 72.

30. The “Category-C” comprises of leases wherein (i)  the illegal mining by way of  (a) mining pits outside the  sanctioned lease area have been found to be more than  10% of  the  lease  area  and/or  (b)  over  burden/waste  dumps outside the sanctioned lease areas have been  found to be more than 15% of the lease areas and/or (ii)  the leases found to be involved in flagrant violation of  the  Forest  (Conservation)  Act  and/or  found  to  be  involved  in  illegal  mining  in  other  lease  areas.  The  number of such leases comes to 49.

RECOMMENDATIONS  (as  modified  by  CEC  by  its  Report  dated  13.3.2012.  Items  1  to  IV  of  the  Report  dated 3.2.2012 stood replaced by Items A to I  of the  Report  dated  13.3.2012  which  are  reproduced  below  along with  Items V to  XIV  of  the  initial  Report  dated  3.2.2012).

(A) the findings of the Joint Team and as modified  after careful examination by the CEC may be  accepted and directed to be followed by the  concerned  authorities  and  the  respective  leases,  notwithstanding  anything  to  the

Page 10

10

contrary. The boundaries of the mining leases  should accordingly be fixed on the ground.

(B) a ceiling of 25 Million Metric Tonnes (MMT) for  total production of iron ore from all the mining  leases in District Bellary may be prescribed. A  ceiling  of  5  MMT for  production  of  iron  ore  from  all  the  mining  leases  in  Districts  Chitradurga  and  Tumkur  together  may  be  prescribed;

(C) the proposed “guidelines for the preparation  of the R&R Plans” may be approved by this  Hon’ble Court and the prescriptions/provisions  of  the  R&R   Plans,  prepared  as  per  these  guidelines, may be directed to be followed by  the  respective  lessees  and  the  concerned  authorities;

(D) the iron ore which becomes available should  be used for meeting the iron ore requirement  of the steel plants and associated industries  located in Karnataka and also of those plants  located  in  the  adjoining  States  which  have  been  using  the  iron  ore  from  the  mining  leases  located  in  these  Districts.  Exports,  outside  the  country,  should  be  permissible  only in respect of the material which the steel  plants  and  associated  industries  are  not  willing to purchase on or above the average  price  realized  by  the  Monitoring  Committee  for  the  corresponding  grades  of  fines/lumps  during  the  sale  of  about  25  MMT  of  the  existing stock of iron ore.  Similarly, the iron  ore produced by the beneficiation plants after

Page 11

11

processing should also not be permitted to be  exported outside the country;

(E) the sale of the iron ore should continue to be  through  e-auction  and  the  same  should  be  conducted  by  the  Monitoring  Committee  constituted  by this Hon’ble Court.  However,  the  quantity  to  be  put  up  for  e-auction,  its  grade,  lot  size,  its  base/floor  price  and  the  period of delivery will be decided/provided by  the respective lease holders.  The Monitoring  Committee may permit the lease holders to  put up for e-auction the quantities of the iron  ore  planned  to  be  produced  in  subsequent  months.  The  system  of  sale  through  the  Monitoring Committee may be reviewed after  say two year;

(F) 90% of the sale price (excluding the royalty  and the applicable taxes) received during the  e-auction may be paid by the buyer directly  to  the  respective  lease  holders  and  the  balance  10%  may  be  deposited  with  the  Monitoring Committee alongwith the royalty,  FDT and other applicable taxes/charges;

(G) The  responsibility  of  the  Monitoring  Committee  will  be  (a)  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  the  various  provisions/prescriptions of the R&R Plans, (b)  to ensure strict compliance of the conditions  on  which  the  environment  clearance,  the  approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act,  1980  and  the  other  statutory  approvals/clearances have been accorded, (c)  to  ensure that  the  mining is  undertaken as  per the approved Mining Plan, (d) to ensure

Page 12

12

that the ceiling on annual production fixed for  the lease does not exceed, (e) to ensure that  the  safety  zone  is  maintained  around  the  lease area and in respect of the clusters of  mining leases around the outer boundary of  such cluster of mining leases and (f) to ensure  compliance  of  the  other  applicable  condition/provisions. Any lease found  to be  operating  in  violation  of  the  stipulated  conditions/provisions  should  be  liable  for  closure and/or termination of the lease;

(H) the  present  Members  of  the  Monitoring  Committee  should  continue  for  a  period  of  next two years; and

(I) in  the  larger  public  interest  the  mining  operations  in  the  two  leases  of  M/s.  NMDC  may be permitted to be continued. However,  it  will  be  liable  to  deposit  penalty/compensation  as  payable  for  the  mining leases falling in “Category-B”

(V) In  respect  of  the  mining  leases  falling  in  “CATEGORY-B” (details given at Annexure-R- 10 to this Report) it is recommended that:

 i) the  R&R  Plan,  under  preparation  by  the  ICFRE,  after  incorporating  the  appropriate  changes as per the directions of this Hon’ble  Court,  should  be  implemented  in  a  time  bound manner  by the respective lessees at  his cost.  In the event of his failure to do so or

Page 13

13

if  the  quality  and/or  the  progress  of  the  implementation of the R&R Plan is found to be  unsatisfactory  by  the  Monitoring  Committee  or by the designated officer(s) of the State of  Karnataka, the same should be implemented  by  the  State  of  Karnataka  through  appropriate agency(ies) and at the cost of the  lessee;

ii) for carrying out the illegal mining outside the  lease area, exemplary compensation/ penalty  may  be  imposed  on  the  lessee.   It  is  recommended that:

a) For  illegal  mining  by  way  of  mining  pits  outside the leases  area,  as  found by the  Joint Team, the compensation/ penalty may  be imposed at  the rate  of Rs.  5.00 crore  (Rs. Five Crore only) for per ha. of the area  found by the Joint Team to be under illegal  mining pit; and

b) For  illegal  mining by way of  over  burden  dump(s)  road,  office,  etc.  outside  the  sanctioned lease area,  the compensation/  penalty may be imposed @ Rs. 1.00 crores  (Rs. One Crores only) for per ha. of the area  found to be under illegal over burden dump  etc.   

iii) Mining  operation  may  be  allowed  to  be  undertaken  after  (a)  the  implementation  of  the R& R Plan is physically undertaken and is  found  to  be  satisfactory  based  on  the  pre- determined  parameters  (b)  penalty/  compensation  as  decided  by  this  Hon’ble

Page 14

14

Court is deposited and (c) the conditions as  applicable in respect of “Category-A” leases  are fulfilled/followed;

iv) In respect of the seven mining leases located  on/nearby the interstate boundary, the mining  operation should presently remain suspended.  The survey sketches of these leases should be  finalized  after  the  interstate  boundary  is  decided and thereafter  the individual  leases  should be dealt with depending upon the level  of the illegality found; and  

v) Out of the sale proceeds of the existing stock  of the mining leases, after deducting :

a) The penalty/compensation payable;

b) Estimated  cost  of  the  implementation  of  the R& R Plan; and  

c) 10% of the sale proceeds to be retained by  the  Monitoring  Committee  for  being  transferred to the SPV

d) The  balance  amount,  if  any,  may  be  allowed to be disbursed to the respective  lessees.   

 (VI) In respect of the mining leases falling in  “CATEGORY-C”  (details  are  given  at  annexure-R-11  to  this  Report)  it  is

Page 15

15

recommended that (a) such leases should be  directed  to  be  cancelled/determined  on  account of these leases having been found to  be  involved  in  substantial  illegal  mining  outside  the  sanctioned  lease  areas  (b)  the  entire sale proceeds of the existing stock of  the  iron  ore  of  these  leases  should  be  retained by the Monitoring Committee   and  (c)  the  implementation  of  the  R&R  Plan  should be at the cost of the lessee;

(VII) the  area  of the mining leases falling in  the  “Category-C”, after cancellation of the mining  leases  may  be  directed  to  be  allotted/assigned  through  a  transparent  process of bidding to the highest  bidder (s)  from amongst the end users.  The floor price  for this purpose should be fixed on the basis  of the market value of the permissible annual  production of the iron ore during the period of  the  agreements/lease  period.   The  iron  ore  produced from such mines should be used for  captive  use  only and no sale/export  will  be  permissible.   The  detailed  schemes  in  this  regard should be prepared and implemented

Page 16

16

after obtaining the permission of this Hon’ble  Court;

(VIII) the mining leases owned by the M/s. MML  should be operated by it.  Alternatively, the  agreements for mining operations and supply  of the iron ore should be entered into by it  through  a  transparent  process  and  on  the  basis of the market value of the mineral and  without  any  hidden  subsidy.   The  detailed  scheme in this regard should be prepared and  implemented  after  obtaining  permission  of  this Hon’ble Court.

(IX) A  Special  Purpose  Vehicle  (SPV)  under  the  Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Government  Karnataka and with the senior officers of the  concerned  Departments  of  the  State  Government as Members may be directed to  be set up for the purpose of taking various  ameliorative  and  mitigative  measures  in  Districts  Bellary,  Chitradurga  and  Tumkur.  The  additional  resources  mobilized  by  (a)  allotment/  assignment  of  the  cancelled  mining  leases  as  well  as  the  mining  leases  belonging to M/s. MML, (b) the amount of the  penalty/  compensation  received/  receivable

Page 17

17

from  the  defaulting  lessee,  (c)  the  amount  received/  receivable  by  the  Monitoring  Committee from the mining leases falling in  “Category-A”  and  “Category-B”,  (d)  amount  received/  receivable  from the sale  proceeds  of  the  confiscated  material  etc.,  may  be  directed   to  be  transferred  to  the  SPV  and  used  exclusively  for  the  socio-economic  development  of  the  area/local  population,  infrastructure development, conservation and  protection  of  forest,  developing  common  facilities for transportation of iron ore (such as  maintenance and widening of existing road,  construction of alternate road, conveyor belt,  railway siding and improving communication  system,  etc.).   A  detailed  scheme  in  this  regard may be directed to be prepared and  implemented  after  obtaining  permission  of  this Hon’ble Court;

(X) Out of the 20% of sale proceeds retained by  the  Monitoring Committee  in  respect  of  the  cleared mining leases falling in “Category-A”,  10% of the sale proceeds may be transferred  to the SPV while the balance 10% of the sale  proceeds  may  be  reimbursed  to  the  respective lessees.  In respect of the mining

Page 18

18

leases falling in “Category-B”, after deducting  the penalty/compensation, the estimated cost  of the implementation of the R&R Plan, and  10% of the sale proceeds to be retained for  being  transferred  to  the  SPV,  the  balance  amount,  if  any,  may  be  reimbursed  to  the  respective lessees;

(XI) no  new  mining  leases,  including  for  which  Notifications have already been issued, will be  granted without obtaining permission of this  Hon’ble Court;

(XII) the pending applications for grant of mining  leases in  Ramgad and Swamimalai  Block in  District Bellary and for which the NOC’s were  earlier issued will stand rejected;

(XIII) the  confiscated  iron  ore  pertaining  to  the  cancelled  stock  yards  will  be  sold  by  the  Monitoring Committee and the sale proceeds  will be retained by the Monitoring Committee;

(XIII)   the  Monitoring  Committee  may  be  authorized  to  sell  low grade/sub  grade  iron

Page 19

19

ore to Cement  Plants,  Red Oxide and other  similarly  placed  industries.   It  may  also  be  authorized  to  supply  iron  ore  required  for  construction  of  nuclear  plants  at  the  rates  mutually  agreed  between  the  Monitoring  Committee  and  the  concerned  authorities  provided no middle man is involved; and

(XIV) the  Monitoring  Committee  may  be  authorized to utilize up to 25% of the interest  received by it for engaging reputed agencies  for the monitoring of the various parameters  relating to mining.”

