1  

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10720 OF 2018  

STATE OF MEGHALAYA              ...APPELLANT(S)  

VERSUS  

ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,  

DIMA-HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)  

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10611 OF 2018  

THE STATE COORDINATION COMMITTEE  

OF COAL OWNERS, MINERS AND DEALERS  

FORUM     ...APPELLANT(S)  

 VERSUS  

ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION  

DIMA HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)  

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10907 OF 2018  

GARO HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT  

COUNCIL                 ...APPELLANT(S)  

VERSUS  

ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION  

DIMA HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)  

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5272 OF 2016  

KA HIMA NONGSTOIN LAND OWNERS,   

COAL TRADERS AND   

PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION          ...APPELLANT(S)  

VERSUS  

ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION  

DIMA HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

2  

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL No.            OF 2019  

(@C.A. DIARY NO. 3067 OF 2018)  

LBER LALOO                ...APPELLANT(S)  

VERSUS  

ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,  

HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS.      ...RESPONDENT(S)  

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2968 OF 2019  

STATE OF MEGHALAYA          ...APPELLANT(S)  

VERSUS  

ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION  

DIMA HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)  

J U D G M E N T  

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.  

Natural resources of the country are not meant to  

be consumed only by the present generation of men or  

women of the region where natural resources are  

deposited. These treasures of nature are for all  

generations to come and for intelligent use of the

3  

entire country. The present generation owes a duty to  

preserve and conserve the natural resources of the  

nation so that it may be used in the best interest of  

coming generations as well and for the country as a  

whole.  

2. These appeals have been filed challenging various  

orders passed by National Green Tribunal wherein  

several directions were issued, measures to be taken  

to check and combat the unregulated coal mining in  

Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya which coal mining  

resulted not only loss of lives but damaged the  

environment of the area.    

Details of appeals  

3. Civil Appeal Nos. 10720 of 2018, 10611 of 2018 and  

10907 of 2018 have been filed against order dated  

31.08.2018 passed by the National Green Tribunal,  

Principal Bench, New Delhi. Civil Appeal No.5272 of  

2016 has been filed by KA Hima Nongstoin Land Owners,  

Coal Traders and Producers Association against the

4  

order dated 10.05.2016 of the National Green Tribunal,  

Principal Bench, New Delhi. Civil Appeal (Diary  

No.3067) of 2018 has been filed by Lber Laloo against  

order dated 25.03.2015 of National Green Tribunal,  

Principal Bench, New Delhi and Civil Appeal No.2968 of  

2019 has been filed against order dated 04.01.2019 of  

National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi by  

which State of Meghalaya has been directed to deposit  

Rs.100 crores with the Central Pollution Control Board.  

4. All the appeals having been filed against the  

orders of National Green Tribunal (NGT), it is  

necessary to notice the details of various proceedings  

before the NGT to appreciate the grievances raised in  

the appeals.  The Gauhati High Court on the basis of a  

News item to the effect that on 06.07.2012, 30 coal  

labourers were trapped inside a coal mine at  

Nongalbibra in the District of South Garo Hill and 15  

of them died inside the coal mine, registered PIL suo  

moto No.(SH) 3 of 2012.  Vide order dated 10.12.2012  

of the Gauhati High Court the matter was directed to  

be transferred to NGT in which notice was issued by the

5  

Tribunal on 30.01.2013. Transferred matter was  

registered as Original Application NO.11(THC)/2012.   

All Dimasa Students Union Dima Hasao District Committee  

filed an Original Application No.73 of 2014 before  

National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench making serious  

complaints with regard to rat-hole mining operation,  

which has been going on in Jaintia Hills in the State  

of Meghalaya for last many years without being  

regulated by any law. It was alleged that in the course  

of rat-hole coal mining by flooding water several  

employees and workers have died. The applicant had also  

brought before the Tribunal a detailed report of one  

Dr. O.P. Singh, Professor, Department of Environmental  

Studies, North-Eastern Hills University, Shillong,  

Meghalaya where entire aspects of the coal mining in  

the State of Meghalaya were discussed. The NGT admitted  

the application and took the view that illegal and  

unscientific mining neither can be held to be in the  

interest of people of the area, the people working in  

the mines nor in the interest of environment. After  

hearing applicant, the Tribunal on 17.04.2014 passed  

an order directing the Chief Secretary of Meghalaya,

6  

Director General of Police, State of Meghalaya to  

ensure that rat-hole mining/illegal mining is stopped  

forthwith throughout the State of Meghalaya and any  

illegal transport of coal shall not take place until  

further orders passed by the Tribunal. After the  

passing of the order dated 17.04.2014 various  

applications were filed before the Tribunal by  

different Associations and persons claiming interest  

in the subject matter of the application. Application  

No. 317/2019 was filed by Western Coal Miners and  

Exporters Association for being impleaded in O.A. No.73  

of 2014, which was allowed. Another application  

M.A.No.306 of 2014 was filed by Khasi Hills District  

Autonomous District Council, Shillong, East Khasi Hills  

District, Meghalaya (one of the appellants before us)  

for impleadment claiming to be a constitutional body  

and entitled in the sharing primarily of the royalty  

on the coal produced/mined, which application was  

allowed.  

5. The Tribunal clubbed O.A.No.13 of 2014, O.A.No.73  

of 2014 and O.A.No.11(THC)/2012. Miscellaneous  

applications were filed before the Tribunal praying for

7  

vacating the order dated 17.04.2014. Against order  

dated 17.04.2014, C.A.No.5756 of 2014 was filed by a  

coal mine owner. The miscellaneous application was also  

filed by the State Coordination Committee of the  

Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya (one of the  

appellants before us) for their impleadment, which was  

allowed. This Court dismissed the Civil Appeal filed  

against the order dated 17.04.2014 passed by the  

Tribunal, however, granted liberty to the appellant to  

approach the Tribunal for modification of the order.  

The Tribunal also noticed in its order dated 09.06.2014  

that there has been serious air, water and  

environmental pollution being caused by the illegal,  

unregulated and indiscriminate rat-hole mining being  

carried on in various parts of the State of Meghalaya.  

Serious pollution to the upstream was also noticed. The  

Tribunal, however, noticed that there are documents on  

record to show that right from the year 2003, there has  

been serious air and water pollution in the mining  

areas of Meghalaya which is injurious and has not only  

resulted in degradation of environment, particularly  

the streams and underground water, but has also

8  

seriously jeopardised the human health. It was further  

noticed that Transportation of coal in an illegal,  

unregulated, indiscriminate and unscientific manner  

has resulted in serious diseases to the people. The  

report of the Committee dated 09.06.2014 was noticed  

by the Tribunal. By order dated 09.06.2014 while  

permitting the transportation of the already extracted  

coal lying in open near the mining sites, constituted  

a committee for supervising such transportation.  

Various other directions were issued to the committee  

as well as to the State and its authorities.  

6. By a subsequent order dated 01.08.2014 the Tribunal  

noticed that the committee earlier constituted by order  

dated 09.06.2014 failed to perform the functions  

assigned to it, hence, a new committee was constituted.  

The Tribunal from time to time issued various  

directions. We need to notice four orders passed by the  

Tribunal in detail which are subject matter of  

challenge in these appeals. The orders which are  

subject matter in these appeals are orders dated  

25.03.2015, 10.05.2016, 31.08.2018 and 04.01.2019.  

9  

Order dated 25.03.2015  

7. In order dated 25.03.2015 NGT noticed that the  

rampant, illegal, unscientific and life-threatening  

mining activity, particularly rat hole mining is going  

on in the State of Meghalaya for years. The NGT noticed  

the report of Commissioner appointed by it and opined  

that in spite of order dated 17.04.2014 fresh mining  

was going on. The Tribunal also noticed that State of  

Meghalaya has promulgated a Mining Policy of 2012 which  

does not deal with rat hole mining. The State  

Government was also directed to formulate and declare  

Mining Policy and Guidelines for the State of Meghalaya  

to deal with all aspects of mining, which Policy was  

yet to see the light of the day. The Tribunal also  

noticed that the order of the Tribunal has been  

violated by illegal mining despite complete prohibitory  

orders. It was noticed that the State Government has  

found as many as 73 cases of illegal transportation of  

coal in one District. Further, 15 more cases of  

specific violation of the NGT orders had already been  

registered by the State Government. In all 11 Districts  

of State of Meghalaya, 308 cases of violation have been

10  

registered and a total number of 605 trucks and 2675.63  

tonnes of coal has been seized. The stand of the State  

for a non-compliance and its inability to comply with  

the direction was also noticed to the following effect:  

“(a) Lack of forces of carry out counter  

insurgency operations and implementation of  

NGT orders.   

(b) The State Government proposes to approach  

the Central Government for claiming an  

exemption, in terms of para 12A(b) of the  

VIth Schedule of the Constitution of India  

and from the condition of previous approval  

of the Central Government under the Mine and  

Mineral Rule Regulation Act, 1957 in respect  

of reconnaissance, prospecting and mining of  

coal and from the operations of Coal Mines  

Nationalisation Act.”  

8. The Tribunal issued directions that the Additional  

Secretary, North East in the Ministry of Home, Central  

Government shall, within a period of two weeks, hold a  

meeting with the Chief Secretary of the State of  

Meghalaya and other concerned Authorities and consider  

the proposal of the State of Meghalaya. The Tribunal  

also expressed its disapproval for the conduct of the  

State in not formulating appropriate Policy and  

Guidelines. The Tribunal further observed that the  

mining in the State cannot be permitted, unless

11  

appropriate policy is prepared by the State Government.   

9. The Tribunal also noticed that there is huge  

environmental degradation and pollution of the water  

in the State of Meghalaya and observed that serious  

steps are required to be taken for cleaning polluted  

waterbodies, with the above objective the Tribunal  

authorised the State Government to collect 10% on the  

market value of the coal in addition to the royally  

payable to it. In this regard following directions were  

issued:  

“It is also undisputable that there has  

been huge environmental degradation and  

pollution of the waterbody in the State of  

Meghalaya, because of this illegal,  

unscientific mining. No one has even thought  

of restoration of the area in question, to  

bring to some extent, if not completely,  

restoration of ecology and environment in  

question. Serious steps are required to be  

taken for cleaning polluted waterbodies and  

ensure that no further pollution is caused  

by this activity and the activity which would  

be permitted to be carried on finally  

including transportation of coal. On the  

basis of `Polluter Pay Principle’. We direct  

that the State Government shall in addition  

to the royalty payable to it, shall also  

collect 10% on the market value of the coal  

for every consignment. Having heard the  

learned Counsel appearing for the parties and  

keeping in view the notifications of the  

Central Government dated 10.05.2012 and that

12  

of the State Government dated 22.06.2012, we  

may notice that in the report of Comptroller  

and Auditor General of India for the period  

ending 31st March, 2013 under 7.5.18 of  

Chapter 7 of which the invoice value of the  

coal has been taken Rs. 4850/- per metric  

tonne.   