6. As  previously  noticed,  the  CEC  in  its  Report  dated  

13.3.2012  had  set  out  in  detail  the  objectives  of  the  

Reclamation and Rehabilitation (R&R) plans and the guidelines  

for  preparation  of  detailed  R  &  R  plans  in  respect  of  each  

mining lease. The origins of the idea (R & R plans) are to be  

found in an earlier Report of the CEC dated 28.7.2011.  As the  

suggestions of the CEC with regard to preparations of R & R  

plans  for  each  mine  is  crucial  to  scientific  and  planned  

exploitation  of  the  mineral  resources  in  question  it  will  be  

necessary for us to notice the said objectives and the detailed

Page 20

20

guidelines which are set out below. In this connection it would  

be worthwhile to take note of the fact that the guidelines in  

question have been prepared after detailed consultation with  

different  stakeholders  including  the  Federation  of  Indian  

Mineral Industries (FIMI)  which claims to be the representative  

body of the majority of the mining lessees of the present case.

“II. BROAD OBJECTIVES/PARAMETERS OF R&R PLANS 8. The broad objectives/parameters of the R&R Plans  would be:

(i) to  carry  out  time  bound  reclamation  and  rehabilitation  of  the  areas  found  to  be  under  illegal  mining  by  way  of  mining  pits,  over  burden/waste dumps etc. outside the sanctioned  areas;

(ii) to ensure scientific and sustainable mining after  taking  into  consideration  the  mining  reserves  assessed to be available within the lease area;

(iii) to  ensure  environmental  friendly  mining  and  related  activities  and  complying  with  the  standards  stipulated  under  the  various  environmental/mining  statutes  e.g.  air  quality  (SPM, RPM),  noise/vibration level,  water  quality  (surface as well as ground water), scientific over

Page 21

21

burden/waste  dumping,  stabilization  of  slopes  and benches, proper stacking and preservation  of  top  soil,  sub  grade  mineral  and  saleable  minerals,  proper  quality  of  internal  roads,  adequate  protective  measures  such  as  dust  suppression/control measures for screening and  crushing  plants,  beneficiation  plants,  provision  for retention walls, garland drains, check dams,  siltation  ponds,  afforestation,  safety  zones,  proper covering of truck, exploring possibility of  back filling of part of over burden/waste dumps  in the mining pits, sale/beneficiation of sub grade  iron ore, water harvesting, etc.

(iv) for  achieving  (ii)  and  (iii)  above,  fixation  of  permissible annual production; and  

(v) regular and effective monitoring and evaluation.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

VI. PROVISIONS/PRESCRIPTIONS OF THE LEASE  WISE R&R PLANS

14. The  leasewise  R&R  Plans  will  provide  for  the  specific  provisions/prescriptions  as  dealt  with  hereunder:

Page 22

22

(A) REGARDING  AREA  FOUND  BY  THE  JOINT  TEAM TO BE UNDER ILLEGAL MINING

15. The area under illegal mining pits should be filled  up  with  the  existing  over  burden/waste  dumps  preferably  the  illegal  dumps.   Appropriate  soil  and  moisture conservation measures will be provided and  such areas will be afforested with indigenous species.

16. The reclamation and rehabilitation works will be  carried out even if such areas are found to be having  mineral reserves.

17. In respect of area under illegal over burden/waste  dumps,  wherever  environmentally  feasible  the  over  burden/waste dumps will be removed and disposed of  scientifically within the lease area of the encroacher.

18. In  other  cases,  the  illegal  over  burden/waste  dumps will be stabilized by:

(a) modifying the gradient of the lump

(b) construction of retaining walls,

(c) construction of gully plugs

Page 23

23

(d) construction of garland drains

(e) geo-metric/geo-matting of dumps

(f) afforestation, and  

(g) other soil and moisture conservation measures,

19. However, in respect of the mining pits falling within  the area of the other sanctioned leases, specific lease- wise prescription/provision will be made depending upon  the ground situation.

(B) REGARDING  PERMISSIBLE  ANNUAL  

PRODUCTION

20. The permissible annual production for the mining  lease would be based on (a) the mineral reserves in the  lease  area;  (b)  area  available  for  over  burden/waste  dumps,  sub  grade  iron  ore  and  other  land  uses  (c)  existing transport facilities in relation to the traffic load of  the mining lease and (d) overall  ceiling on the annual  production from all the mining leases in the district (as  dealt with earlier).

Page 24

24

21. Presently  the  permissible  annual  production  would  be  decided  for  the  next  five  years  subject  to  review/modification in any of the following situation:

(a) change  in  the  assessed  mineral  reserves/resources  because  of  subsequent  exploration carried out and incorporated in the  modified mining plan/scheme and approved by  the IBM;

(b) identification  of  additional  area  for  the  disposal  of  the  over  burden/waste  dumps  and  incorporated  in  the  approved  mining  plan/scheme (preferably by way of back filling of  mined out pits); and

(c) creation  of  additional  physical  infrastructure such as railway sidings, conveyors,  wagon  tipplers,  wagon  loaders  (to  remove/reduce transportation bottlenecks).

(C) STABILIZATION  OF  THE  EXISTING  OVER  BURDEN/WASTE  DUMPS  AND  SUB  GRADE  IRON ORE DUMPS AND PLAN FOR ACTIVE  OVER BURDEN/WASTE DUMP

22. This will include the total area of the dump(s),  present  gradient,  planned  gradient,  provision  for  retaining wall(s),  benches,  final  gradient,  volume of  over  burden/waste  dump  that  may  be  stored,

Page 25

25

afforestation, use of geo-matting/geo-textile, garland  drains  and  other  soil  and  moisture  conservation/protective measures;

23. The  design  will  vary  from mine  to  mine  and  within the mine from dump to dump.  The prescription  will also vary between old dumps and active dumps.  The slope of 27 degree provided in the environment  clearance may not be feasible for dumping on steep  hill slopes.

24. The  ultimate  objective  of  the  dump  design/protective  measure  would  be  to  ensure  that  the slopes are stable,  are not vulnerable to erosion  and to provide for adequate protective measures to  capture/control run off:

(D) MINING PITS

25. In respect of the mining leases where the shape  and design of the mining pits differ substantially from  those provided in the approved mining plan and /or  found to be in gross violation of the approved design,  mining will  be permissible  based on rectification as  required  by  the  concerned  statutory  authority  (viz.  DGMS).   Similarly,  gross  violations  under  other

Page 26

26

Acts/Rules, if any, will need to be rectified (as required  by the relevant statutory authorities).

(E) SOIL  AND  MOISTURE  CONSERVATIONS,  AFFORESTATION AND OTHER MEASURES

26. The R&R plan would inter alia provide for:

(i) broad design/specification for

(a) garland drains

(b) retaining walls

(c) check dams

(d) gully plugs and/or culverts (if required)

(e) geo textile/geo matting of dumps

(f) afforestation in the safety zones

(g) afforestation  in  peripheral  area,  road  side, over burden dumps and other areas

(ii) dust  suppression  measures  at/for  loading,  unloading and transfer points, internal roads,  mineral stacks etc.

(iii) covered conveyor belts (if feasible) – such as  down hill conveyor, pipe conveyor etc.

Page 27

27

(iv) specification of internal roads,

(v) details  of  existing  transport  system  and  proposed improvements

(vi) railways siding (if feasible)

(vii) capacity building of personnel involved in the  mining and environmental management

(viii) rain water harvesting

(F) TIME SCHEDULE

27. Time schedule  for  implementation  of  various  prescriptions will be provided.

(G) MONITORING MECHANISM

28. Monitoring  mechanism,  including  predetermined parameters to assess the successful  implementation of the various provision/prescriptions  of  the  R&R Plan  will  be provided.   The Monitoring  Committee  will  be  responsible  for  monitoring  the  implementation of the prescription/provisions of the  R&R Plans.”

Page 28

28

7. The  recommendations  of  the  CEC  dated  13.3.2012  in  

respect of Items A to I were accepted by the Court by its order  

dated 13.4.2012.

8. The  next  significant  event  that  had  occurred  in  the  

catalogue of relevant occurrences is the order of the Court  

dated  3.9.2012  permitting  reopening  of  18  category  ‘A’  

mines subject to the conditions spelt out  in the said order  

which broadly were to the effect that mining shall be to the  

extent of the annual production as applicable to each mine  

determined by the CEC in its Report dated 29.8.2012 and  

further subject to the following conditions:  

“(I) compliance  with  all  the  statutory  requirements;

(II) the  full  satisfaction  of  the  Monitoring  Committee,  expressed in  writing,  that  steps  for implementation of the R & R Plan in the  leasehold  areas  are  proceeding  effectively  and meaningfully, and

(III) a  written  undertaking  by  the  leaseholders  that  they  would  fully  abide  by  the  Supplementary  Environment  Management Plan (SEMP) as applicable to the

Page 29

29

leasehold  area  and  shall  also  abide  by  the  Comprehensive  Environment Plan for Mining  Impact  Zone  (CEPMIZ)  that  may  be  formulated  later  on  and  comply  with  any  liabilities,  financial  or  otherwise,  that  may  arise against them under the CEPMIZ.

(IV) The CEC shall, upon inspection, submit a  report to this Court that any or all the stated  18  “Category  A”  mine  owners  have  fully  satisfied  the  above-mentioned  conditions.  Further, it shall  be reported that the mining  activity is being carried on strictly within the  specified  parameters  and  without  any  violation.”

9. The order of the Court dated 28.9.2012, laying down certain  

conditions “as the absolute first step before consideration of  

any  resumption  of  mining  operations  by  Category–‘B’  

leaseholders”  would  also  be  required  to  be  specifically  

noticed at this stage.  

“I.    Compensatory Payment (a) Each  of  the  leaseholders  must  pay  

compensation  for  the areas   under illegal mining  pits outside the sanctioned area, as found by the  Joint Team (and as finally held by the CEC) at the  rate of Rs.5 crores    per hectare, and (b) for the

Page 30

30

areas  under  illegal  overburden  dumps,  roads,  offices, etc. outside the sanctioned lease area,  as  found  by   the Joint Team (as might have been  finally held by  the  CEC)  at  the   rate of Rs.1  crore per hectare.

           It is made clear that the payment at the rates  aforesaid  is   the  minimum  payment  and  each  leaseholder  may  be  liable  to   pay   additional  amounts on the basis of the final determination of the  national  loss   caused by the illegal mining and the  illegal  use  of  the  land  for   overburden dumps,  roads,   offices,   etc.    Each  leaseholder,  besides  making payment as directed above, must also give  an  undertaking  to  the  CEC  for  payment  of  the  additional amounts, if held liable on the basis of the  final determination.

           At the same time, we direct for the constitution  of  a   Committee  to  determine  the  amount  of  compensatory payment to be  made by each of the  leaseholders having regard to the value of the ore  illegally extracted from  forest/non-forest  land  falling  within  or  outside the sanctioned lease  area  and  the  profit  made  from  such illegal extraction and the  resultant damage caused to the  environment  and  the ecology of the area.

Page 31

31

           The Committee shall consist of experts/officers  nominated  each  by  the  Ministry  of  Mines  and  the  Ministry of Environment and Forests. The convener of  the Committee will be the Member Secretary of the  CEC. The two members nominated by the Ministry of  Mines and  the  Ministry  of Environment and Forests  along with the Member Secretary, CEC  shall  co-opt  two or three officers from the State Government.  The  Committee  shall  submit  its  report  on the  aforesaid  issue through the  CEC to this    Court  within  three  months from today.

          The final determination so made, on being  approved by the Court, shall be payable by each of  the leaseholders.

II.   Guarantee money for implementation of the R&R  plan in the respective sanctioned lease areas.

          The CEC shall make an estimate of the expenses  required for  the  full implementation of the R&R plan  in each of  the  63  'Category  B'     mines and each of  the leaseholders must pay the  estimated  amount  as  guarantee for implementation of the  R&R  plans  in  their  respective   sanctioned lease areas and in the  areas where they carried on  illegal  mining activities  or which were used  for  illegal  overburden  dumps,  roads, offices, etc. beyond the sanctioned lease area.  In  case,  any   leaseholder defaults in implementation

Page 32

32

of the R&R  plan,  it  will  be   open to the CEC to carry  out the R&R plan for that  leasehold  through      some  other  proper  agency  from  the  guarantee   money  deposited  by  the   leaseholder.  However, on the full  implementation  of  the  R&R  plan  to  the  complete  satisfaction of the CEC and subject to the approval by  the Court, the guarantee money would be refundable  to the leaseholder.

III.  In addition to the  above,  each  leaseholder  must  pay  a  sum  equivalent to 15% of the sale proceeds of  its iron  ore  sold  through  the Monitoring Committee  as per the earlier orders of this Court.   In  this regard,  it may be stated that  though  the  amicus  suggests  the  payment  @ 10% of the sale proceeds,  having  regard to the overall facts   and circumstances of the  case, we have enhanced this payment to 15% of   the  sale proceeds.

           Here  it  needs  to  be  clarified  that  the  CEC/Monitoring  Committee  is  holding  the  sale  proceeds  of  the  iron  ores  of  the  leaseholders,  including the 63 leaseholds being the subject of this  order.  In case, the money held by the CEC/Monitoring  Committee on the account  of  any  leaseholder is  sufficient to cover the payments  under  the  aforesaid  three  heads,  the  leaseholder  may,  in  writing,  authorize  the  CEC  to  deduct from the sale proceeds

Page 33

33

on its account  the  amounts  under  the      aforesaid  three heads and  an  undertaking  to  make  payment  of  any additional amount as compensatory  payment.  On   submission   of   such    authorization  and  undertaking,  the  CEC  shall  retain  the  amounts  covering  the  aforesaid  three  heads  and  pay  to  the   concerned  leaseholder the balance amount, if  any.   It is expected that the balance amount, after  making the adjustments as indicated here, would be  paid to the concerned leaseholder within one month  from the date of submission of the authorization and  the undertaking.

           In the case of any leaseholder, if the money  held on his account   is  not sufficient  to cover the  aforesaid three heads, he must pay the deficit within  two months from today.

                   IV.   The R&R plans for the aforesaid 63 'Category  B'  mines  may  be   prepared as early as possible, as  directed by  orders  of  this  Court   dated April 13,  April 20 and May 05, 2012, and in case where  the  R&R     plan  is  already  prepared  and  ready,  the  leaseholder  may  take  steps  for  its  comprehensive  implementation,  both  within   and   outside   the  sanctioned lease area, without any delay.”

Page 34

34

10. The number of “B” Category mines though mentioned as  

72 in the CEC Report dated 3.2.2012, reference to the figure  

of 63 in the above extracted part of the Court’s order  dated  

28.9.2012 is on account of placing of the 7 mines located on  

the  inter-State  border  (Karnataka-Andhra  Pradesh)  in  a  

special  category (B1) and the cases of two leases i.e. M/s  

S.B.  Minerals  (ML  No.2515)  and  M/s.  Shanthalakshmi  

Jayaram  (ML  No.2553)  [tentatively  placed  by  CEC  in  

Category  ‘B’]  before  the  Court  for  orders  as  to  their  

appropriate categorization.  The issue of the seven (7) mines  

on the Karnataka – Andhra Pradesh border and the two (2)  

mines in respect of which appropriate categorization which  

is to be decided is being dealt with in another part of the  

present order.

11.  The latest Report of the CEC dated 15.2.2013 indicating  

the present status of preparation and implementation of the  

lease wise R& R plans and resumption of mining operations  

by Category ‘A’ and Category ‘B’ mines and the compliance  

of the preconditions for opening of Category ‘B’ mines will  

also  require  specific  notice,  which  recommendations  are  

extracted below.

Page 35

35

“RECOMMENDATIONS

15. In  the  above  background  the  following  recommendations are made for the consideration of this  Hon’ble Court :

(i) This Hon’ble Court may consider extending its  order  dated  3rd September,  2012,  by which  mining  operations  were  permitted  to  be  resumed in 18 “Category-A” mining leases, to  all “Category-A” mining leases;

(ii) This  Hon’ble  Court  may consider  permitting  the  resumption  of  the  mining  operations  in  “Category-B”  mining  leases  subject  to  the  conditions as applicable for the resumption of  the  mining  operations  in  the  “Category-A”  mining leases and compliance of the following  additional conditions :

(a)  In  compliance  of  this  Hon’ble  Court’s order dated 28th September, 2012  the lessees will be required to pay, if not  already so done, compensation for the area  under  illegal  mining  pits,  illegal  over  burden  dumps,  roads,  offices  etc.  undertake  to  pay  the  additional  compensatory  amounts,  if  held  liable,  guarantee  money  for  implementation  of  the R&R Plans and deposit of 15% of the  sale proceeds of the existing iron ore sold  by the Monitoring Committee; and  

(b) Before  starting  the  mining  operations the implementation of the R& R  Plans  for  the  areas  found  under  illegal  mining pits, illegal over burden dumps, etc.

Page 36

36

will  be  completed/nearing  completion  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Monitoring  Committee; and

(iii) the  CEC/Monitoring  Committee  may  be  authorized  to  remove  and  sell  through  e- auction the sub grade iron ore available in the  existing  over  burden  dumps  in  and  around  the lease areas subject to the condition that  such removal and sale is  not likely to have  significant  adverse  impact  on  the  existing  tree growth/vegetation and/or stability of the  over  burden  dumps.   The  Monitoring  Committee may be authorized to retain the  entire sale proceeds in respect of the dumps  located outside the sanctioned and presently  valid lease areas for the purpose of transfer  to  the  SPV  for  the  implementation  of  the  Comprehensive Environment Plan for Mining  Impact Zone (CEPMIZ).”  

Thus  the  CEC  in  its  Report  dated  15.2.2013  had  

recommended  resumption  of  mining  operations  in  the  

remaining category ‘A’ mines subject to the conditions already  

imposed by this Court in its order dated 3.9.2012 and also for  

reopening of Category ‘B’ mines subject to the same conditions  

and additionally the preconditions recommended by the CEC  

and approved by this Court by its order dated 28.9.2012.  

Page 37

37

12. The above main features contained in the various Reports  

of  the  CEC  and  the  orders  of  this  Court  apart,  there  are  

certain incidental and supplementary matters which may be  

conveniently noticed now.   

13.The first is with regard to investigations in respect of alleged  

criminal offences by lessees which have been ordered by this  

Court to be investigated by the CBI.  As investigations have  

already been ordered by this Court and such investigations  

would necessarily have to follow the procedure prescribed by  

law we do not wish to delve upon the same save and except  

to say that each of such investigation shall be brought to its  

logical conclusion in accordance with law and any aggrieved  

party would be entitled to avail of all legal remedies as may  

be available.   

14. The second supplementary issue that can be conveniently  

dealt with at this stage is with regard to sale of the existing  

stock of Iron Ore which is mainly the yield of illegal mining.  

The Court  had ordered disposal  of such accumulated Iron  

Ore  by  the  process  of  e-auction  through  a  Monitoring  

Committee  constituted  by  order  of  this  Court  dated

Page 38

38

23.9.2011.  From time to time this Court had directed certain  

payments to be made to the Monitoring Committee e.g. by  

way of 10% of sale proceeds; on account of compensatory  

payments  etc.  By  order  dated  28.9.2012,  this  Court  had  

constituted a Special Purpose Vehicle (for short ‘SPV’) on the  

suggestion of the learned Amicus Curiae.  The purpose of  

constitution of the SPV, it may be noticed, is for taking of  

ameliorative  and  mitigative  measures  as  per  the  

“Comprehensive  Environment  Plans  for  the  Mining  Impact  

Zone” (CPEMIZ) around mining leases in Bellary, Chitradurga  

and Tumkur.  By the order dated 28.9.2012, the Monitoring  

Committee was to make available the payments received by  

it under different heads of receivables to the SPV.

[

15.  The above facts would have relevance to the future of the  

mining operations in the State as the continuance of this  

Court’s  orders  for  sale  of  the  Iron Ore  by the  process  of  

e-auction  by  the  Monitoring  Committee  after  

recommencement of mining operations on the same terms  

and conditions and also the continuance of the SPV would  

be  required  to  be  considered  by  us.  It  would  also  be

Page 39

39

convenient to take note of the fact that as per the CEC’s  

Report dated 15.2.2013 sale of almost the entire quantity of  

illegally extracted Iron Ore has been effected through the  

Monitoring Committee and the sub-grade Iron Ore lying in  

dumps  in  and  around  several  lease  areas  may  not  have  

adequate commercial potential.  Besides removal thereof for  

sale,  in  many cases, may also give rise to environmental  

problems  in  as  much  as  removal  of  such  dumps  may  

constitute   a hazard to the stability of the dumps which  

have been in existence for many years.  Permission for sale  

of sub-grade iron ore, only when the same is commercially  

viable  and  removal  thereof  from  the  dumps  is  an  

environmentally safe exercise, has been sought by the CEC  

in  its  last  Report  dated  15.2.2013.   We  do  not  find  any  

impediment in accepting the recommendations of the CEC  

in the Report  dated 15.2.2013 in respect  of removal  and  

sale of sub-grade Iron Ore.  Similarly, we do not find any  

difficulty in continuing our previous orders permitting sale of  

iron ore to be mined after resumption of operations through  

the  Monitoring  Committee  on  the  same  terms  and  

conditions as presently in force.

Page 40

40

16.   The supplementary and the collateral issues, which we  

must emphasize are not to be understood to be low either in  

priority or importance because of the nomenclature used,  

having been dealt with by us in the manner indicated above  

we may now come to what can be conveniently referred to  

as the central issues that confront the Court in the present  

case.  In this regard notice must be had to the large number  

of interlocutory applications (IAs) filed basically questioning  

the  sanctity  of  the  survey carried  out  by  the  Joint  Team  

constituted by this  Court,  the findings arrived at  and the  

categorization of the leaseholders into the three different  

categories.  Such objections in the main have come from  

leaseholders who have been put in Category ‘C’ (except in  

few isolated cases seeking a change from Category ‘B’ to  

‘A’) for which Category of mines the recommendation of the  

CEC is one of closure. The challenge is on twin grounds of  

lack  of  procedural  fairness  and  inherent  defects  in  the  

technical  part  of the exercise of survey besides apparent  

legal  fallacies  in  the  process  of  determination  of  the  

allegedly  encroached  mining  area.  Denial  of  adequate

Page 41

41

opportunity  to  associate  and  coordinate  with  the  survey  

process, notwithstanding the possible adverse effects of the  

findings of survey on the legal rights of the lease holders, is  

the  backbone  of  the  challenge  on  ground  of  procedural  

fairness.  On the other hand, alteration of the lease area  

either by shifting or reducing the same; ignoring concluded  

judicial  orders  determining  boundary  disputes  between  

adjacent  lease  holders;  taking  of  land  use  for  dumps  as  

mining operations requiring a mining license for the land so  

used or forest clearances under the Forest Conservation Act,  

1980 (in case of such use of forest land) and above all the  

change  of  boundaries  demarcated  decades  back  by  

adoption of the Total   Station Method instead of a repeat  

survey by following the same Conventional Method (chain  

method)  are  the  common  threads  in  the  arguments  

advanced to challenge the technical part of the survey.