Thus, we direct that the State Government  

shall in addition to the royalty payable to  

it, also collect 10% of the said market value  

of the coal per metric tonne from each  

person. The amount so collected shall be  

deposited in the account to be titled as  

‘Meghalaya Environment Protection and  

Restoration Fund’ to be maintained by the  

State under the direct control of the Chief  

Secretary of the State of Meghalaya.   

This amount shall only be used for  

restoration of environment and for necessary  

remedial and preventive measures in regard  

to environment and matters related thereto.”  

10. Certain other directions were issued by the  

Tribunal vide order dated 25.03.2015.  

Order dated 10.05.2016  

11. Order dated 10.05.2016 has been challenged by KA  

Hima Nongstoin Land Owners, Coal Traders and Producers  

Association. The NGT vide its order dated 23.12.2015  

had permitted transportation of coal for the period  

till 15.05.2016. By order dated 31.03.2016, NGT refused  

to further extend the time for transportation and

13  

directed that after 15.05.2016 all extracted coal shall  

vest in the State. Aggrieved against order dated  

31.03.2016 KA Hima Nongstoin Land Owners, Coal Traders  

and Producers Association filed C.A.No.4793 of 2016  

before this Court, which was disposed of by granting  

liberty to the appellant to file application before the  

NGT. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court  

M.A.No.427 of 2016 was filed before the NGT. By order  

dated 10.05.2016 applications, M.A. Nos.400 and 427 of  

2016 were dismissed. By the same order the State of  

Meghalaya was directed to place on record the exact  

current quantity of coal and value thereof including  

the status of the coal lying and mined anywhere in the  

State of Meghalaya as on 01.04.2015 and the exact  

quantity of coal lying as on 16.05.2016. The state was  

also directed to submit its proposal as to how the  

State shall deal with the coal that is vested in the  

State primarily for the reasons that entire coal is  

illegally extracted coal.  

Order dated 31.08.2018  

12. On 31.08.2018, the Tribunal noticing the earlier  

proceedings also noted that few issues are pending

14  

before this Court arising out of orders passed by the  

Tribunal. In paragraph 10 of the order following has  

been noticed:  

“10. At this stage, we may note that  

following issues are pending before the  

Hon’ble Supreme Court arising out of orders  

passed by this Tribunal:   

i) Civil Appeal No(s). 5272/2016 titled  as Ka Hima Nongstoin Land Owners,  

Coal Traders and Producers  

Association Vs. All Dimasa Students  

Union, Dima Hasao District Committee  

and Ors., wherein following order was  

passed on 21.09.2016:   

“Having heard counsel for the parties,  

it is directed that the petitioners, as  

well as the respondents, who have mined  

the coal, are permitted to transport the  

coal on payment of royalty and other fees  

as fixed by the National Green Tribunal  

(for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and other  

relevant status. The extracted coal can  

be transported from 1st October, 2016  

till 31st May, 2017. It is further  

directed that no other extraction shall  

take place in the meantime.  

The finding of the Tribunal that the  

coal is vested in the State on the ground  

that it is illegally extracted coal,  

shall be adverted to at the time of final  

hearing. The miners shall keep the  

accounts and if, ultimately, it is held  

that the coal belongs to the State, they  

will refund the amount with interest. The  

quantum of interest shall be determined  

at the time of final hearing. Needless  

to say, these observations have been made

15  

without prejudice to the contentions to  

be raised by the learned counsel for the  

parties. The tribunal can proceed with  

regard to the other aspects which are  

pending before it.”   

The above order shows that question  

whether coal is vested in the State is to be  

gone into before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.   

Thereafter, on 28.03.2018, by the said  

order, time for transporting already  

extracted coal was extended up to 31.05.2018  

but it was clear that no further extraction  

shall be allowed.   

ii) Civil Appeal Diary No. 3067/2018  

titled as Lber Laloo Vs. All Dimasa Students  

Union, Dima Hasao District Committee and  

Ors., raising the question whether ban on  

mining can be continued. We are informed that  

in the said matter, the issue of mining plan  

has also been raised.”  

13. The Tribunal further directed that ban on rat hole  

mining shall continue subject to further orders of this  

Court. Ban on transportation of extracted coal will  

also continue subject to further orders. Following  

directions were issued in paragraph 13:  

“13. Accordingly, we direct that orders of  

ban of rat-hole mining will continue, subject  

to further orders of the Hon’ble Supreme  

Court. Ban of transportation of the already  

mined material will also continue subject to  

further orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  

The State of Meghalaya will be the  

receiver/custodian of the available  

extracted coal as on date, subject to further

16  

orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. If any  

further coal not so far recorded in the  

inventory is available, a separate inventory  

may be made and if it is found that the  

extraction was illegal, royalty in terms of  

orders already passed may also be collected.  

This may be determined by the Secretary of  

Mining of the State of Meghalaya. While one  

view is that there is extracted coal and not  

accounted for, the other view put forward  

that it is result of illegal mining. This  

aspect may be gone into by the Secretary of  

Mining, State of Meghalaya in the first  

instance. The same be cross-checked by a  

joint team of representatives of Central  

Pollution Control Board and Indian School of  

Mines, Dhanbad.”  

14. The Tribunal also deliberated on restoration of  

the environment and rehabilitation of the victims for  

which funds were available. The Tribunal constituted a  

committee headed by Justice B.P. Katakey, Former Judge  

of the Gauhati High Court with representatives from  

Central Pollution Control Board and Indian School of  

Mines, Dhanbad. Paragraphs 14 to 28 of the order are  

relevant in this context which are as follows:  

“14. Only last question which remains is of  

restoration of the environment and  

rehabilitation of the victims for which funds  

are available. We are of the view that for  

this task, it will appropriate that we  

constitute an independent Committee. This  

Committee will be headed by Justice B.P.  

Katakey, Former Judge of the Guwahati High  

Court with representatives from Central

17  

Pollution Control Board and Indian School of  

Mines, Dhanbad.   

15. The Committee will take the following  

steps:   

•  Take stock of all actions taken so far in  this regard.   

•  Prepare time bound action plan to deal  with the issue and ensure its  

implementation.   

16. The Committee may requisition services of  

such technical experts as may be necessary and  

may also carry out visits to sites whenever  

necessary. They will be entitled to all  

logistic support for performing these  

functions which shall be provided under the  

directions of the Chief Secretary, Meghalaya.   

17. The Committee may also set up website for  

receiving and giving information on subject.   

18. The Committee may also involve educational  

institutions for awareness and feedback about  

results.  

19. All authorities concerned in the State of  

Meghalaya shall cooperate and coordinate with  

the Committee. The Committee can seek such  

technical assistance as may be required from  

any relevant authority.   

20. The Chief Secretary, Meghalaya to provide  

all facilities to said Committee to perform  

its functions. The Committee may send its  

periodical reports to the Tribunal by e-mail  

at filing.ngt@gmail.com.   

21. The Committee may assume its charge within  

two weeks from today. The Committee may  

prepare Action Plan which shall have targets

18  

of ensuring compliance. It may meet at such  

intervals as considered appropriate but twice  

in every month and fix targets for compliance.  

22. The Committee will be free to take up all  

incidental issues. The committee will be free  

to seek any further directions from this  

Tribunal by e-mail.   

23. The Chief Secretary of State of Meghalaya  

may determine remuneration of the Chairman in  

consultation with him and the Chief Secretary  

of the State of Meghalaya will also provide  

all logistic support including security if  

needed for their proper functioning.   

25. The Committee will be entitled to take the  

help of the technical experts in execution of  

this order. The Committee may frame its action  

plan for implementation within one month from  

today and implementation may be completed  

within six months as far as possible. The  

timelines may be laid down. A copy of the  

action plan may be sent to this Tribunal by  

e-mail at filing.ngt@gmail.com. Thereafter,  

reports may be sent at least once in two  

months. The Committee may also assess the  

damage to the environment as well as to the  

individuals as already suggested in the  

Report.   

27. The State of Meghalaya will make available  

all the relevant records to the Committee for  

the purpose. The State will also determine the  

remuneration to be paid to the Chairman of the  

Committee in consultation with him within one  

month from today.   

28. The Committee will be at liberty to take  

technical assistance from any quarter which  

may be facilitated by the State of Meghalaya.  

The Committee may also supervise any issue  

arising out of receivership/custodianship of  

the already extracted coal, including any

20  

recommended steps to check illegal mining  

including generation of awareness,  

legislative measures, use of technology,  

carrying out of study but none of the  

recommendations were implemented even after  

21 years.”  

16. The Tribunal after considering the report of the  

committee and other materials on record came to the  

conclusion that the State of Meghalaya had failed to  

perform its duties to act on the recommendation of the  

report of the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board  

submitted in the year 1997. The Tribunal opined that  

interim amount be deposited towards restoration of the  

environment. Paragraphs 31 to 33 are as follows:  

“31. Paying capacity and the amount which may  

act as deterrent to prevent further damage  

is also well recognised. Net Present Value  

of the ecological services foregone and cost  

of damage to environment and pristine  

ecology, the cost of illegal mined material,  

and the cost of mitigation and restoration  

are also relevant factors. The Committee may  

go into these aspects to determine the final  

figure.   

32. We are satisfied that having regard to  

the totality of factual situation emerging  

from the record, damages required to be  

recovered are not, prima facie, less than Rs.  

100 Crores. Accordingly, by way of an interim  

measure, we require the State of Meghalaya  

to deposit Rs. 100 crores within two months  

with the CPCB in this regard.  

21  

33. We have already noted the extent of  

damage found and the value of the illegally  

mined material, apart from clandestine mining  

for which sufficient material is not  

available. The State had collected, as noted  

in the earlier order, royalty of Rs. 400  

crores which by now must be higher figure.”  

17. The State of Meghalaya has filed two appeals being  

C.A.No.10720 of 2018 and C.A.No.2968 of 2019.  

C.A.No.10720 of 2018 has been filed questioning the  

order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Tribunal by which  

the Tribunal directed that order of the ban of rat-

hole mining will continue and further constituted  

Justice B.P. Katakey committee to take steps for  

restoration of the environment and rehabilitation of  

the victims. The other Civil Appeal No.2968 of 2019  

has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh  

questioning the order dated 04.01.2019 by which State  

of Meghalaya was directed to deposit interim amount of  

Rs.100 crores towards restoration of the environment.  

18. Against the same order dated 31.08.2018 two other  

appeals have been filed being C.A.No.10611 of 2018 by  

the State Coordination Committee of Coal Owners,  

Miners and Dealers Forum and C.A.No.10907 of 2018 by

22  

Garo Hills Autonomous District Council aggrieved by  

the perpetual ban of coal mining by order dated  

31.08.2018 without considering illegality of the ban  

in the first place. The appellants are also aggrieved  

by appointment of State Government receiver/custodian  

of the extracted coal when there is no dispute of the  

ownership of the coal and further the question of  

vesting of the coal in the State is pending  

consideration in this Court in C.A.No.5272 of 2016.   