17.    The categorization of the allegedly offending leases on  

the basis of percentage of the alleged encroachment qua  

the  total  lease  area  is  contended  to  be  constitutionally  

fragile  and  environmentally  self-defeating.   A  leaseholder

Page 42

42

with a more expansive lease area, inspite of committing a  

larger  encroachment,  may  still  fall  below the  percentage  

adopted as  the  parameter  so as  to  place him in  a  more  

favourable  category,  say  Category  ‘B’,  as  compared to  a  

small lease where the area encroached, though small, falls  

in  a  less  favourable  category,  say  “C”  because  the  

percentage  of   encroachment  exceeds  the  prescribed  

parameters.  The recommendation of the CEC with regard to  

categorization and the  actions proposed on that  basis  as  

well as the suggested parameters for drawing up the R& R  

plans and the preconditions to be fulfilled by Category ‘A’  

and  ‘B’  leaseholders  for  recommencement  of  mining  

operations  has  also  been  assailed  by  questioning  the  

credibility of the CEC as an institution and the prolonged  

continuance  of  its  members  which,  according  to  the  

leaseholders,  have the tendency of effectuating unbridled  

powers.

18.   Relying  on  the  provisions  of  the  Mines  and  Minerals  

(Development  &  Regulation)  Act,  1957;  Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980 and Environment (Protection) Act,

Page 43

43

1986 (hereinafter referred to as “MMDR Act”, “FC Act” and  

“EP Act” respectively) it is argued that each of the statutes  

contemplate a distinct and definite statutory scheme to deal  

with the situations that have allegedly arisen in the present  

case. To resolve the said issues it is the statutory scheme  

that  should be  directed  to be  followed and resort  to  the  

powers of this Court under Article 32 read with Article 142 of  

the Constitution, when a statutory scheme is in existence,  

would  be  wholly  uncalled  for.   Specifically,  it  has  been  

pointed out that none of the conditions that are required to  

be  fulfilled by Category ‘A’  leaseholders and none of  the  

compulsory  payments  contemplated  for  Category  ‘B’  

leaseholders  for  recommencement  of  operation  are  

visualized  in  any  of  the  statutory  schemes.   Insofar  as  

Category  ‘C’  leaseholders  are  concerned,  it  is  contended  

that cancellation, if any, has to be in accordance with the  

statute which would provide the lease holder with different  

tiers  of remedial  forums as compared to the  finality  that  

would be attached if any order is to be passed by this Court.  

In this regard, several earlier opinions of this Court, details  

of which will be noticed in the discussions that follow, had

Page 44

44

been cited at the bar to persuade us to take the view that  

we  should  desist  from  exercising  our  powers  under  the  

Constitution  and  instead  relegate  the  parties  to  the  

remedies provided by the statute.

19. We may now proceed to deal  with the issues arising in  

proper sequential order.

ISSUE NO.1

Credibility of the CEC  

20.  A scathing  attack  has  been made against  the  CEC on  

behalf of one of the lessees represented by Shri Dushyant A.  

Dave, learned senior counsel.  It is contended that the said  

authority  has  virtually  become  a  law  unto  itself  making  

recommendations which is in defiance of both law and logic.  

Assumption of unguided, unbridled and absolute powers has  

been attributed to the  CEC.  The implicit trust of this Court  

in the said body has been misutilised requiring a review by  

this Court with regard to the continuance of the said body or  

at least in respect of a change in its present composition, it  

is argued.

Page 45

45

21.  The CEC was first constituted by the Court by its order  

dated  9.5.2002  as  an  interim  body  until  creation  of  the  

statutory  agency  contemplated  under  the  provisions  of  

Section  3  (3)  of  the  EP  Act.  Thereafter  by  a  Notification  

dated  17.9.2002  published  in  the  Gazette  of  India  the  

constitution of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) for  

a period of 5 years was notified indicating its composition  

together  with  the  extent  of  its  powers  and  duties.  It  

transpires  from the Court’s  order  dated 7.9.2007 that  an  

issue  with  regard  to  the  correctness  of  the  extent  of  

empowerment of the said body made by Notification dated  

17.9.2002   was  raised  on  behalf  of  the  Union  of  India,  

whereafter, on the suggestions of the Attorney General for  

India,  this  Court  by  its  order  dated  14.12.2007  had  

determined the extent of powers of the CEC in the following  

terms :

“1. In supersession of all the previous orders regarding  constitutions  and  functioning  of  the  Central  Empowered  Committee  (hereinafter  called  the  "Empowered  Committee")  is  constituted  for  the  purpose of monitoring and ensuring compliance with  the  orders  of  this  Court  covering  the  subject  matter  of  forest  and  wild  life  and  related  issues  arising out of the said orders.

Page 46

46

2.    The Committee shall exercise the following powers  and  perform the following functions:

    (i)        to monitor the implementation of this  Court's orders and place reports of non- compliance before the Court and Central  Government for appropriate action.

    (ii)         to  examine  pending  Interlocutary  Applications in the said Writ petitions (as  may be  referred to it by the Court) as  well as the reports and affidavits filed by  the  States  in  response  to  the  orders  passed by the Hon'ble Court and place  its  recommendations  before  the  Court  for  orders

    (iii)      to deal with any applications made to it  by any aggrieved person and wherever  necessary,  to  make  a  report  to  this  Court in that behalf;

    (iv)     for the purposes of effective discharge of  powers  conferred  upon  the  Committee  under this order; the Committee can:-

           (a)   call for any documents from  any persons or the government of the  Union  or  the  State  or   any  other  official;

           (b)  undertake site inspection of  forest area involved;

           (c)   seek assistance or presence  of any person(s) or official(s) required  by it in relation to its work;

   (d)    co-opt one or more persons  as its members or as special invitees  for dealing with specific issues;

Page 47

47

        (e)  co-opt,  wherever  feasible,  the  Chief  Secretary  or  his  representative  and  Principal  Chief  Conservator of Forests of the State as  special  invitees  while  dealing  with  issues pertaining to a particular state;

       f)    to suggest measures generally to  the  State,  as  well  as  Central  Government,  for  the  more  effective  implementation of the Act and other  orders of this Court.

        (v)     to  examine  and  advise/recommend  on  

any issue referred to the Committee.”

22.   As the period of five years mentioned in the Notification  

dated 17.9.2002 had expired and the terms of reference to  

the body had been redetermined by this Court, perhaps, a  

fresh notification should have been issued which was not  

forthcoming.  It  is  in  such  a  situation  that  the  CEC  had  

continued to function under orders of the Court submitting  

its reports from time to time in various environmental issues  

pending  before  this  Court.  It  is  on  consideration  of  such  

Reports that the Court has been passing its orders from time  

to time.

Page 48

48

23.   In  the  circumstances  enumerated  above,  questions  

concerning  the  credibility  of  the  CEC  are  absolutely  

unfounded, particularly in the absence of any materials to  

substantiate the apprehensions, if not allegations, that have  

been leveled. The said body has been performing such tasks  

as had been assigned by this  Court  by its  orders passed  

from time to time. The directions on the basis of which the  

CEC  had   proceeded  and  had  submitted  its  Reports  are  

within the framework of the terms of reference of the CEC  

as  determined  by  this  Court  by  order  dated  14.12.2007.  

Needless to say, acceptance of the recommendations made  

by the CEC on the basis of which orders of the Court are  

formulated  is  upon  the  satisfaction  of  the  Court.    We,  

therefore, close the issue by holding the contentions made  

to be wholly untenable.

ISSUE NO.2  

Exercise  of  jurisdiction  under  Article  32/142  of  the  Constitution  on  the  basis  of  the  facts  revealed  by  Reports of the CEC i.e. large scale damage to the forest  wealth  of  the  country  due  to  illegal  mining  on  an  unprecedented scale vis-à-vis resort to remedies under  the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and  Regulation) Act, 1957, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980  and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

Page 49

49

24. On the above issue the  short  and precise argument  on  

behalf of the leaseholders is that the provisions of each of  

the statutory enactments, i.e., the MMDR Act, FC Act and EP  

Act prescribe a distinct statutory scheme for regulation of  

mining activities and the corrective as well as punitive steps  

that may be taken in the event mining activities are carried  

out in a manner contrary to the terms of the lease or the  

provisions of any of the statutes, as may be.  The argument  

advanced is that as the statutes in question contemplate a  

particular scheme to deal with instances of illegal mining or  

carrying  on  mining  operations  which  is  hazardous  to  the  

environment,  the  CEC  could  not  have  recommended  the  

taking of any step or measure beyond what is contemplated  

by the statutory scheme(s) in force.   It is argued that it will  

not be proper for this Court to act under Article 32 and to  

accept any of the said recommendations which are beyond  

the  scheme(s)  contemplated  by  the  Statute(s).   In  other  

words,  what  is  sought  to  be  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  

leaseholders  is  that  no step  should  be  taken  or  direction  

issued by this Court which will be contrary to or in conflict  

with  the  provisions  of  the  relevant  statutes.   Several

Page 50

50

judgments  of  this  Court,  which  are  perceived  to  be  

precedents  in  support  of  the  proposition  advanced,  have  

been cited in the course of the arguments made.

25.    On  the  other  hand,  the  learned  Amicus  Curiae,  Shri  

Shyam Divan, has submitted that the present is a case of  

mass  destruction  of  the  forest  wealth  of  this  country  

resulting not only in a plunder of scarce natural resources  

but also causing irreparable ecological  and environmental  

damage and degradation. The learned Amicus Curiae has  

submitted  that  the  extent  of  illegal  mining  that  had  

happened in the three districts of the State of Karnataka is  

unprecedented.  The relevant data  compiled by  different  

bodies has been placed by the learned Amicus Curiae to  

indicate  that  in  the  Bellary-Hospet  region  the  annual  

production of Iron Ore had increased from 12.4 MMT in the  

year 2001-02 to 44.39 MMT in the year 2008-09.  The then  

Chief Minister of the State had made a statement on the  

floor of the legislative assembly on 9.7.2010 that 30.49 MMT  

of  illegal  Iron  Ore  has  been  exported  from  the  State  of  

Karnataka  between  2003-04  to  2009-10  valued  at

Page 51

51

approximately Rs. 15,245 crores.  In the year 2009-10 alone  

the total quantity of illegal Iron Ore exported stood at 12.9  

MMT.   During  the  inspection  carried  out  by  the  Indian  

Bureau of Mines in December, 2009 it was found that not a  

single  mining  lease  was  operating  without  violating  the  

provisions of the MMDR Act and the FC Act.  In an affidavit  

filed by the official Respondents in a writ petition registered  

and  numbered  as  W.P.  No.  14551/2010  before  the  

Karnataka High Court it was stated that between November,  

2009  and  February,  2010  (i.e.,  within  a  period  of  four  

months) 35.319 lakh MT of illegal Iron Ore was received at  

Belekeri  and  Karwar  ports,  for  movement  of  which  for  a  

period  of  about  4  months  2986  trucks  were  required  to  

undertake the journey every day in both directions i.e., to  

the ports and thereafter back.

26.     According to Shri Divan, the present is a case of mass  

tort resulting in the abridgment of the fundamental rights of  

a large number of citizens for enforcement of which the writ  

petition has  been  filed  under  Article  32.   Shri  Divan  has  

submitted, by relying on several decisions of this Court, that

Page 52

52

in a situation where the Court is called upon to enforce the  

fundamental rights and that too of an indeterminate number  

of citizens there can be no limitations on the power of Court.  

It  is  the  satisfaction  of  the  Court  that  alone  would  be  

material. Once such satisfaction is reached, the Court will be  

free  to  devise  its  own  procedure  and  issue  whatever  

directions  are  considered  necessary  to  effectuate  the  

Fundamental Rights.  The only restriction that the Court will  

bear in mind is that its orders or directions will not be in  

conflict with the provisions of any Statute.  However, if the  

statute does not forbid a particular course of action it will be  

certainly  open  for  the  Court  under  Article  32  to  issue  

appropriate  directions.  According  to  the  learned  Amicus  

Curiae in the present case none of the recommendations of  

the  CEC  is  inconsistent  or  contrary  to  any  statutory  

provision.  They  are  at  best  supplemental  to  the  existing  

provisions  seeking  to  achieve  the  same  end  through  a  

procedure  which  may  be  somewhat  different.  The  

justification for this, according to the learned Amicus Curiae,  

lies in the extraordinary situation that had occurred in the  

present case.

Page 53

53

27. At this stage, very briefly, the statutory scheme under the  

three enactments in question may be taken note of. Under  

the provisions of the MMDR Act the State Government has  

been provided with the power of termination of licenses or  

mining  leases  in  the  interest  of  regulation  of  mines  and  

minerals (Section 4A) whereas under Section 5, power has  

been  conferred  not  to  grant  mining  leases  in  certain  

specified situations. The Rule making power under Section  

23C extends to framing of Rules by the State Government to  

prevent  illegal  mining,  transportation  and  storage  of  

minerals and to provide for checking and inspection of the  

mining  lease  area.   The  Karnataka  (Prevention  of  Illegal  

Mining, Transportation and Storage of Minerals) Rules, 2011  

has been notified on 5th February, 2011. Under the Mineral  

Concession Rules, 1960,  the expression “illegal mining” has  

been  explained  in  Rule  2(iia).  The  aforesaid  Rules  also  

contemplate  that  while  determining  the  extent  of  illegal  

mining the area granted under the lease will be deemed to  

have been held by the holder of the license under lawful  

authority.  Under  the  provisions  of  the  EP  Act,  closure,  

prohibition or regulation of industry, operation or process is

Page 54

54

contemplated, whereas under the provisions of the FC Act  

prior approval of the Central Government for use of forest  

land for non forest purpose is mandatory. The question that  

has been raised on behalf of the leaseholders is whether the  

aforesaid provisions under the different statutes should be  

resorted  to  and  the  recommendations  made  by  the  CEC  

including  closure  of  Category-“C”  mines  should  not  

commend for acceptance of this Court.  

28.In  Bandhua Mukti  Morcha  Vs.  Union of India & Ors.  

(1984) 3 SCC 161, this Court had the occasion to consider the  

nature of a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution  

which is in the following terms :-

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights  conferred by this Part. (1) The right to move the Supreme Court by  appropriate proceedings for the enforcement  of the rights conferred by this Part is  guaranteed.

(2) The  Supreme  Court  shall  have  power  to  issue directions or orders or  writs,  including  writs  in  the  nature  of  habeas  corpus,  mandamus,  prohibition,  quo  warranto  and  certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for  the enforcement of any of the rights conferred  by this Part.

Page 56

56

and quo warranto, which are hedged in by strict  conditions differing from one writ to another and  which to quote the words spoken by Lord Atkin in  United  Australia  Limited v.  Barclays  Bank  Ltd.  [(1941) A.C. 1] in another context often “stand in  the  path  of  justice  clanking  their  mediaeval  chains”. But it is much wider and includes within  its matrix, power to issue any directions, orders or  writs which may be appropriate for enforcement of  the fundamental right in question and this is made  amply clear by the inclusive clause which refers to  in  the  nature of  habeas  corpus,  mandamus,  prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari.  It  is  not  only  the  high  prerogative  writs  of  mandamus,  habeas  corpus,  prohibition,  quo  warranto  and  certiorari  which  can  be  issued  by  the  Supreme  Court  but  also writs  in  the  nature of  these high  prerogative  writs  and  therefore  even  if  the  conditions  for  issue  of  any  of  these  high  prerogative  writs  are  not  fulfilled,  the  Supreme  Court would not be constrained to fold its hands in  despair and plead its inability to help the citizen  who has  come before  it  for  judicial  redress,  but  would have power to issue any direction, order or  writ  including  a  writ  in  the  nature  of  any  high  prerogative writ.  This provision conferring on the  Supreme Court power to enforce the fundamental  rights  in  the  widest  possible  terms  shows  the  anxiety of the Constitution-makers not to allow any  procedural  technicalities  to  stand  in  the  way  of  enforcement  of  fundamental  rights.  The  Constitution-makers  clearly  intended  that  the  Supreme Court should have the amplest power to  issue  whatever  direction,  order  or  writ  may  be  appropriate in a given case for enforcement of a  fundamental  right.  But  what  procedure  shall  be  followed by the Supreme Court in exercising the  power to issue such direction, order or writ? That is  a  matter  on which the Constitution is  silent  and  advisedly  so,  because  the  Constitution-makers  never  intended  to  fetter  the  discretion  of  the

Page 57

57

Supreme Court to evolve a procedure appropriate  in  the  circumstances  of  a  given  case  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  it  to  exercise  its  power  of  enforcing a fundamental right. Neither clause (2)  of  Article  32  nor  any  other  provision  of  the  Constitution requires that any particular procedure  shall  be  followed  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  exercising  its  power  to  issue  an  appropriate  direction, order or writ. The purpose for which the  power to issue an appropriate direction, order or  writ is conferred on the Supreme Court is to secure  enforcement of a fundamental right and obviously  therefore,  whatever  procedure  is  necessary  for  fulfilment of that purpose must be permissible to  the Supreme Court.”

This Court also found that it would be justified to depart, in  

a  proceeding  under  Article  32,  from  the  strict  adversarial  

procedure  and  the  principles  embodied  in  the  Code  of  Civil  

Procedure  and  the  Indian  Evidence  Act  and  in  this  regard  

observed as under:

“...We do not think we would be justified in imposing  any restriction on the power of the Supreme Court to  adopt such procedure as it thinks fit in exercise of its  jurisdiction, by engrafting adversarial procedure on it,  when  the  Constitution-makers  have  deliberately  chosen  not  to  insist  on  any  such  requirement  and  instead, left it open to the Supreme Court to follow  such  procedure  as  it  thinks  appropriate  for  the  purpose of securing the end for which the power is  conferred,  namely,  enforcement  of  a  fundamental  right.”

Page 58

58

Insofar  as  the  practice  of  appointing  commissions  for  

collection of basic facts to enable the Court to adjudicate the  

issues concerning violation of fundamental rights is concerned it  

would  be  necessary  to  extract  the  following  observations  

recorded  by  this  Court  in  para  14  in  the  case  of  Bandhua  

Mukti Morcha  (supra).

“14...It is for this reason that the Supreme Court has  evolved the  practice  of appointing  commissions for  the purpose of gathering facts and data in regard to a  complaint of breach of a fundamental right made on  behalf  of  the  weaker  sections  of  the  society.  The  report of the Commissioner would furnish prima facie  evidence  of  the  facts  and  data  gathered  by  the  Commissioner and that is why the Supreme Court is  careful  to  appoint  a  responsible  person  as  Commissioner  to  make  an  enquiry  or  investigation  into  the  facts  relating  to  the  complaint.  It  is  interesting to note that in the past the Supreme Court  has  appointed  sometimes  a  District  Magistrate,  sometimes a District Judge, sometimes a professor of  law, sometimes a journalist, sometimes an officer of  the Court and sometimes an advocate practising in  the Court, for the purpose of carrying out an enquiry  or  investigation  and  making  report  to  the  Court  because the  Commissioner  appointed  by the  Court  must  be  a  responsible  person  who  enjoys  the  confidence of the Court and who is expected to carry  out his assignment objectively and impartially without  any predilection or prejudice. Once the report of the  Commissioner  is  received,  copies  of  it  would  be  supplied to the parties so that either party, if it wants  to  dispute  any  of  the  facts  or  data  stated  in  the  report, may do so by filing an affidavit and the court  then consider the report of the Commissioner and the  affidavits which may have been filed and proceed to

Page 59

59

adjudicate upon the issue arising in the writ petition.  It  would be entirely for the Court  to consider  what  weight to attach to the facts and data stated in the  report of the Commissioner and to what extent to act  upon such facts and data.”  

30.In  M.C. Mehta Vs.  Union of India & Ors. (1987) 1 SCC  

395,  this  Court  not  only  reiterated  the  view  adopted  in  

Bandhua  Mukti  Morcha  (supra)  but  also  held  that  the  

power under Article 32 would be both injunctive as well as  

remedial and the power to grant remedial relief,  naturally,  

would extend to a wide range of situations and cannot be put  

in a straight jacket formula.   

31.M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 142  

is a case which would disclose a very proximate connection  

with the case in hand.  In the aforesaid case this Court was  

called upon to answer the question as to whether in view of  

the provisions of Section 4A of the MMDR Act (noticed earlier)  

it would be appropriate to exercise the power under Article  

32  read  with  Article  142  in  order  to  suspend  mining  

operations  in  the  Aravali  Hills.   The  said  question  was  

required to be gone into by the Court in the context of the  

specific materials placed before it to show that indiscriminate

Page 60

60

mining  resulting  in  large  scale  environmental  degradation  

had  occurred.   In  the  above context,  the  contents  of  the  

paragraphs 41 to 45 of the judgment in the case of  M.C.  

Mehta (supra) would be relevant:-

“41. On the legal parameters, Shri  Diwan and Shri  Venugopal,  learned  Senior  Counsel  and  Shri  S.K.  Dubey,  learned  counsel,  submitted  that  where  law  requires a particular thing to be done in a particular  manner, it must be done in that manner and other  methods are strictly forbidden. In this connection, it  was  urged  that  when  Section  4-A  postulates  formation of an opinion by the Central Government,  after  consultation  of  the  State  Government,  in  the  matter  of cancellation of mining leases in  cases of  environmental  degradation,  the  power needs to be  exercised by the State Government upon receipt of  request from the Central Government. According to  the  learned  counsel,  therefore,  this  Court  cannot  cancel  the  mining  leases  if  there  is  alleged  environmental  degradation  as  submitted  by  the  learned amicus curiae.

42. It  was  further  submitted  that  measures  under  Section 3(2)(v) of the EP Act, 1986 to restrict areas in  which industries shall or shall not be carried out can  only  be  undertaken  by  the  Central  Government  where it deems expedient to protect and improve the  quality  of  environment.  In  fact,  according  to  the  learned  counsel,  when  Aravallis  Notification  was  issued on 7-5-1992 it was issued under Section 3(2) (v)  by  the  Central  Government.  At  that  time,  the  Central  Government  thought  it  fit  not  to  place  a  complete  ban  but  to  permit  the  industries  in  the  mining  sector  to  carry  on  its  business/operations  subject  to  restrictions  enumerated  in  the  said  notification.

Page 61

61

43. It  was  lastly  submitted  that  the  recommendations of CEC to impose a complete ban  on mining, particularly in cases where environmental  clearances are obtained would amount to an exercise  of power outside the 1957 Act and the Rules framed  thereunder. That, this Court cannot exercise powers  under  Article  142 of the Constitution when specific  provisions  are  made  under  various  forest  and  environmental  laws  dealing  with  the  manner  and  procedure  for  cancellation/termination  of  mining  leases.