19. C.A.No.10907 of 2018 is filed by Garo Hills  

Autonomous District Council which is aggrieved by the  

order of the Tribunal dated 31.08.2018 by which it has  

confirmed the ban on coal mining which was in force   

for over four years and further direction by the  

Tribunal to constitute a committee for the disposal of  

funds in excess of Rs.400 crores. The appellants are  

aggrieved by the above and alleged that the Tribunal  

failed to consider that constituting the committee  

without considering the roles and responsibilities of  

the District Council has the effect of virtually  

excluding the Council from issues concerning

23  

administration of forests and lands which are within  

the exclusive jurisdiction of the Council. The ban on  

coal mining has effectively closed the doors on a major  

source of revenue for the functioning of the District  

Council, which is empowered in terms of Sixth Schedule  

of the Constitution to collect taxes.  

20. C.A.No.5272 of 2016 by KA Hima Nongstoin Land  

Owners, Coal Traders and Producers Association has  

been filed against order dated 10.05.2016 by which  

Miscellaneous Applications No.400 and 420 of 2016 were  

dismissed. The appellants had prayed for modification  

and clarification and/or recall of the final order  

dated 31.03.2016 by which Tribunal directed for  

vesting of the duly assessed already extracted coal  

with the State of Meghalaya and refusing to extend the  

time for transportation of the already extracted coal.  

The appellants claim for propriety rights of its  

members over such coal, which were mined as per  

prevailing custom prior to 17.04.2014.   

21. Now, remains appeal being Civil Appeal      of  

2019(@ Diary No.3067 of 2018) filed on behalf of the

24  

Lber Laloo. The appellant has filed this appeal against  

the order dated 25.03.2015. Aggrieved by the blanket  

ban on mining activities imposed in the State of  

Meghalaya by the NGT which, according to the appellant,  

is adversely affecting the lives and livelihood of the  

miners in the State of Meghalaya. As a result of ban  

on coal mining large number of the families are  

affected in the State of Meghalaya, who are dependent  

for their livelihood on coal mining.  

Submissions  

22. We have heard Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior  

counsel, Shri Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel,  

Shri Amit Kumar, Advocate General, for the State of  

Meghalaya. We also heard Shri Ranjan Mukherjee  

appearing for the State of Meghalaya. Shri Ranjit  

Kumar, learned senior counsel, appearing for the  

appellant in C.A. Diary No.3067 of 2018 and Shri Raju  

Ramachandran, learned senior counsel, appearing for  

the appellant in C.A.No.10907/2018. Shri Colin  

Gonsalves, learned senior counsel has been heard as  

amicus curiae. We have also heard learned counsel for

25  

respondent No.1 in C.A. No.5272 of 2016 (who was the  

applicant before the NGT). Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned  

senior counsel has been heard for the private  

respondents in C.A.No.5272 of 2016. Shri A.N.S.  

Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General has  

been heard for the Union of India. We have also heard  

other learned counsel who were permitted to intervene  

in the matter and raise various arguments in respect  

of their different IAs.  

23. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel led  

the arguments on behalf of the State of Meghalaya.  

Shri Naphade submits that jurisdiction of NGT  

constituted under National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is  

confined to Sections 14,15 and 16. Section 16 is not  

attracted in the present case. Section 14 deals with  

original jurisdiction of NGT and it takes within its  

compass or all of civil cases where a substantial  

question relating to environment (including  

enforcement of any legal right relating to  

environment) is involved and such question arises out  

of the implementation of the enactments specified in

26  

Schedule I. The jurisdiction depends upon two  

conditions which are required to be satisfied  

cumulatively and they are: (1) substantial question  

which relates to environment and (2) implementation of  

the enactments specified in Schedule I. It is submitted  

that Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)  

Act, 1957(hereinafter referred to as “MMDR Act, 1957”)  

not being specified in Schedule I, the National Green  

Tribunal could not have exercised jurisdiction to  

examine violation of MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted  

that the NGT committed error in holding that the coal  

mining in State of Meghalaya is unregulated. The NGT  

proceeded on erroneous premise that the Tribals of  

Meghalaya cannot do coal mining without obtaining  

lease from the State Government. It is submitted that  

Tribals who are owners of the land are also owners of  

the sub-soil and the minerals in the land. The land in  

the State of Meghalaya was property of men and  

villages. The Khasi Hills, Jaintia Hills and Garo Hills  

have different land tenure system of their own, which  

does not provide for vesting of land or minerals in  

the State right from pre-Independence period.  

27  

24. Shri Naphade submits that the ownership of  

minerals vests with the owner of the land unless the  

owner of the land is deprived of the same by some valid  

process of law, for example, the provision contained  

in Land Revenue Codes of different States, which  

categorically state that the ownership of minerals  

exclusively vests in the State Government. However, in  

the State of Meghalaya, there exists no such law that  

deprives the owner of the land from owning the minerals  

beneath it.   

25. Shri Naphade submits that under MMDR Act, 1957,  

State has no legislative or executive power with regard  

to coal, which is a major mineral. It can neither  

exercise any jurisdiction of granting any mining lease  

to the Tribals nor it has any jurisdiction to frame  

any mining policy. It is submitted that the provisions  

of the MMDR Act deal with lease and prospecting  

licence. The Tribals of Meghalaya are owners of the  

minerals located in their land. Since they are the  

owners, there is no question of they being required to

28  

obtain either a prospecting licence or a mining lease.  

The concepts of lease and licence necessarily involve  

minimum two parties to the transaction- in case of a  

license, there has to be a licensor and licensee.  The  

owner of minerals cannot give licence or lease to  

himself or grant a prospecting licence. The State is  

not the owner of the minerals and, therefore, it cannot  

on its own grant prospecting licence or lease as it  

has no proprietary right in respect of such minerals.  

State can neither be a licensor nor a lessor in such  

situation.   

26. Shri Naphade reiterates that the whole premise of  

NGT that the coal mining in the State of Meghalaya is  

unregulated is fully erroneous. Referring to north-

eastern area under which the State of Meghalaya was  

established as full-fledged State, it is submitted  

that administration of Tribal areas is to be governed  

as per Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India and  

various orders passed by the NGT directly interfered  

in the administration of Tribal area which is vested  

in the Autonomous District Councils. It is submitted

29  

that NGT failed to consider the relevant statutory  

matrix including the provisions of Sixth Schedule and  

legislation framed by the Autonomous District  

Councils. It is submitted that NGT has no jurisdiction  

to constitute any committee for the purpose of  

enforcing its orders. The constitution of committees  

including constitution of Justice B.P. Katakey, former  

Judge of the Gauhati High Court by the impugned order  

dated 31.08.2018 is beyond the jurisdiction of NGT.  

The constitution of the committee is interference with  

the jurisdiction of Autonomous District Council. It is  

further submitted that NGT has also no jurisdiction to  

create any fund. The Tribunal by constituting the  

committee and by constituting a fund has created a  

parallel Government. The Tribunal not being a  

constitutional court it cannot issue a continuous  

mandamus. It is submitted that Tribunal although  

issued several directions to the State of Meghalaya to  

frame mining policy whereas the State has no  

jurisdiction regarding framing of mining policy under  

MMDR Act, 1957, the State is denuded with any  

legislative powers with regard to regulation and

30  

development of minerals, which have been declared by  

the Union to have taken under its control. Referring  

to EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 issued under  

Environment Protection Act, 1986, he submitted that  

environment clearance for mining was required only  

when area of mining was more than five hectares. In  

Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya, mining area  

consists of small area which being not more than five  

hectares, there was no requirement of obtaining an  

environment clearance. He does not dispute that after  

15.01.2016 by the EIA notification now the requirement  

of area of being not more than five hectares having  

been deleted environment clearance is required as on  

date with regard to carrying mining operations. The  

Tribals are dependent for their livelihood on coal  

mining and, therefore, by complete ban on coal mining  

with effect from 17.04.2014, large number of Tribals  

are deprived from their livelihood and it is obligatory  

for the State to espouse the cause of the Tribals, who  

individually were not before the NGT. There being no  

jurisdiction in the State of Meghalaya to grant mining  

lease as per special nature of land tenure in the

33  

Justice B.P. Katakey. The impugned order dated  

04.01.2019 has been passed by the NGT without any  

assessment of damage of environment whatsoever.  The  

Tribunal also did not notice its earlier order dated  

25.03.2015 wherein penalty has already been imposed on  

actual polluters, i.e., coal miners and transporters  

based on Polluters Pay Principle for which Fund,  

namely, Meghalaya Environment Protection and  

Restoration Fund (hereinafter referred to as “MEPRF”)  

has already been created. The NGT passed order dated  

04.01.2019 without considering the concerned statutory  

provisions to determine as to who is responsible for  

implementation of the mining statutes and the  

environmental legislation in the State of Meghalaya.  

The state of Meghalaya has limited source of revenue  

and putting extra burden of Rs.100 Crores shall shatter  

the economy of the state.   

29. Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel,  

in support of appellant, Garo Hills Autonomous  

District Council in Civil Appeal No. 10907 of 2018  

submits that the NGT while passing order dated

34  

31.08.2018 has ignored the Sixth Schedule of the  

Constitution. By order dated 31.08.2018, the NGT could  

not have constituted the committee. Referring to Sixth  

Schedule of the Constitution, Shri Raju Ramachandran  

submits that under para 2, District Councils, Regional  

Councils have been constituted and also Hills District  

Council is a Council created under the Sixth Schedule  

of the constitution framed under Article 244(2) and  

Article 275(1) of the Constitution of India. The  

constitution of committee by the NGT has virtually  

affected District Autonomous Council from issues  

concerning administration of forests and lands within  

the exclusive jurisdiction of the council. The ban of  

coal mining has deprived the appellant from major  

source of Revenue. Under para 8 of Sixth Schedule,  

Autonomous District Council is entitled to share the  

Revenue from minerals royalty collected by the State  

Government. The impugned order has been passed without  

hearing and taking note of existence of shareholders  

or stake of shareholders. Shri Raju Ramachandran  

further submits that NGT has disposed of OA  

Nos.73/2014, 13/2014 and 186/2014 by order dated

35  

31.08.2018 after this, it could not have passed any  

order.   

30. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of  

C.A. No. 5272 of 2016 submits that the appeal filed by  

the appellant is only for seeking protection of the  

proprietary rights of its members over the coal which  

was mined as per prevailing custom prior to 17.04.2014.  