44. We find no merit in the above arguments. As  stated above, in the past when mining leases were  granted, requisite clearances for carrying out mining  operations were not obtained which have resulted in  land  and  environmental  degradation.  Despite  such  breaches,  approvals  had  been  granted  for  subsequent slots because in the past the authorities  have not taken into account the macro effect of such  wide-scale  land  and  environmental  degradation  caused  by  the  absence  of  remedial  measures  (including rehabilitation plan).  Time has now come,  therefore,  to suspend mining in  the above area till  statutory provisions for  restoration and reclamation  are duly complied with,  particularly in  cases where  pits/quarries have been left abandoned.

45. Environment and ecology are national assets.  They  are  subject  to  intergenerational  equity.  Time  has now come to suspend all  mining  in  the  above  area on sustainable development principle which is  part  of  Articles  21,  48-A  and  51-A(g)  of  the  Constitution of India. In fact, these articles have been  extensively discussed in the judgment in [M.C. Mehta  case (2004) 12 SCC 118] which keeps the option of  imposing a ban in future open.”

Page 62

62

The issue is not one of application of the above principles  

to  a  case  of  cancellation  as  distinguished  from  one  of  

suspension.     The  issue  is  more  fundamental,  namely,  the  

wisdom of the exercise of the powers under Article 32 read with  

Article 142 to prevent environmental degradation and thereby  

effectuate the Fundamental Rights under Article 21.   

32. We may now take up the decisions cited on behalf of the  

leaseholders to  contend that  the  power under  Articles  32  

and 142 ought not to be exercised in the present case and  

instead  remedies  should  be  sought  within  the  relevant  

statutes.  The sheet anchor is the case of  Supreme Court  

Bar  Association  Vs. Union  of  India  and  Another  

reported in (1998) 4 SCC 409.  We do not see how or why we  

should  lie  entrapped  within  the  confines  of  any  of  the  

relevant Statutes on the strength of the views expressed in  

Supreme Court Bar Association (supra). The observations  

made  in  para  48  of  the  judgment  and  the  use  of  words  

“ordinarily” and “are directly in conflict” as appearing in the  

said paragraph  (underlined by us) directly militates against

Page 63

63

the view that the lease holders would like us to adopt in the  

present case.  

“48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction  under Article 142 has the power to make such order  as is  necessary for doing complete justice “between  the parties in any cause or matter pending before it”.  The very nature of the power must lead the Court to  set  limits  for  itself  within  which  to  exercise  those  powers and ordinarily it cannot disregard a statutory  provision  governing  a  subject,  except  perhaps  to  balance the equities between the conflicting claims of  the litigating parties by “ironing out the creases” in a  cause or matter before it. Indeed this Court is not a  court of restricted jurisdiction of only dispute-settling.  It is well recognised and established that this Court  has  always  been  a  law-maker  and  its  role  travels  beyond  merely  dispute-settling.  It  is  a  “problem- solver in the nebulous areas” [see  K. Veeraswami v.  Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 55)] but the substantive  statutory provisions dealing with the subject-matter  of a given case cannot be altogether ignored by this  Court,  while  making  an  order  under  Article  142.  Indeed,  these  constitutional  powers  cannot,  in  any  way, be controlled by any statutory provisions but at  the  same time  these powers  are  not  meant  to  be  exercised when their exercise  may come  directly in  conflict with what has been expressly provided for in  a statute dealing expressly with the subject.”

33. Even if the above observations is understood to be laying  

down a note of caution, the same would be a qualified one  

and can have no application in a case of mass tort as has  

been  occasioned  in  the  present  case.   The  mechanism  

provided by any of the Statutes in question would neither be

Page 64

64

effective  nor  efficacious  to  deal  with  the  extraordinary  

situation  that  has  arisen  on  account  of  the  large  scale  

illegalities  committed  in  the  operation  of  the  mines  in  

question resulting in grave and irreparable loss to the forest  

wealth of the country besides the colossal loss caused to the  

national exchequer.  The situation being extraordinary the  

remedy,  indeed,  must  also  be  extraordinary.   Considered  

against the backdrop of the Statutory schemes in question,  

we do not see how any of the recommendations of the CEC,  

if accepted, would come into conflict with any law enacted  

by the legislature.  It is only in the above situation that the  

Court  may  consider  the  necessity  of  placing  the  

recommendations  made  by  the  CEC  on  a  finer  balancing  

scale  before  accepting  the  same.  We,  therefore,  feel  

uninhibited  to  proceed  to  exercise  our  constitutional  

jurisdiction  to  remedy  the  enormous  wrong  that  has  

happened and to provide adequate protection for the future,  

as may be required.

ISSUE NO.3

Sanctity  of  the  process  of  survey  undertaken by  the  Joint Team constituted by this Court’s order dated 6  th   

Page 65

65

May, 2011 and the determination of the boundaries of  the leases on the basis of the said survey.   

34. The  above  issue  will  require  examination  from  two  

perspectives.  The first is the fairness of the procedure adopted  

in  carrying out  the  survey and the  second is  with  regard  to  

acceptability of the technical part of the survey process.  In so  

far as the fairness of the procedure adopted is concerned it is  

on record that  notice  of  the  dates  proposed for  survey of  a  

particular  lease  was  intimated  to  the  lease  holder  well  in  

advance to enable the lease holder or his representative to be  

present at  the site while the survey is conducted.   The field  

survey was done by 7 teams consisting of one surveyor each  

from the Karnataka Forest Department,  Karnataka Mines and  

Geological Department, Karnataka Revenue Department and a  

representative  of  the  National  Institute  of  Technology,  

Surathkal.   The  field  survey  undertaken  by  each  team  was  

supervised by the Joint Team constituted by this Court.  During  

the field survey, the representative of the concerned lessees  

were present and the Mahazars (Panchnamas) for each day’s  

survey were prepared incorporating the details  of the survey  

carried out.  The said Panchnamas were signed by, apart from

Page 66

66

the Government representatives and the representative of the  

National  Institute  of  Technology,  Surathkal,  also  by  the  

concerned  lessee  or  their  representatives.   The  readings  

recorded  during  the  field  survey  were  shared  with  the  

concerned lessees or their representatives and before finalizing  

the  survey  sketches  the  concerned  lessees  or  their  

representatives were given a personal hearing.  After the field  

survey was completed, in terms of the order of the Court dated  

23.9.2011, the representations filed by the leaseholders against  

the findings of the Joint Team were reconsidered by the Joint  

Team and personal hearing was afforded to 122 lease holders.  

On the basis of the said hearings, necessary corrections were  

made in respect of 33 number of leases.  Thereafter, the final  

Report of the CEC dated 3.2.2012 was submitted to the Court.  

In terms of the Court’s order dated 10.2.2012, the CEC again  

considered the representations filed by as many as 66 lease  

holders.  The findings of the Joint Team in respect of 4 leases  

were modified by the CEC though the said modification did not  

result into any change of categorization.  Two representations,  

one filed by M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons and another by M/s. Hothur  

Traders  have  been  placed  before  the  Court  for  appropriate

Page 67

67

orders [issue is being dealt with separately] whereas the rest of  

the representations were rejected by the CEC.  In the above  

facts, procedural fairness in the process of survey carried out by  

the Joint Team is writ large and there can be no room for any  

doubt so as to question the sanctity of the survey process on  

the above stated ground.   

35. This  will  require  the  Court  to  go into the  details  of  the  

technical aspect of the survey which was conducted by the Joint  

Team.   The  consideration  of  the  details  of  the  survey  

undertaken, naturally, has to be in the backdrop of the multifold  

complaints that have been raised on behalf of the leaseholders  

in  the  several  IAs  filed.   As  already  noted,  on a  very  broad  

plane, the complaints in this regard are that the Joint Team has  

ignored judicial orders passed in respect of boundaries between  

neighbouring/adjacent leases; reduction of the area of the lease  

provided in the lease deed/lease sketch; shifting of the lease  

area to a new location as a result of the survey. Specifically,  

objections  have  been  raised  to  the  effect  that  overburden  

dumps in different areas have been taken into account to come  

to the finding that mining had been carried out in such areas

Page 68

68

without necessary clearances under the FC Act (in case of forest  

areas) or in the absence of mining leases in respect of such  

areas  (non  forest  areas)  though  the  activity  in  question  i.e.  

dumping  does  not  amount  to  mining  operations  under  the  

MMDR Act.

36. A  consideration  of  the  documents  submitted  by  the  

learned Amicus Curiae and those submitted on behalf of the  

State of Karnataka would go to show that in carrying out the  

survey,  the  Joint  Team  had  encountered  some  serious  

difficulties.  The same may be enumerated below:-

i)   the sanctioned lease sketch did not have  any reference point(s) and with reference  to which the location of the lease can be  decided;

ii)   there is mis-match between the location(s)  of  the  reference  point(s)  on  the  ground  vis-à-vis  the  details  of  such  reference  points(s) provided in the lease sketches;

iii) the  reference  point(s)  have  been  destroyed/altered on the ground;

iv) the Survey and Demarcation sketch does not  tally with the lease sketch; and  

v)     there  is  inherent  defect  in  the  lease  sketch.”

Page 69

69

37. To  overcome  the  said  difficulties,  before  the  

commencement of the actual survey, a pre-survey examination  

was undertaken to identify the boundary pillars,  rock marks,  

revenue points etc.  as shown in the lease sketch.   This was  

done  with  the  help  of  the  government  staff  as  well  as  the  

representative of the concerned lessee.  Instead of measuring  

the  length  of  each  arm  of  the  lease  sketch  by  using  the  

conventional  engineering scale and instead of measuring the  

angle  by  using  a  protractor,  the  original  lease  sketch  was  

scanned and the digitized so that the length of each arm and  

the angles could be precisely measured. Thereafter survey was  

undertaken  by  use  of  the  Total  Station  Method,  which,  

undoubtedly, is the state of the art technology with room for  

negligible  error.   A  temporary  control  point  was  identified  

keeping  in  view  the  visibility  of  the  maximum  number  of  

boundary points from the identified control point.  Thereafter,  

the distance between the control point and the visible boundary  

points were measured and recorded in the instrument  which  

uses an infra-red ray.  The instrument was shifted to another  

temporary control point and in a similar manner the distance  

between the said control point and remaining boundary points

Page 70

70

were measured. After completing the reading of all the points  

the margin of error for the instrument was determined (which  

was virtually  negligible).   Thereafter  the  data  from the total  

station  was  downloaded  on  a  computer  using  the  autocadd  

software  for  preparation  of  the  survey  sketch.  The  survey  

sketch so prepared was superimposed on the digitized lease  

sketch to ascertain the encroachment if any. Also, the details of  

the survey sketch was superimposed on the satellite imageries  

to  further  verify  the  correctness  of  the  process  of  survey  

undertaken. A manual calculation of the lease areas was also  

undertaken to compare with the calculation of the lease areas  

as per the digitized lease sketch. The difference between the  

two measurements in case of 34 number of ‘C’ category leases  

is less than +/- 05ha.  The relevant details in this regard which  

are available in the compilation of documents submitted by the  

State  of  Karnataka  would be  illuminating and are,  therefore,  

indicated below:  

S.No. Name of the Lessee M.L.  No.

Sanctione d  area  in  Ha

Area as per  manual  calculation  in Ha

Areas  as  per  digitized  sketch  in  Ha

Difference  between  Manually  calculated  area  &  Digitised  area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 J.M.  

VRISHVENDRAYYA 2173 3.36 3.348 3.54 0.19

Page 71

71

2 VEEYAM PVT. LTD 2615 20.23 20.196 20.04 -0.16 3 AMBIKA GHORPADE 2354 4.95 4.495 4.84 0.35 4 MYSORE  

MANGANESE  COMPANY

2603 3.24 3.07 3.16 0.10

5 HOTHUR TRADERS 2313 21.11 22.117 21.61 -0.51 6 M.  DASHARATHA  

RAMI REDDY 2560 19.95 19.59 19.46 -0.13

7 BHARAT MINES AND  MINERALS

2245 26.20 23.3 24.47 1.17

8 ASSOCIATED  MINING COMPANY

2434 10.12 10.03 10.14 0.11

9 B.R.  YOGENDRANATH  SINGH

2186 13.00 16.592 15.89 -0.70

10 LATHA  MINING  CO.  (D. NARAYANA)

958 4.05 4 3.93 -0.07

11 CANARA MINERALS 2635 11.34 12.12 11.52 -0.60 12 THANGA  VELU  &  

OTHERS 2585 60.70 62.28 60.92 -1.36

13 TRADING  MINING  COMPANY

1732 5.26 5.31 5.45 0.14

14 SRI.  N.  MANZOOR  AHMED

1324/ 2616

15.97 15.65 15.71 0.06

15 SMT KAMALA BAI 1442 13.45 13.02 13.44 0.42 16 SUDARSHAN  SINGH  

(MAHALAKSHMI  MINERALS)

2579 8.09 8.37 8.11 -0.26

17 RAMGAD  MINERALS  AND  MINING  PVT  LTD

2451 24.28 24.23 24.04 -0.19

18 TRIDENT MINERALS 2315 32.27 31.606 32.43 0.82 19 ALLUM  

VEERABHADRAPPA 2436 28.07 23.553 24.53 0.98

20 KANHAYALAL  DUDHERIA

2563 30.76 28.73 30.09 1.36

21 ADARSHA  ENTERPRISES

2369 3.03 2.91 2.98 0.07

22 MATHA MINERALS 1975/ 2600

129.5 125.5 129.16 3.66

23 S.B. MINERALS 2393 40.47 40.67 40.38 -0.29 24 KARNATAKA LIMPO 2650 6.07 6.94 6.47 -0.47 25 ANJANA MINERALS 2519 4.55 4.5 4.53 0.03 26 DECCAN  MINING  

SYNDICATE (P) LTD 2525 19.02 17.015 17.43 0.41

27 P. ABUBAKAR 2183 14.00 13.756 13.85 0.09 28 LAKSHMI  

NARAYANA  MINING  COMPANY

2487 105.22 103.06 86.18 -16.88

29 KAMALA BAI 2187 23.47 23.43 23.71 0.28 30 MYSORE  

STONEWARE  PIPES  AND  POLTERIES  (P)LTD.  

2521 122.72 118.3 122.65 4.35

Page 72

72

31 TEJA WORK 2353 4.85 4.74 4.83 0.09 32 RAJAPURA MINES 2190 93.74 89.62 91.7 2.13 33 H.G.  

RANGANGOWDA 2148 60.70 60.3 60.66 0.36

34 NIDHI  MINING  PVT.  LTD.

2433 31.84 29.195 29.49 1.30

35 S.B. MINERALS 2550 44.52 38.819 39.40 0.58 36 MILANA  MINERALS  

(LAKSHMI & CO.) 1842 99.56 95.556 99.55 3.99

37 DEEP  CHAND  KISHANLAL

2348 125.45 128.546 124.92 -3.63

38 THUNGABHADRA  MINERALS LTD.

2365 125.58 135.04 163.74 -4.46

39 THUNGABHADRA  MINERALS LTD.

2366 33.97 33.16

40 M SRINIVASULU 2631 74.86 78.565 75.14 -3.43 41 M.  

CHANNAKESHAVA  REDDY  (SRI  LAKSHMI  NARASHIMHA  MINING CO.  

2566 7.85 8 7.57 -0.43

42 SPARK LINE MINING  CORPORATION

2567 4.86 4.93 4.86 -0.07

43 MINERAL  MINERS  AND TRADERS

2185 A

46.13 44.11 44.42 0.31

44 MYSORE  MINERALS  LTD.

995 33.60 82.2 32.89 -49.31

45 V.S. LAD & SONS 2290 105.06 98.12 100.54 2.42 46 KARTHIKEYAS  

MANGANESE 2559 27.23 27.236 26.71 -0.53

47 G RAJSHEKAR 2229 129.49 127.83 127.42 -0.41 48 RAMA RAO PAOL 2621 28.34 26.33 33.80 7.47 49 SMT  RAZIA  

KHANUM 2557/ 1575

12.58 12.0578 12.54 0.48

38. The  participation  of  the  lessee  or  his  representative  

through out the process of survey by the Joint Team; the details  

of  the  manner  of  conduct  of  the   actual  process  of  survey  

delineated above; the use of the state of the art technology; the  

composition of the Joint Team entrusted with the responsibility  

of  the  survey  and  the  constitution  of  the  7  teams  that  

conducted the field survey under the supervision of the Joint

Page 73

73

Team; the two stages of re-verification of the findings of the  

survey in the light of the objections raised by the lease holders  

under orders of this Court dated 26.9.2011 and 10.2.2012 and  

the corrections made on the basis thereof can leave no doubt  

as  to  the  credibility  of  the  findings  of  the  survey conducted  

under the orders of the Court. True it is that we cannot claim to  

be experts; but we need not be to see what is ex facie evident.  

Therefore, notwithstanding the protracted arguments advanced  

on  behalf  of  lease  holders  and  the  large  scale  reference  to  

sketches, maps and drawings filed before this Court by the said  

lease  holders,  we  are  satisfied  that  all  complaints  and  

grievances  must  fade  away  in  the  light  of  the  survey  

undertaken  by  the  Joint  Team  and  the  events  subsequent  

thereto. It would also be significant to take note of the fact that  

in the written submission on behalf of the Federation of Indian  

Mineral Industries (FIMI), in the opening paragraph it has been  

stated as under.

“The applicant submits that FIMI has full  faith in  the integrity and fairness of the survey done by  the Joint Team and recommended by CEC.  FIMI is  in full agreement with the recommendations made  by CEC with regard to Categories A and B and the

Page 74

74

directions  issued  by  this  Hon’ble  Court.   FIMI  is  simultaneously  of  the  view  that  instead  of  cancellation of Category ‘C’ mining leases, these  may  be  directed  to  make  appropriate  compensatory  afforestation  payment,  undertake  R&R work as per R& R Plan prepared by ICFRE and  approved by CEC and after successful completion  and implementation of R&R Plan, they should be  allowed to recommence mining operations in such  leases.”      

39. We make it clear that we have not understood the above  

statement as an admission on the part of the Federation and it  

is on a consideration of the totality of the facts placed before us  

that  we accept the findings of the survey conducted by the  

Joint  Team  constituted  by  the  orders  of  this  Court  and  the  

boundaries of each of the leases determined on that basis. We  

further  direct  that  in  supersession of all  orders either  of the  

authorities of the State or Courts, as may be, the boundaries of  

leases fixed by the Joint Team will henceforth be the boundaries  

of each of the leases who will have the benefit of the lease area  

as determined by the Joint Team. All  proceedings pending in  

any court with regard to boundaries of the leases involved in  

the  present  proceeding  shall  stand adjudicated  by means  of

Page 75

75

present  order  and  no  such  question  would  be  open  for  re-

examination by any body or authority.

40. Before  proceeding  to  the  next  issue  we  would  like  to  

observe that  the contention urged on behalf  of  some of the  

lessees that dumping of mining waste (overburden dumps) do  

not constitute operations under Section 2(d) of the  MMDR Act is  

too  naive  for  acceptance.  The  wide  terms  of  the  definition  

contained in  Section 2(d)  of  the  MMDR Act  encompasses  all  

such  activity  within  the  meaning  of  expression  “mining  

operations”.  Use of forest land for such activity would require  

clearance under the FC Act.   In case the land used for such  

purpose is not forest land the mining lease must cover the land  

used for any such activity.

ISSUE NO.4  

Acceptability of the Recommendations of the CEC with  regard  to  (i)  categorization,  (ii)  Reclamation  and  Rehabilitation (R&R) Plans, (iii) Reopening of Category  ‘A’  and  ‘B’  mines  subject  to  conditions,  (iv)  Closure/reopening of Category ‘C’ mines and (v) future  course  of  action  in  respect  of  Category  ‘C’  mines  if  closure thereof is to be ordered by the Court

41. In the light of the discussions that have preceded sanctity  

of the procedure of laying information and materials before the

Page 76

76

Court  with  regard  to  the  extent  of  illegal  mining  and  other  

specific details in this regard by means of the Reports of the  

CEC  cannot  be  in  doubt.   Inter-generational  equity  and  

sustainable development have come to be firmly embedded in  

our  constitutional  jurisprudence  as  an  integral  part  of  the  

fundamental rights conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution.  

In enforcing such rights of a large number of citizens who are  

bound to be adversely affected by environmental degradation,  

this Court cannot be constrained by the restraints of procedure.  

The  CEC  which  has  been  assisting  the  Court  in  various  

environment  related  matters  for  over  a  decade  now  was  

assigned certain specified tasks which have been performed by  

the  said  body  giving  sufficient  justification  for  the  decisions  

arrived  and  the  recommendations  made.   If  the  said  

recommendations can withstand the test of logic and reason  

which  issue  is  being  examined  hereinafter  we  will  have  no  

reason not to accept the said recommendations and embody  

the same as a part of the  order that we will be required to  

make in the present case.

(i)  Categorization

Page 77

77

42. The  issue  is  whether  categorization  on  the  basis  of  

percentage of the encroached area qua the total lease area is  

an arbitrary decision.  Arbitrariness in the adoption of a criteria  

for classification  has to be tested on the anvil of Article 14 and  

not on the subjective notions of availability of a better basis of  

classification.  The basis suggested i.e. total encroached area  

has the potential of raising questions similar to the ones now  

raised on behalf of the lease holders. This is on account of the  

lack of uniformity in the areas covered by the different leases in  

question. The test, therefore, ought not to be what would be a  

‘better’  basis  for  the  categorization  for  that  would  introduce  

subjectivity in the process; the test is whether categorization on  

the basis adopted results in hostile discrimination and adoption  

of the criteria of percentage has no reasonable nexus with the  

object sought to be achieved, namely, to identify the lessees  

who have committed the maximum violations and damage to  

environment.  Viewed  from  the  aforesaid  perspective,  the  

categorization made does not fail  the test  of reasonableness  

and would commend for our acceptance.

Page 78

78

In this regard, we may take note of two IAs (IA.No.74 of  

2012 and I.A.No.4 of 2012) filed by Federation of Indian Mineral  

Industries which body claims membership of a vast number of  

the  lessees  involved  in  the  present  proceedings.   In  the  

aforesaid  IAs,  as  already  noticed  in  a  different  context,  the  

Federation  has  unequivocally  accepted  the  findings  of  the  

survey conducted by the Joint Team and the recommendation  

of the CEC in so far  as categorization of the leases and the  

actions suggested for reopening of Category ‘A’ and ‘B’ mines  

along  with  other  pre-conditions  stipulated  including  the  

preparation of the R & R plans.  The only caveat in this regard is  

in respect of category ‘C’ mines.  The Federation had suggested  

that the said mines be also allowed to reopen subject to similar  

or  even  more  stringent  conditions  and,  alternatively,  for  

reopening of 39 total out of the total of 49 category ‘C’ mines by  

adoption  of  certain  more  liberal  criteria   than  those  

recommended by the CEC. In the totality of the circumstances,  

we are of the view that  the categorization suggested by the  

CEC in its Report dated 3.2.2012 should be accepted by us.