It is submitted that by order dated 31.03.2016, NGT  

had taken the view that all coal after 2016 shall vest  

in the State. The appellant had previously approached  

this Court by filing C.A.No.4793 of 2016 against the  

order dated 31.03.2016 wherein this Court granted the  

liberty to the appellant to approach the NGT for filing  

application for clarification of the order. The  

application of the appellant for clarification was  

rejected by the NGT without giving any reason. The NGT  

had overreached the scope of its jurisdiction and  

authority in directing for vesting of the coal  

extracted by the members from their land in the State.  

It is further submitted that MMDR Act, 1957 was enacted  

by the Parliament to regulate the mining activities in

36  

the country which does not in any manner purport to  

declare the proprietary rights to the State in the  

minerals.   

31. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel in  

support of C.A.(D) No.3067 of 2018 submits that the  

Tribunal committed error in stopping the entire coal  

mining in the State of Meghalaya. Referring to Section  

15 of NGT Act, 2010, Shri Ranjit Kumar submits that  

relief, compensation and restitution can be granted as  

provided in Section 15. It is submitted that by  

stopping entire coal mining from 17.04.2014 the  

livelihood of appellant and several similarly situated  

persons had been adversely affected. It is submitted  

that the Tribunal ought to have lifted the ban. Order  

impugned infringes right under Article 21 of the  

Constitution of India. The Tribunal has acted beyond  

its power under Section 15 of NGT Act, 2010. The  

finding of the Tribunal on mining that in the State of  

Meghalaya mining is unregulated is not correct,  

whereas, a miner is required to get registered and it  

has to pay royalty fixed by the State of Meghalaya.  

37  

32. Shri Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing  

for respondent No.2, State of Meghalaya in  

C.A.No.3067(D) of 2019 submits that even if rat-hole  

mining has been banned, all mining cannot be banned.  

He submits that the Meghalaya Mines and Minerals  

Policy, 2012 has been formulated with an aim to  

facilitate systematic, scientific and planned  

utilisation of mineral resources and to streamline  

mineral based development of the State. The State of  

Meghalaya has been created to follow the customary  

rights and practices of coal mining in the Tribal areas  

of Meghalaya. In this regard letter of Central  

Government dated 02.07.1987 has also been relied. The  

draft guidelines for coal mining activities in the  

State has also been framed in the year 2015. Although,  

NGT has directed Ministry of Environment and Forests  

to look into the matter but no objection has been  

communicated to the State except certain miner  

discrepancies.   

38  

33. Shri A.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor  

General appearing for the Union of India submits that  

provisions of MMDR Act, 1957 are also applicable in  

the Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya. The request  

submitted by the Government of Meghalaya for issuance  

of Presidential Notification under Paragraph 12A(b) of  

the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India for  

exempting the State of Meghalaya from certain  

provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957 has not been acceded  

to. The Office Memorandum dated 12.03.2019 issued by  

the Government of India, Ministry of Coal has been  

referred to and relied by the learned Additional  

Solicitor General in this regard. It is submitted that  

no prior approval for mining rights in respect of area  

containing coal has been given under MMDR Act, 1957 by  

Ministry of Coal, Government of India for the State of  

Meghalaya.   

34. It is submitted that it is entirely impermissible  

for the appellant or any other private person to claim  

any rights for illegal or unlawful mining of coal in  

derogation of the law in force in the State of

39  

Meghalaya. It is further submitted that generation of  

revenue would not be a ground for claiming permission  

to carry out mining in contravention/derogation of the  

law in force. A draft guideline submitted by the State  

Government of Meghalaya by letter dated 24.09.2015 was  

examined by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India  

on which decision was taken that the guidelines  

submitted by the Government of Meghalaya were not in  

conformity with the existing statutory provisions of  

MMDR Act, 1957. Hence, the State of Meghalaya may  

reframe the guidelines in conformity with MMDR Act,  

1957 and submit. In the revised proposal dated  

25.07.2016 the State of Meghalaya had proposed certain  

amendments in MMDR Act, 1957 and exemption from the  

application of the MMDR Act, 1957 through a  

Presidential notification under Para 12A(b) of the  

Sixth Schedule. It had already been communicated by  

Central Government that exemption from applicability  

of MMDR Act, 1957 cannot be acceded to.  

35. Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel,  

appearing as amicus curiae, has raised various

40  

submissions. Learned amicus curiae has submitted a  

Report in two volumes titled “CURSE OF UNREGULATED  

COAL MINING IN MEGHALAYA”, a citizen’s Report from  

Meghalaya 01/12/2018. In Volume I under the head  

‘INTRODUCTION’ the Report states:  

“INTRODUCTON  

Meghalaya has a resource curse. Although, we  

have been endowed with abundant forests and  

minerals, these resources have not  

contributed to the good of our society,  

because they have been extracted without any  

regulation or concern for the larger common  

good. This unregulated, narrow, self-

interest based use of natural resources has  

exacerbated socio-economic inequality,  

destroyed the environment, heightened  

criminality, and torn as under our  

egalitarian tribal social fabric.   

It also violates Section 39(b) of the  

Constitution which provides that the  

ownership and control of the material  

resources of the community should be so  

distributed so as to best subserve the common  

good and, therefore, the State cannot  

distribute the material resource of the  

community in any way it likes. The process  

of distribution must be guided by the  

constitutional principles including the  

doctrine of equality and larger public good.  

The National Green Tribunal’s landmark order  

regarding Unregulated and illegal coal mining  

in our state therefore came as a wakeup call  

for Meghalaya society at large. This order  

has been criticised and appealed against by  

a small section of locals most of who are  

coal mine owners, transporters, politicians  

and administrators who have ‘illegally’

41  

benefitted out of this unregulated mining and  

who want things to get back to business as  

usual. Coal Miners and politicians who are  

miners, truck owners, weigh bridge operators  

etc. have been filed appeals with the  

Honourable Supreme Court, asking the Hon’ble  

Court to rescind NGT orders so that mining  

can once again begin.”  

36. Learned amicus curiae submits that State of  

Meghalaya still continues with the illegal mining.  

Shri Gonsalves submits that Section 4 of MMDR Act,  

1957 by use of words “no person” clearly prohibits  

mining operation without obtaining mining lease in  

accordance with the Act. Referring to Section 5, he  

submits that for Schedule A minerals permission of  

Central Government is required which has not been  

obtained. Shri Gonsalves submits that for mining, the  

leases are required and permission be sought. He  

submits that there are 53 mines per kilometre in Tribal  

areas of Meghalaya. He submits that all extracted coal  

which is claimed to be lying assessed or unassessed in  

the State of Meghalaya is result of illegal mining and  

Coal India Ltd. be directed to take over the entire  

coal.  

42  

37. Shri Gonsalves has also referred to various  

reports of Comptroller and Auditor General of India  

which has been brought on record in Volume II – A  

Citizen’s Report from Meghalaya 06/01/2019.  

38. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel,  

appearing on behalf of private respondent in Civil  

Appeal No.5272 of 2016 has refuted the submissions  

raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Shri  

Nidhesh Gupta submits that as per Entry 54 of List I  

regulation of mines and minerals development has been  

declared by the Parliament under MMDR Act, 1957.  

Section 2, by declaration as contained in MMDR Act,  

1957, the State Government is denuded of all  

legislative and executive powers under Entry 23 of  

List II read with Article 162 of the Constitution of  

India. Section 4 sub-section (1) makes it clear that  

no person can undertake any reconnaissance,  

prospecting or mining operations in any area, except  

under and in accordance with the terms and conditions  

of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence.  

As per Section 5 sub-section (1) A State Government

43  

shall not grant a reconnaissance permit, prospecting  

licence or mining lease to any person unless such  

person is an Indian National and satisfies such  

conditions as may be prescribed.  The proviso to  

Section 5(1) provides that in respect of any mineral  

specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule,  

no reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or  

mining lease shall be granted except with the previous  

approval of the Central Government. The contention on  

behalf of the State of Meghalaya that the MMDR Act,  

1957 does not apply to State of Meghalaya is based on  

an erroneous reading of the statutory provisions.   

39. Section 13 empowers the Central Government to make  

rules for regulating the grant of reconnaissance  

permits, prospecting licences and mining leases in  

respect of land in which minerals vest in the  

Government and also in respect of any land in which  

the minerals vest in a person other than the  

Government. In exercise of powers under Section 13 of  

the Act, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 have been  

framed.

44  

40. Chapter V deals with the procedure for obtaining  

a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of  

a land in which the minerals vest in a person other  

than the Government. The said Chapter contains  

provisions from Rule 41 to Rule 52. Rule 41 stipulates  

that the provisions of the said Chapter apply only to  

the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases in  

respect of land in which minerals vest exclusively in  

a person other than the Government. Therefore, mining  

leases in respect of land where minerals vest in a  

person other than the Government are covered by the  

said Chapter and matters concerning grant of  

prospecting licences and mining leases are detailed  

therein.   

41. As per Section 23C, the State Government is  

empowered to make Rules for preventing illegal mining,  

transportation and storage of minerals. No Rules have  

been framed by the State of Meghalaya under Section  

23C. The contention on behalf of State of Meghalaya  

that MMDR Act applies only in the cases where minerals

45  

vest in Government, therefore, MMDR Act does not apply  

in the State of Meghalaya, is completely misconceived.   

42. Learned counsel also relies on the stand taken by  

the Union of India in the Status Report dated  

24.07.2018. Shri Gupta submits that approximate price  

of coal is Rs.10,000/- per metric ton. Referring to  

notice inviting tenders by the State of Meghalaya, it  

is submitted that amount of Rs.1,000/- per metric ton  

was contemplated. It is submitted that selling the  

coal on much low price is causing loss to Revenue as  

well as loss to other stakeholders. The allegations  

have been by Shri Gupta that sale of coal at such low  

price raises suspicion of under hand dealing. It is  

submitted that legal position be laid down by this  

Court and the orders of the NGT be upheld.   

43. In addition to above, we have also heard several  

learned counsels who have filed IA for impleadment and  

IAs for direction including direction to transport  

coal belonging to them. We have heard Shri Siddharth

46  

Luthra, Shri R. Basant, Smt. Meenakshi Arora, Senior  

Advocates and other learned counsel.  

44. On 10.05.2019, we had passed an order permitting  

transportation of coal to the extent of 75,050 metric  

ton which was balance quantity from 1,76,655 metric  

ton of coal, for transportation of which this Court  

had passed order on 04.12.2018. The order dated  

10.05.2019 permitted transportation of the coal, for  

which Transport challans had already been issued after  

04.12.2018 under the terms and conditions as indicated  

in the order dated 10.05.2019. In the order dated  

10.05.2019, we had also held that applicants need not  

be impleaded, however, they were permitted to  

intervene in the matter.  

45. The counsel appearing for different applicants  

claim transportation of different quantity of coal  

which according to them has now been assessed. Still  

some of the applicants claims transportation of the  

coal which is yet to be assessed. In different  

applications, different quantities are claimed to be

47  

transported which according to the applicant is lying  

in different districts of the State of Meghalaya.  