(ii)  Conditions  which  have  been  suggested  for  opening of Category ‘A’ mines and additionally  the R& R Plans for Category ‘B’ mines

Page 79

79

43. The conditions subject to which Category ‘A’ and ‘B’ mines  

are  to  be  reopened  and  the  R&R  Plans  that  have  been  

recommended as a precondition for reopening of Category ‘B’  

mines  are  essentially  steps  to  ensure  scientific  and  planned  

exploitation of the scarce mineral resources of the country.  The  

details  of the preconditions and the R&R plans have already  

been  noticed  and  would  not  require  a  repetition.   Suffice  it  

would be to say that  such recommendations are wholesome  

and in the interest not only of the environment and ecology but  

the mining industry as a whole so as to enable the industry to  

run in a more organized, planned and disciplined manner.  FIMI  

was actively associated in the framing of the guidelines and the  

preparation  of  the  R&R  Plans.  There  is  nothing  in  the  

preconditions  or  in  the  details  of  the  R&R  plans  suggested  

which are contrary to or in conflict or inconsistent with any of  

the statutory provisions of the MMDR Act, EP Act and FC Act.   In  

such a situation, while accepting the preconditions subject to  

which the Category ‘A’ and ‘B’ mines are to be reopened and  

the R&R plans that must be put in place for Category ‘B’ mines,  

we are of the view that the suggestions made by the CEC for

Page 80

80

reopening of Category ‘A’ and ‘B’ mines as well as the details of  

the R&R plans should be accepted by us, which we accordingly  

do.  This will bring us to the most vital issue of the case, i.e., the  

future of the Category ‘C’ mines.

44. The precise extent of illegal mining that took place in the  

three  districts  of  Karnataka  have been  noted in  detail  in  an  

earlier part of this order (para 23).  The same, therefore, will not  

require any repetition.  Illegal mining apart from playing havoc  

on the national economy had, in fact, cast an ominous cloud on  

the credibility of the system of governance by laws in force. It  

has  had  a  chilling  and  crippling  effect  on  ecology  and  

environment.  It is evident from the compilation submitted to  

the Court by the CEC that several of the Category ‘C’ mines  

were operating without  requisite  clearances under  FC Act  or  

even in the absence of a mining lease for a part of the area  

used  for  mining  operations.   The  satellite  imageries  placed  

before  the  Court  with  regard  to  environmental  damage  and  

destruction has shocked judicial conscience.  It is in the light of  

the above facts  and circumstances that  the future course of  

action  in  respect  of  the  maximum  violators/polluters,  i.e.,

Page 81

81

Category ‘C’ mines has to be judged.  While doing so, the Court  

also has to keep in mind the requirement of Iron Ore to ensure  

adequate  supply  of  manufactured  steel  and  other  allied  

products.   

45. Once  the  result  of  the  survey  undertaken  and  the  

boundaries  of  the  leases  determined  by  the  Joint  Team has  

been accepted by the Court and the basis of categorization of  

the mines has been found to be rational  and constitutionally  

permissible it will be difficult for this Court to visualize as to how  

the Category ‘C’ mines can be allowed to reopen.  There is no  

room for compassion; fervent pleas for clemency cannot have  

even a persuasive value.  As against the individual interest of  

the 49 Category ‘C’ leaseholders, public interest at large would  

require the Court to lean in favour of demonstrating the efficacy  

and effectiveness of the long arm of the law. We, therefore,  

order for the complete closure of the Category ‘C’ mines and for  

necessary follow up action in terms of the recommendations of  

the  CEC  in  this  regard,  details  of  which  have  already  been  

extracted in an earlier part of this order.   

ISSUE NO.5

Page 82

82

Other Miscellaneous/Connected Issues

46. We have noticed that by an order dated 2.11.2012 passed  

by this Court an embargo has been placed on grant of fresh  

mining licenses. In view of the developments that have taken  

place  in  the  meantime  and  in  view of  the  fact  that  we are  

inclined to accept the recommendations at Sl. Nos. VI and VII of  

the CEC’s Report dated 3.2.2012 (Pg.56 of the Report), we do  

not  consider  it  necessary  to  continue  with  the  order  dated  

2.11.2012 in so far as grant of fresh leases are concerned.  

47. In  so  far  as  settlement  of  the  inter-state  boundaries  

between  the  States  of  Andhra  Pradesh  and  Karnataka  is  

concerned, both the States have agreed to have the boundaries  

fixed under the supervision of the Geological Survey of India. In  

view of the agreement between the States on the said issue we  

permit the States to finalize the issue in the above terms.   The  

operation of the 7 leases (Category B1) located on or near the  

inter-State  boundary  is  presently  suspended.   Until  the  

boundary issue between the two States is resolved resumption  

of mining operations in the 7 leases cannot be allowed.

Page 83

83

48. The CEC has provisionally categorised M/s. S.B. Minerals  

(ML  No.2515)  and  Shanthalakshmi  Jayaram  (ML  No.2553)  in  

Category “B” though the encroached area under illegal mining  

pits  has  been  found to  be  24.44% and 23.62% respectively.  

According  to  the  CEC,  it  is  on  account  of  “the  complexities  

involved in finalizing the survey sketches and in the absence of  

inter-village boundary” that the said leases have been placed in  

Category “B” instead of Category “C”.  We cannot agree with  

the tentative decision of the CEC.  On the basis of the findings  

of the survey and the categorization made, both of which have  

been accepted by the Court by the present order, we direct that  

the  aforesaid  two  leases,  namely,  M/s.  S.B.  Minerals  and  

M/s.  Shanthalakshmi  Jayaram  be  placed  in  Category  “C”.  

Necessary consequential action will naturally follow.

49. The  CEC  in  its  Report  dated  28.3.2012  has  placed  the  

cases of M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons and M/s. Hothur Traders (placed in  

Category “C”) for final determination by the Court.  The CEC has  

reported that the encroachment by M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons is only  

in  respect  of  the  overburden  dumps  and  exceeds  the  

percentage (15%) marginally, i.e., by 0.17% which could very

Page 84

84

well be due to the least count error used by the Joint Team.  In  

so far as M/s. Hothur Traders is concerned the CEC in its Report  

dated 28.3.2012  has recorded that according to the lessee it  

has carried on its mining operation for the last 50 years in the  

lease area allotted to it which may have been wrongly identified  

in the earlier surveys and demarcations by taking into account  

a wrong reference point.

Having considered the facts on which the two lessees have  

sought upgradation from “C” to “B” Category we are afraid that  

such upgradation cannot be allowed.  Both the lessees, in fact,  

accept  the  results  of  the  survey  by  the  Joint  Team  which  

findings have already been accepted by us.  

50. In the result, we summarize our conclusions in the matter  

as follows:-

 (1) The  findings  of  the  survey  conducted  by  the  

Joint Team constituted by this Court by order dated  6.5.2011 and boundaries of the leases in question as  determined on the basis of the said survey is hereby  approved and accepted.

Page 85

85

(2)  The categorization of the mines (“A”, “B” and  

“C”) on the basis of the parameters adopted by the  

CEC  as  indicated  in  its  Report  dated  3.2.2012  is  

approved and accepted.

(3)  The  order  of  the  Court  dated  13.4.2012  accepting the recommendations dated 13.3.2012 of  the CEC (in modification of the recommendations of  the CEC dated 3.2.2012) in respect of the items (A) to  (I)  is  reiterated.  Specifically,  the earmarked role of  the  Monitoring  Committee  in  the  said  order  dated  13.4.2012 is also reiterated.

(4) The order of the Court dated 3.9.2012 in respect  of reopening of 18 Category “A” mines subject to the  conditions mentioned in the said order is reiterated.

(5) The order  of the  Court  dated 28.9.2012 in all  respects is reiterated.

(6) The recommendations of the CEC contained in  the  Report  dated  15.2.2013  for  reopening   of  remaining  Category  “A”  mines  and  Category  “B”  mines (63 in number) and sale of sub-grade iron ore  subject  to  the  conditions  mentioned  in  the  said  Report are approved.  

(7) The recommendations contained in paragraphs  VI  and VII  (Pg.  56 to 57)  of the CEC Report dated

Page 86

86

3.2.2012 are accepted, meaning thereby, the leases  in respect of “C” Category mines will stand cancelled  and  the  recommendations  of  the  CEC  (para  VII  Pg. 56) of Report dated 3.2.2012 with regard to the  grant of fresh leases are accepted.  

(8) The proceeds of the sales of the Iron Ore of the  ‘C’  Category  mines  made  through  the  Monitoring  Committee  will  stand  forfeited  to  the  State.   The  Monitoring Committee will remit the amounts held by  it  on  this  account  to  the  SPV  for  utilization  in  connection with the purposes for which it had been  constituted.

(9) M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons, M/s. Hothur  Traders, M/s.  S.B. Minerals (ML No. 2515) and M/s. Shanthalakshmi  Jayaram  (ML  No.  2553)  will  be  treated  as  “C”  Category  mines  and  resultant  consequences  in  respect of the said leases will follow.  

(10) The  operation  of  the  7  leases  placed  in  “B”  category  situated  on  or  nearby  the  Karnataka-  Andhra  Pradesh  inter-State  boundary  will  remain  suspended  until  finalisation  of  the  inter-State  boundary  dispute  whereupon  the  question  of  commencement  of  operations  in  respect  of  the  aforesaid  7  leases  will  be  examined afresh  by the  CEC.

Page 87

87

(11) The recommendations made in  the  paragraph  VIII  of  the  Report  of  the  CEC  dated  3.2.2012  (pertaining  to  M/s.  MML,  Pg.57)  is  accepted.  The  recommendations made in paragraphs IX, X, XII (in  respect  of confiscated  iron-ore)  XIII  and XIV of  the  said  Report  dated  3.2.2012  (Pg.  57-60)  will  not  require  any  specific  direction  as  the  same  have  already been dealt with or the same have otherwise  become redundant, as may be.

(12)  The recommendations  made  in  paragraph  XI  (grant of fresh leases) and paragraph XII (in respect  of pending applications for grant of mining leases) of  the  CEC’s  Report  dated  3.2.2012  (Pg.  59)  are  not  accepted. In view of the discussions and conclusions  in  para  44 of the present  order,  this  Court’s  order  dated  02.11.2012 placing  an  embargo  on grant  of  fresh  mining  leases  need  not  be  continued  any  further.   Grant  of  fresh  mining  leases  and  consideration of pending applications be dealt with in  accordance with law, the directions contained in the  present order as well as the spirit thereof.

(13) Determination  of   the   inter-State  boundary  between Karnataka  and  Andhra  Pradesh  in  so  far  as the same is  relevant  to the present  proceedings,  as agreed upon by the two States, be made through  the intervention of the office of Surveyor General of  India.

Page 88

88

51. We also direct that all consequential action in terms of the  

present  order  be completed with the utmost expedition.  The  

writ  application filed by Samaj  Parivartan Samudaya and IAs  

shall stand disposed of in terms of our abovestated conclusions.  

SLP  (C)  Nos.7366-7367  of  2010,  SLP  (C)  Nos.32690- 32691  of  2010,  WP  (Crl.)  No.66  of  2010,  SLP  (C)  Nos.17064-17065 of 2010, SLP (C) No…….(CC No. 16829  of 2010), SLP (C) No......(CC No. 16830 of 2010), WP (C)  No.411  of  2010,  SLP  (C)  No.353  of  2011  and  WP  (C)  No.76 of 2012

52.  All these matters are de-tagged and directed to be listed  

separately.

……………………………….J.                                   (Aftab Alam)

……………………………….J.                                                (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

……………………………….J.                                       (Ranjan Gogoi)

New Delhi; April 18, 2013.