I.A.No.22981 of 2019 and I.A. No. 22991 of 2019 are  

applications by an applicant claiming to be auction  

purchaser. Learned counsel submitted that he was  

declared highest bidder, he pleaded for extension of  

time to deposit the amount but after the order dated  

15.01.2019, he was not permitted to transport the coal  

nor he could deposit the balance auction money.  

46. Shri Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing  

for State of Meghalaya has filed an additional  

affidavit of Commissioner and Secretary to the  

Government of Meghalaya, Mining and Geology Department  

dated 06.04.2019. In the affidavit, it is stated that  

in pursuance of the order of NGT dated 31.08.2018, the  

State Government vide notification dated 14.09.2018  

has constituted a team to assist the Commissioner and  

Secretary to deal with the directives given in para 13  

of the order of the NGT. It is submitted that in  

pursuance of the order of the State Government dated  

14.09.2018, the members of the committee have carried

48  

out assessment of unassessed extracted coal appearing  

in the datasheet of inventory in different hills  

district. The report dated 04.10.2018 of Deputy  

Commissioner, west Khasi hills, is filed as Annexure  

A-3, containing the statement of unassessed extracted  

coal has been brought on record. Another report dated  

22.10.2018 and 16.11.2018 of west Khasi hills district  

containing the statement of assessment of unassessed  

extracted coal has been brought on record. By report  

dated 12.11.2018 of Deputy Commissioner, South west  

Khasi hills, datasheet of coal inventory has been  

brought on the record. Report dated 30.10.2018, Deputy  

Commissioner, South Garo hills, has also been brought  

on record. There were reports referring to different  

assessment carried out by the committee according to  

the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the  

Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of  

Meghalaya, the total quantity of coal stock which has  

now been assessed in different reports stands at  

32,56,715 metric ton.  

47. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the  

State of Meghalaya that above assessment of coal has

49  

been also verified by technical committees appointed  

by the State of Meghalaya. Certain reports of technical  

committees have also been brought on the record along  

with the affidavit.  

48. Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned Amicus Curiae has  

challenged the assessment made by the committees  

appointed by the State Government as well as  

verification by technical committee report. It is  

submitted by Shri Gonsalves that report of technical  

committee wants to undo what has been done in the  

proceedings before the tribunal and this Court.  

Learned Amicus Curiae submits that for transportation,  

five extensions were granted by NGT and four extensions  

were granted by this Court. Shri Gonsalves referred to  

Katakey committee report in support of his  

submissions.  

49. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel, has  

also refuted the claim of the different applicants as  

well as the steps taken by the State of Meghalaya in  

assessing the coal and verifying the same by technical

50  

committee. Shri Gupta submits that the coal which is  

now claimed to be assessed is nothing but illegally  

extracted coal. It is submitted that in pursuance of  

several orders passed by NGT and this Court substantial  

transportation of coal has been permitted, still the  

enormous quantity of coal is claimed which is nothing  

but an excuse to obtain an order of transportation of  

such illegally mined coal. It is submitted that State  

of Meghalaya is hand in glove with illegal miners.  

Shri Gupta submits that the cost of winning coal by  

rat hole mining is negligible and after payment of  

royalty of Rs.675/- and Rs.485/- towards Meghalaya  

Environment Protection and Restoration Fund i.e. total  

payment of Rs.1160/-, the coal is transported. The  

market price of the coal is approximately Rs.10,000/-  

per metric ton. The claim of different applicants with  

regard to unassessed coal is false. It is submitted  

that all illegally mined coal should be vested in the  

State and no permission of transport as prayed by the  

different applicants be granted by this Court. Learned  

senior advocate submits that all applications praying  

for different directions deserve to be rejected.  

51  

50. Learned counsel for the parties in support of  

their respective submissions have placed reliance on  

various judgments of this Court which shall be referred  

to while considering the submissions of the parties.   

51. From the submissions of the parties as noted above  

and the materials on record in these appeals following  

points arise for consideration.   

52. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION  

1.  Whether orders passed by the National Green  

Tribunal are without jurisdiction being beyond the  

purview of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the National  

Green Tribunal Act, 2010?  

2. Whether provisions of Mines and Minerals  

Development Regulation Act, 1957 are applicable  

in Tribal areas within the State of Meghalaya,  

included in Sixth Schedule of the Constitution?  

3. Whether for mining the minerals from privately  

owned/community owned land in hills districts of  

Meghalaya, obtaining a mining lease is a statutory

52  

requirement under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the  

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960?  

4. Whether under the MMDR Act, 1957 and Mineral  

Concession Rules, 1960, it is the State  

Government, who is to grant lease for mining of  

minerals in privately owned/community owned land  

or it is the owner of the minerals, who is to  

grant lease for carrying out mining operations?  

5. Whether the State of Meghalaya has any statutory  

control over the mining of coal from privately  

owned/community owned land in hills districts of  

State of Meghalaya?   

6. Whether the power to allot land for mining  

purposes is vested in Autonomous District  

Councils?  

7. Whether the order of National Green Tribunal dated  

17.04.2014 directing for complete ban on mining  

is unsustainable?  

8. Whether the complete ban on mining of coal in the  

State of Meghalaya as directed by NGT deserved to

53  

be vacated/modified in the interest of State and  

Tribals?  

9. Whether NGT had any jurisdiction to constitute  

committees to submit reports, to implement the  

orders of NGT, to monitor storage/transportation;  

of minerals and to prepare action plan for  

restoration of environment?  

10. Whether the NGT committed error in directing for  

constitution of fund, namely, Meghalaya  

Environment Protection and Restoration Fund?  

11. Whether NGT by constituting Committees has  

delegated essential judicial powers to the  

Committees and has further encroached the  

constitutional scheme of administration of Tribal  

areas under Article 244(2) and Article 275(1) and  

Schedule VI of the Constitution?  

12. Whether direction to deposit Rs.100/- crores by  

the State of Meghalaya by order dated 04.01.2019  

of NGT impugned in C.A.No.2968 of 2019 is  

sustainable?

54  

13. Whether NGT’s order dated 31.03.2016 that after  

15.05.2016 all remaining coal shall vest in the  

State of Meghalaya is sustainable?  

14. Whether assessed and unassessed coal which has  

already been extracted and lying in different  

Districts of Meghalaya be permitted to be  

transported and what mechanism be adopted for  

disposal of such coal?  

53. Now we proceed to consider the above points in  

seriatim.  

Point No.1  

54. The State of Meghalaya submits that NGT while  

imposing ban on mining and by forming committee and  

creating a “Meghalaya Environment Protection and  

Restoration Fund” has gone beyond its jurisdiction as  

conferred on it by NGT Act, 2010. The Tribunal has no  

inherent jurisdiction, its jurisdiction flow from  

Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Act.   

55  

55. It is relevant to notice few provisions of NGT  

Act, 2010 to comprehend the jurisdiction vested with  

the Tribunal. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010  

was enacted to provide for the effective and  

expeditious disposal of cases relating to  

environmental protection and conservation of forests  

and other natural resources including enforcement of  

any legal right relating to environment and giving  

relief and compensation for damages to persons and  

property and for matters connected therewith or  

incidental thereto. Section 2 is definitions. Section  

2(c)defines environment in the following manner:  

“2(c) "environment" includes water, air and  

land and the inter-relationship, which exists  

among and between water, air and land and  

human beings, other living creatures, plants,  

micro-organism and property;  

56. Section 2(m) defines substantial question relating  

environment which is to the following effect:  

“2(m) "substantial question relating to  

environment" shall include an instance  

where,— (i) there is a direct violation of a  

specific statutory environmental obligation  

by a person by which,— (A) the community at  

large other than an individual or group of  

individuals is affected or likely to be  

affected by the environmental consequences;  

or (B) the gravity of damage to the

56  

environment or property is substantial; or  

(C) the damage to public health is broadly  

measurable; (ii) the environmental  

consequences relate to a specific activity  

or a point source of pollution;”  

57. Chapter III of the Act deals with jurisdiction,  

powers and proceedings of the Tribunal. Sections 14  

and 15 which are relevant in the present case are as  

follows:  

“14. Tribunal to settle disputes.—(1) The  

Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all  

civil cases where a substantial question  

relating to environment (including  

enforcement of any legal right relating to  

environment), is involved and such question  

arises out of the implementation of the  

enactments specified in Schedule I.   

1. Ins. by Act 7 of 2017, s. 182 (w.e.f. 26- 5-2017).    

(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes  

arising from the questions referred to in  

sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and  

pass order thereon.   

(3) No application for adjudication of  

dispute under this section shall be  

entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made  

within a period of six months from the date  

on which the cause of action for such dispute  

first arose:   

Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is  

satisfied that the applicant was prevented  

by sufficient cause from filing the  

application within the said period, allow it

57  

to be filed within a further period not  

exceeding sixty days.   

15. Relief, compensation and restitution.—  

(1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide,—   

(a) relief and compensation to the victims  

of pollution and other environmental  

damage arising under the enactments  

specified in the Schedule I (including  

accident occurring while handling any  

hazardous substance);   

(b) for restitution of property damaged;   

(c) for restitution of the environment for  

such area or areas, as the Tribunal  

may think fit.   

(2) The relief and compensation and  

restitution of property and environment  

referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of  

sub-section (1) shall be in addition to the  

relief paid or payable under the Public  

Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).   

(3) No application for grant of any  

compensation or relief or restitution of  

property or environment under this section  

shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless  

it is made within a period of five years from  

the date on which the cause for such  

compensation or relief first arose:  

Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is  

satisfied that the applicant was prevented  

by sufficient cause from filing the  

application within the said period, allow it  

to be filed within a further period not  

exceeding sixty days.   

(4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the  

damage to public health, property and

58  

environment, divide the compensation or  

relief payable under separate heads specified  

in Schedule II so as to provide compensation  

or relief to the claimants and for  

restitution of the damaged property or  

environment, as it may think fit.   

(5) Every claimant of the compensation or  

relief under this Act shall intimate to the  

Tribunal about the application filed to, or,  

as the case may be, compensation or relief  

received from, any other court or authority.”  

58. The submission which has been pressed by the State  

is that neither MMDR Act, 1957 nor Mines Act, 1952 is  

prescribed in Schedule I of the Act, hence, coal mining  

is not within the purview of Schedule I and not within  

the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The submission  

further is that for applicability of Section 14 both  

the component of sub-section (1) of Section 14 that  

(i) a substantial question relating to environment and  

(ii) such question arises out of the implementation of  

the enactments specified in Schedule I has to be  

satisfied.   

59. It is relevant to notice that before the NGT no  

such plea was taken by the State of Meghalaya or any  

of the parties questioning the jurisdiction of the  

NGT. However, the issue being a jurisdictional issue,

59  

we have permitted the learned counsel for the appellant  

to raise the issue. The NGT took cognizance when  

application, O.A.No.73 of 2014 on 17.04.2014 was  

admitted and order was issued. The jurisdiction of the  

Tribunal to entertain O.A.No.73 of 2014 has to be found  

out from the case set up and pleadings in O.A.No.73 of  

2014 for which we need to scrutinise the application.  

O.A.No.73 of 2014 has been brought on record as  

Annexure - A3 in C.A.No.5272 of 2016. The application  

was filed by one All Dimasa Students Union Dima Hasao  

District Committee. In the application following were  

the respondents:  

1. The State of Meghalaya through the  

Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment  

Department, Government of Meghalaya,  

Shillong. 2. The Chairperson,  State  

Pollution Control Board, Meghalaya,  

Shillong. 3. The State of Assam through the  

Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment  

Department Government of Assam, Dispur. 4.The  

Chairperson, State Pollution Control Board,  

Assam, Dispur. 5. The Central Pollution  

Control Board, Parvesh Bhawan, East Arjun  

Nagar, Delhi – 110032 through its  

Chairperson. 6. North Easter Electric Power  

Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman and  

Managing Director Brooklyn Compound, Lower  

New Colony, Shillong – 793003. Meghalaya.   

60  

60. Paragraph 3 of the application states the case of  

the applicant and facts in brief. Paragraph 3 and (I)  

to (VI) are as follows:  

“3.The Applicant above named beg to  present the present Application to bring  to the notice of this Hon'ble Tribunal about  the adverse impact of unscientific  opencast mining operations being still  undertaken in the Jaintia Hills in  Meghalaya on the ecology and socio-economy  of the concerned area including Dima Hasao  District of Assam. It is stated that the  Acid Mine Drainage (for short (AMD')  generated from the aforesaid mining  operations has resulted in making the  water of the river Kopili (an inter-state  river flowing through the State of Meghalaya  and Assam) and its tributaries highly  acidic which in turn has not only caused  serious far reaching damage to the  environment, water bodies, soil,  agriculture, economy, and industry of the  concerned area but also resulted in  causing erosion/corrosion of the critical  underwater Hydro Power Equipments of the  Kopili Hydro-Electric Project (for short  `KHEP') of the North-Eastern Electric  Power Corporation Ltd (for short `NEEPC0')  situated in Umrongso, Dima Hasao,  District of Assam in as much as the   

said acidic water is ultimately led to the  

reservoirs of the said project.  

FACTS IN BRIEF   

I. That the Applicant is the Secretary of  the Dima Hasao Students Association and  

filing the present Petition in a  

representative capacity to espouse the  

cause of the people of Dima Hasao,  

Assam who are constantly and  

continuously facing the adverse affect  

of the aforesaid illegal activities  

in the State of Meghalaya.  

II.  That the Kopili River is an inter- state river in North-East India that  

flows through the States of Meghalaya  

and Assam and is the largest south bank  

tributary of the river Brahmaputra in

61  

Assam, The Kopili river originates from  

the black mountains of Lum Bah-bo Bah-

Kong in Meghalaya and flows north-west  

into the Brahmaputra Valley in Assam.  

The said river demarcates the Jaintia  

Hills in Meghalaya and Dirria Hasao in  

Assam. The river flows for a total  

length of 290 kms and has a catchment  

area of 16, 420 Kms.  

III. That the Kopili Hydro-Electric  

Project (KHEP) of NEEPCO (a Government  

of India undertaking)is one of the  

pioneering Hydro-Electric Project in the  

North Eastern Region of India. The Kopili  

Hydro-Electric Plant is a 275 MW  

storage type hydro electric plant  

consisting of two dams which have  

created two reservoirs namely Kopili  

reservoir is used in the Khandong  

powerhouse through a 2759 metre tunnel  

to generate power. The tail water from  

this powerhouse is led to the Umrong  

reservoir is used in Kopili powerhouse  

through a 5473 metre tunnel to generate  

power. Although, the dam, powerhouse and  

residential colony of. kopili Hydro  

Electric Planer (KHEP) are located in  

the Dima Hasao District (formerly known  

as North Cachar Hills District) of  

Assam, the catchment and reservoirs are  

spread in two states namely Meghalaya  

and Assam. It is further stated that  

the Kopili River and its tributaries  

feed water to the reservoirs of the project. The  

Kharkor is a major tributary of river Kopili  

and drains a vast area of Jaintia Hills  

Districts of Meghalaya. The Jaintia  

Hills being well known for coal mining  

areas is contributing acidic water in  

the form of Acid Mine Drainage (AMD)  

to the river Kharkor through its  

different tributaries such as Urn Pai,  

Myntriang, Urn Ropang, Sarbang, Mostem

62  

etc. as these streams drain through  

the active and inactive coal mining  

areas of Jaintia Hills. The acidic  

water finally reaches to Khandong and  

Umrong reservoirs of KHEP. As a result,  

the water of the reservoirs has become  

highly acidic. The water pollution in  

streams of catchment area varies from  

brownish to reddish orange. The same  

polluted water through various  

tributaries of rivers Kharkor and  

Kopili is perpetually reaching to the  

reservoirs of the KHEP. As a result, the  

water of reservoirs has become highly  

acidic. In recent years, it has been  

found that acidity of reservoir water  

is a major threat to equipments and  

machinery due to corrosion/metal  

decay and erosion. Components such as  

cooling water header pipe, Bends,  

throttling valves, pressure equalizer  

pipe of turbine etc. made up of  

different metals and alloys are  

getting severely affected and  

incurring high maintenance cost.  

IV. That the said adverse impact of the  

aforesaid mining operation which has  

not only affected the ecology and  

socio-economy of   

the area but also severely affected  

the generation of hydro-electricity at  

the Kopili Hydro-Electric Plant has been  

subject matter of various studies. In  

fact, a detailed project report of  

pilot project for remediation of Acid  

Mine Drainage (AMD) in the catchment  

of Kopili River at the upstream of  

Kopili Hydro Electric Plant (KHEP),  

Umrongso, Dima Hasao, Assam was done  

by Dr. O.P.Singh, Professor,  

Department of Environmental Studies,  

North-Eastern Hills University,  

Shillong, Meghalaya. Similarly, a

63  

detailed article based on detailed  

investigation by Shri Pankaj Sharma and  

others was published under the heading  

"Acid mine discharge — Challenges met in  

a hydro power project" in the  

International Journal of  

Environmental Sciences, Volume I,  

No.6, 2011. Both the aforesaid  

publications gives an in depth  

analysis of the aforesaid problem as  

well as suggests remedial measures to  

improve the situation. However, it is  

stated that no proper and effective  

remedial measures have been taken by the  

concerned authorities / State  

Respondents to abort the aforesaid  

menace and the ill-effect of the same are  

still continuing and the same are being  

constantly faced by the innocent citizens  

/ water bodies etc of the area including  

the people of Dima Hasao district of  

Assam. Copies of the detailed project  

report of pilot project for remediation of  

Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) in the catchment  

of Kopili River at the upstream of  

Kopili Hydro Electric Plant (KHEP),  

Umrongso, Dima Hasao, Assam and the  

article published under the heading "Acid  

mine discharge — Challenges met in a hydro  

power project" in the International Journal  

of Environmental Sciences, Volume I,  

No.6, 2011 are annexed herewith and  

marked as ANNEXURE-P/1 & P-2   

respectively. The ill-effect of the  

aforesaid operations has also   been the  

subject matter of news items in various  

newspapers including one published by  

the Assam Tribune on June, 20, 2012 under  

the heading "Concern over contamination  

of Kopili Water" and another one  

published in the Telegraph on  

20.06.2013 under the heading "Two  

Kopili power units shut down — Mining  

in Jaintia Hills affects machines".

64  

Copies of the news items published in  

the Assam Tribune dated 20.06.2012 and  

the Telegraph dated 20.06.2013 are  

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-

P/3 & P-4 respectively.”  

61. In paragraph 3(V) the appellant has extracted a  

report of one Dr. O.P. Singh, Professor, North-Eastern  

Hills University, Shillong, Meghalaya. Certain  

paragraphs of report stated that Acid Mine  

Drainage(AMD) is the greatest environmental problem of  

coal industry and main source of water pollution in  

and around mining areas. The report mentioned that AMD  

degrades the water quality of the area in terms of  

lowering the pH of the surrounding water resources and  

increasing the level of total suspended solids, total  

dissolved solids and some heavy metals. Following is  

the part of the paragraph 4.1.4 of the report which is  

extracted in paragraph 3(V):  

"4.1.4 Impact of AMD on Environment, Socio-

economy and Industry  

Impact on Environment and Water Resources:  

Acid mine drainage is the greatest  

environmental problem of coal mining  

industry and main source of water  

pollution in and around mining areas. The  

influx of untreated AMD into streams  

severely degrades both water quality and

65  

aquatic habitat turning water unfit for  

desired uses and often producing an  

environment devoid of most aquatic life.  

AMD degrades the water quality of the area  

in terms of lowering the pH of the  

surrounding water resources and increasing the level  

of total suspended solids, total dissolved  

solids and some heavy metals. Acidity and  

high concentration of SO42; iron and other  

metals prove to be toxic and corrosive to  

most aquatic animals and plants. Precipitate  

of iron hydroxide increases the load of  

suspended solids which impair light  

penetration and visibility resulting into  

low productivity and disruption of  

normal functioning of the contaminated  

aquatic ecosystem. AMD can also be toxic to  

vegetation when discharged to the shallow  

soil water zones and wetlands (Van Green et  

al., 1999; Singh and Agrawal, 2004; Gosh,  

1991).  

Aquatic communities of rivers and  

streams comprise of phytoplanktoris,  

periphyton, macrophytes, zooplanktons,  

invertebrates and vertebrate species. They  

play important role in normal functioning  

of the aquatic ecosystem and are  

indicative of good health of water bodies.  

Generally, a variety of species with  

representatives of almost all insect  

orders, including a high diversity of  

insects belonging to the taxonomic orders of  

Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera  

(stoneflies), and Trichoptera  

(caddisflies) commonly referred to as EPT  

taxa. Any physical, chemical or  

biological change in water bodies affects  

one or all species and disturbs the normal  

functioning of the aquatic ecosystem.  

Like many other pollutants, AMID  

contamination causes a reduction in the  

diversity and total numbers, or abundance,

66  

of these aquatic communities including  

benthic macroinvertebrates, fishes, etc. As  

a result, the community structure is altered  

and water bodies affected by AMD possess a  

lower percentage of EPT taxa (Campbell et  

al., 2000). Moderate AMD contamination  

eliminates the more sensitive species  

whereas severely contaminated conditions  

are characterized by dominance of certain  

taxonomic representatives of pollution  

tolerant organisms.  

As a consequence of depletion of aquatic  

invertebrates, the fishes do not get adequate  

supply of food and suffer indirectly from AMD  

contamination AMD also has direct effect on  

fishby causing various physiological  

disturbances. However, the primary cause of  

fish death in acid waters is loss of sodium  

ions from the blbod. Less availability of  

oxygen to the cells and tissues leads to  

anoxia and death as acid water increases the  

permeability of fish gills to water,  

adversely affecting the gill function.  

Severe anoxia occurs below pH 4.2. Low H  

that is not directly lethal may adversely  

affect fish growth rates and reproduction.”  

62. Further, paragraph 4.2.3 of the report dealt with  

coal mining in Jaintia Hills and paragraph 4.2.4 dealt  

with impact of coal mining in Jaintia Hills and  

paragraph 4.2.5 dealt with degradation of water  

quality due to coal mining. Paragraphs 4.2.3, 4.2.4,  

4.2.5 and 4.2.6 which were extracted in O.A.No.73 of  

2014 are produced as below:

67  

“4.2.3 Coal Mining in Jaintia Hills  

Extraction of coal has been taking place in  

all three regions, however, 'major production  

occurs in Jaintia Hills. The mining activity  

in Jaintia Hills is a small scale venture  

controlled by individuals who own the  

land. Primitive mining method commonly  

known as 'rat-hole' mining is in  

practice in Meghalaya. In this method the land  

is first cleared by cutting and removing the  

ground vegetation and then digging pits  

ranging from 5 to 100 m2 into the ground to  

reach the coal seam. Thereafter, tunnels are  

made into the seam sideways to extract the  

coal which is brought into the pit by using  

a conical basket or a wheel barrow  

manually. Coal seams are reached by  

excavating the side edge of the hill slopes  

and then coal is extracted through a  

horizontal tunnel. The coal from the tunnel  

or pit is taken out and dumped on nearby un-

mined area, from where it is carried to the  

larger dumping places near highways for its  

trade and transportation. Finally, the coal  

is carried by trucks to the larger dumping  

places near highways for its trade and  

transportation. Entire road sides in and  

around mining areas are used for piling of  

coal which is a major source of air, water  

and soil pollution. Off road movement of  

trucks and other vehicles in the area  

causes further damage to the ecology of the  

area.  

Every year new areas are brought under  

mining and area under coal mining in Jaintia  

Hills is increasing day-by-day as shown in  

Figure 4,5."  

"4.2.4 Impact of Coal Mining in Jaintia  

Hills and Beyond  

Mining operation, undoubtedly has  

brought wealth and employment opportunity

68  

in the area, but simultaneously has led to  

extensive environmental degradation and  

erosion of traditional values in the  

society. Environmental problems associated  

with mining have been felt severely because  

of the region's fragile ecosystems and  

richness of biological and cultural  

diversity. The indiscriminate and  

unscientific mining and absence of post-

mining treatment and management of mined  

areas are making the fragile ecosystems more  

vulnerable to environmental degradation and leading  

to large scale land cover/land use changes.  

The current modus operandi of surface  

mining in the area generates huge quantity  

of mine spoil or overburden (consolidated  

and unconsolidated materials overlying the  

coal seam) in the form of gravels, rocks,  

sand, soil etc. which are dumped over a large  

area adjacent to the mine pits. The dumping  

of overburden and coal destroys the  

surrounding vegetation and leads to severe  

soil and water pollution. Large scale  

denudation of forest cover, scarcity of  

water, pollution of air, water and soil,  

and degradation of agricultural lands are  

some of the conspicuous environmental  

implications of coal mining in Jaintia Hills.  

Further, entire coal mining area of the  

Jaintia Hills has become full of mine pits  

and caves. These open, unfilled pits are  

the places where surface water percolates  

and disappears. As a result, smaller  

streams and rivers of the area, which  

served as life lines for the people, are  

either completely disappearing from the  

face of the earth or becoming seasonal  

instead. Consequently, the area is  

facing acute shortage of clean drinking  

and irrigation water. Besides, a vast area  

has become physically disfigured due to  

haphazard dumping of overburden and mined  

coal, and caving in of the ground and  

subsidence of land.

69  

Continuous discharge of Acid Mine Drainage  

(AMD) and toxic chemicals from coal mines,  

storage sites and exposed overburden have  

polluted the river system of the area. Acidic  

water on reaching to land and agricultural  

fields has affected the traditional  

agriculture and agricultural productivity  

of the area (Das Gupta et al, 2002; Swer and  

Singh, 2004)  

"4.2.5 Degradation of Water Quality due to  

Coal Mining  

The water bodies of the area are the greatest victims  

of the coal mining. The water bodies are badly  

affected by contamination of Acid Mines  

Drainage (AMD) originating from mines and  

spoils, leaching of heavy metals,• organic  

enrichment and silting by coal and sand  

particles. Pollution of the safer is  

evidenced by the colour of the water which  

in most of the rivers and streams in the  

mining area varies from brownish to  

reddish orange. Low pH (between 2-3), high  

conductivity, high concentration of  

sulphate, iron and toxic heavy metals, low  

dissolved oxygen (DO) and high BOD are  

some of the physic-chemical and  

biological parameters which' characterize  

the degradation of water quality.  

Analysis of physic-chemical and  

biological parameters of water in the  

mining area shows severe degradation of  

water quality.  

The colour of the water in mining area  

generally varies from brownish to reddish  

orange. Siltation of coal particles,'  

sand, soil etc. and contamination of AMD  

and formation of iron hydroxide are some  

of the major causes of change in water  

colour. Formation of iron hydroxides [Fe  

(CH)31 is mainly responsible for orange or  

red colour of water in the mining areas.

70  

Iron hydroxide is a yellowish insoluble  

material commonly formed in water bodies  

of the coalfields. It is this material that  

stains streams and responsible for red to  

orange color of water. When elevated levels  

of iron are introduced into natural waters,  

the iron is oxidized and hydrolyzed,  

thereby forming precipitate of iron  

hydroxides.  

The water in coal mining areas has been  

found highly acidic. The pH of streams and  

rivers varies between 2.31 to 4.01. Solids  

such as fine particles of coal, sand, mud  

and other mineral particles were found  

deposited at the bottom of the water  

bodies. Besides, water was also found  

turbid and coloured due to suspended  

precipitates of iron hydroxides. D i s s o l v e d   

o x y g e n  w a s  f o u n d  t o  b e  l o w  i n  w a t e r   

bodies of coat mining areas, the lowest being  

4.24 mg/L in river Rawaka and stream Metyngka  

of Rymbai.  

The waters of the mining areas have been  

found containing sulphate concentration  

between 78 to 168 mg/L. Electrical  

conductivity is a rapid measure of the  

total dissolved solids present in ionic  

form. Water in coal mining areas was found  

having high conductivity. Deposition of  

silt at the bottom of the rivers and streams  

is another important problem in coal mining  

areas. Water bodies of the mining area  

appear to contain various types of  

organic matter which is evident by low  

Dissolved Oxygen (D00 and high  

Biochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD).  

As a result, the rivers, streams and  

springs which had supported extremely  

rich biodiversity and traditional  

agriculture, and were source of potable  

and irrigation water in the area have

71  

become unfit for human consumption.  

Further, there is an overall decline in  

agricultural productivity due to  

contamination of soil with coal particles,  

seepage of Acid mines drainage and scarcity  

of water. The water of many rivers and  

streams have almost become devoid of aquatic  

life".  

4.2.6 Causes of Deterioration of Water  

Quality  

Major causes of deterioration of water  

quality, as evidenced by above observations are  

AMD discharge, siltation and organic  

enrichment. As in any other coal mining  

area, Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) is the main  

source of water pollution in the coal  

mining areas of Jaintia Hills. As discussed  

in previous chapter, Amp is formed by a  

series of complex geochemical and microbial  

reactions that occur when water comes in  

contact with pyrite (Iron sulfide) found in  

coal and exposed rocks of overburden. Iron  

sulfide in presence of oxygen, water and  

bacteria forms sulphuric acid, is referred to as  

AMD. In the process, iron hydroxide, a yellowish  

orange precipitate is also formed. The  

prercipitate of iron hydroxide together with  

other contaminants auses turbidity and  

changes in colour of the water which reduces  

the penetration of light and affects the  

aquatic life. Extremely low pH conditions  

in the water accelerate weathering and  

dissolution of silicate and other rock  

minerals, thereby causing the release of  

other elements such as aluminium,  

manganese, copper, cadmium etc. into the  

water. Hence, water contaminated with AMD  

is often coloured and turbid with  

suspended solids, highly acidic (low pH),  

and contains high concentration of  

dissolved metals and other elements. Most  

of the streams and rivers of Jaintia Hills  

in coal mining areas are severely

72  

contaminated with AMD and thus becomes  

water has become highly acidic. The pH and  

other parameters of some AMD affected  

water bodies are summarized in Table 4.1.  

Table 4.1: Summary of water quality  

parameters in some Coal mining  

rivers/reservoir.  

SI.

No.  

Rivers/   

Streams &   

Location  

Colour   

of  

Water  

pH Sulpha

te   

conten

ts   

(mg/L)  

E   

Conduc

tivity   

(pS/Cm

)  

1. Myntriang Light  

yellow  

2.8 36 56   

2.  Urn Pai Brownish 3.2 186 160   

3.  Rawaka,  Rymbai  

Reddis

h  

brown  

2.31 166.5 135   

4.  Kenai- um,  

Rymbai  

Reddis

h  

brown  

2.66 144.0 74   

5.  Metyngka,  R y m b a i     

Reddish  

b r o w n     

2.42 168.0 27   

6.  Urn-  

Mynkseh,  

Ladrymbai  

Brownis

h  

orange  

3.52 118.7 67   

7.  Thwai-  Kungor,  

Bapun  

Brownish 4.01 82.87 18   

8.  Umkyrpon,  

Khliehri

at  

Light  

Orange    

3.67 161.3 37   

9.  Waikhyrwi,  S u t n g a     

Brownis

h  

3.96  

78.69         

  -  

10. Um Roong  2.8 896 128   

11. Mostem Brownish 2.9 616 119   

12. Sarbang Turbid 3.35 150 32   

13. Um Lurem Yellowis

h  

5.0 19 3   

14. Khongdong  

Reservoir  

Clear 4.6 43 34   

Source: Present study; GSI, 2006-7;  

Biahwar, 2010

73  

The results show that most of the rivers in  

the coal mining areas of Jaintia Hills are  

severely affected AMD as evident from the  

lower pH values, higher sulphate content and  

EC in water samples".  

63. Thus, there were clear allegations in the  

application that in spite of various remedial measures  

set out in the report no proper and effective remedial  

measures have been taken by the concerned authorities  

of the State of Meghalaya. Paragraph 3(VI) is as  

follows:  

“3(VI). That the various remedial measures  

are set out in detail in paragraphs 4.4,  

4.5, 5, 5.1 and 5.2 and other relevant  

paragraphs of the said report. However,  

to the best of knowledge of the Applicant,  

no proper and effective remedial   

measures have been undertaken by the  

concerned authorities till date and the  

innocent citizens/ water bodies etc. of  

the concerned areas including that of Dima  

Hasao District in Assam continue to be  

subjected to the ill-effect of the aforesaid  

illegal mining operation in the State of  

Meghalaya. That apart, continuous and  

irreparable damage on the environment,  

water, soil, agriculture etc. in the  

concerned areas including Dima Hasao  

district of Assam are also continuing as a result  

of the said illegal mining operations in  

Jaintia Hills in the State of Meghalaya.”  

74  

64. Ground A of the application is also relevant to  

be reproduced which is to the following effect:  

“GROUNDS  

A. that the aforementioned illegal mining  

operations in the Jaintia Hills in the  

State of Meghalaya have not only caused  

serious and irreparable damage to the  

ecology, water bodies and the socio-

economy of the concerned areas including  

of Dima Hasao district of Assam but has  

also resulted in serious  

erosion/corrosion of the underwater plants  

and machineries and equipments of the  

Kopili Hydro Power Project of the North  

Eastern Electric Power Corporation of  

India (a Government of India  

undertaking), The ill-effect of the said  

mining operation has been highlighted in  

detail in the aforementioned detailed  

project report by Dr. O.P.Singh, Professor,  

North-Eastern Hills University as well as  

the said article published in the  

International Journal of Environmental  

Sciences. Though remedial measures were  

suggested in both the aforesaid studies,  

to the best of the knowledge of the  

Applicant, no proper and effective  

remedial measures have been undertaken by  

the Respondents herein and the ill-effect of  

the said activities are still continuing to  

the detriment of the ecology, water bodied  

and socio-economy of the concerned areas  

including Dima Hasao district of Assam. It  

is most respectfully submitted that the  

total inaction on the part of the  

Respondents herein in spite of detailed  

study on the subject with remedial  

suggestions are totally inexcusable and  

show the total callous attitude of the  

State Respondents The menace of illegal  

opencast mining operations in the Jaintia  

Hills in Meghalaya is still continuing to

75  

the detriment of the ecology and socio-

economic of the concerned areas including  

Dime Hasao district of Assam and as such,  

warrants, in the most respectful  

submissions of the Applicant, immediate  

intervention by this Hon'ble Tribunal.  

The aforesaid inaction has resulted in  

violation of the various enactments  

mentioned in Schedule I of the National  

Green Tribunal Act 2010 including the  

Water (Prevention and Control of  

Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air  

(Prevention and Control of Pollution)  

Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection)  

Act 1986 apart from infringing the  

fundamental rights of the Applicant under  

Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of  

India.”  

65. The pleadings in O.A.No.73 of 2014 as extracted  

above clearly and categorically alleged environmental  

degradation consequent to illegal coal mining. It was  

further stated that inaction of respondent authorities  

has resulted in violation of various enactments  

mentioned in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010 including  

the Water (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act,  

1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)  

Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.  

The application O.A.No.73 of 2014 thus has clearly  

made out allegations which were sufficient for the  

Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction as conferred by  

76  

Section 14. Both the component as appearing in sub-

section 1 of Section 14 that is (i) substantial  

question relating to environment and (ii) such  

question arises out of the implementation of the  

enactments specified in Schedule I, were involved.    

66. The NGT after adverting to the application  

O.A.No.73 of 2014 on 17.04,2014 has undertaken  

different proceedings and asked for various reports  

from different committees including State Pollution  

Control Board. By order dated 31.08.2018, the NGT had  

appointed a committee headed by Justice B.P. Katakey,  

former Judge of the Gauhati High Court which consisted  

of Prof. Ashok K. Singh, Rajiv Gandhi Chair Professor,  

Department of Environmental Science & Engineering  

representative from Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad  

IIT(ISM), Dhanbad (826004), Dr. Shantanu Kumar Dutta,  

Scientist ‘D’ representative of Central Pollution  

Control Board. The said committee submitted interim  

report on 31.12.2018 and on the subject “Whether coal  

mining activities as well as dumping of coal results  

in adverse environmental effect, if so, the nature and

77  

extent thereof?” has been dealt with in Issue No.(D)  

in the following manner:  

“Issue No.(D) Whether coal mining activities  

as well as dumping of coal results in adverse  

environmental effect, if so, the nature and  

extent thereof?   

(i) The Meghalaya State Pollution Control  

Board in the month of September, 1997  

published a report entitled “ENVIRONMENTAL  

IMPACT OF COAL MINING IN JAINTIA HILLS  

DISTRICT”. The then Chairman of the said  

Board, in his foreword, has admitted  

unplanned and unscientific coal mining  

activities in the State for more than hundred  

years, which achieved dangerous dimensions  

since last two decades and are creating  

ecological disturbances and negative  

environmental impacts, to the extent that the  

very existence of biological life is  

threatened in the coal mining areas of the  

State. It has also been admitted that no  

systematic efforts to study such impacts have  

so far been made by any institution. The then  

Member Secretary of the Board, in the  

preface, has projected the adverse impacts  

on the environment because of the coal mining  

activities. The pH level of in water almost  

all the rivers and streams was found to be  

below the required level. In some rivers and  

streams, the pH level was found to be as low  

as 2.4. The Meghalaya State Pollution Control  

Board, in the said report, has observed that  

the random discharge of AMD and acidic run  

offs from -40- the coal storage areas have  

also made the rivers, streams and even ground  

waters highly acidic. The ambient air quality  

of the coal mining and coal storage areas was  

also found to be degraded to certain extent.  

The Board, therefore, observed that – “The  

uncontrolled and unscientific coal mining  

operations in Jaintia Hills District have

78  

already created massive ecological  

disturbances and environmental degradation  

because presently neither any pollution  

control measures are adopted by the miners  

nor any sincere efforts are made for  

reclamation of the mine land”. In the said  

report, the following recommendations were  

made to minimize the overall adverse  

environmental impacts of the mining  

activities:-   

(a) To generate social awareness among  

the public in general and the miners in  

particular about the adverse  

environmental impacts and the health  

hazards associated with such unscientific  

and unplanned coal mining activities.   

(b) Preparation of the inventory of the  

mine owners, areas under mining and rate  

of land use change to get the first hand  

knowledge about the quantum of the  

efforts required for better management of  

these activities.   

(c) To enforce suitable legislations on  

the lines of the National Mineral Policy  

immediately for exploitation of coal in  

most sustainable manner.   

(d) To engage expert institution for  

finding out the most suited technologies  

for the coal exploitation with  

appropriate pollution control measures in  

order to ensure that the environment as a  

whole is not subjected to further  

degradation.   

(e) To engage the expert institution for  

finding out the suitable ways for  

rehabilitation of the mined land in phase  

manner so that the scarce land resources  

can be brought back to productive uses.   

79  

(f) To look for the alternative transport  

facilities to control vehicular  

pollution.  

(g) To identify the suitable location for  

the storage of coal for sale with adequate  

facilities to treat dump run offs.   

(h) To study the aspect of the presence  

of trace elements in the surface and  

ground water because the low pH values  

increase the dissolution power of water.  

Large numbers of trace elements are  

always associated with the coal which  

gets dissolved in low pH waters. These  

trace elements are serious health hazards  

even in very low concentrations.   

(i) To introduce lucrative schemes for  

the aforestation in the most affected  

areas.   

(j) To develop the State Mineral Policy  

with the interaction of Government  

Agencies, Social Institutions, Local  

Elders and the Miners, keeping in view  

the specific land ownership system of the  

State. Nothing of the above  

recommendations have been implemented so  

far.  

(ii) It is, therefore, evident that apart  

from the water, air pollution, there is  

degradation of surface land because of the  

coal mining activities in the State of  

Meghalaya. Despite publication of the said  

report by the Meghalaya State Pollution  

Control Board as back as in the year 1997,  

no steps appeared to have been taken by any  

authority to check the adverse environmental  

affect and also to remedy the same.”  

80  

67. The present is not a case of mere allegation of  

applicant of environmental degradation by illegal and  

unregulated coal mining rather there were materials on  

the record including the report of the experts, the  

Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board published in  

the month of September, 1992, the report of Katakey  

committee appointed by the Tribunal where  

environmental degradation of water, air and surface of  

the land was proved.   

68. Hence, there was sufficient allegation regarding  

substantial questions relating to environment and  

violation of enactments in Schedule I. We fail to see  

any substance in the submission of the learned counsel  

for the appellant that NGT has no jurisdiction to  

entertain the case and pass orders. During submission,  

learned counsel for the appellant has not even referred  

to application which was filed by the applicant in  

O.A.No.73/2014. There were reports of the Meghalaya  

State Pollution Control Board before the State  

Government pointing out environmental degradation and  

the Tribunal having taken up the issue,  the submission

81  

on behalf of the State that the Tribunal has no  

jurisdiction is not expected from the State Government  

who is under constitutional obligation to ensure clean  

environment to all its citizens. In cases pertaining  

to environmental matter the State has to act as  

facilitator and not as obstructionist. Article 48A of  

the Constitution provides:  

“48A. Protection and improvement of  

environment and safeguarding of forests and  

wild life The State shall endeavour to  

protect and improve the environment and to  

safeguard the forests and wild life of the  

country.”  

69. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed  

reliance on the judgment of this Court in  Techi Tagi  

Tara versus Rajendra Singh Bhandari and others,  

2018(11) SCC 734. This Court had occasion to consider  

Section 14,15 and 2(m) of the National Green Tribunal  

Act, 2010, which involves the question of jurisdiction  

of NGT. The nature of order passed by NGT which was  

challenged before this court has been noticed in para  

1 of the judgment, which is to the following effect:-  

“1. This batch of appeals is directed against  

the judgment and order dated 24-8-2016 passed  

by the National Green Tribunal, Principal  

Bench, New Delhi (for short “the NGT”) in

82  

Rajendra Singh Bhandari v. State of  

Uttarakhand1. On a reading of the judgment  

and order passed by the NGT, it is quite clear  

that the Tribunal was perturbed and anguished  

that some persons appointed to the State  

Pollution Control Boards (for short “SPCBs”)  

did not have, according to the NGT, the  

necessary expertise or qualifications to be  

members or Chairpersons of such high-powered  

and specialised statutory bodies and  

therefore did not deserve their appointment  

or nomination. While we fully commiserate  

with the NGT and share the pain and anguish,  

we are of the view that the Tribunal has, at  

law, exceeded its jurisdiction in directing  

the State Governments to reconsider the  

appointments and in laying down guidelines  

for appointment to the SPCBs, however well-

meaning they might be. Therefore, we set  

aside the decision of the NGT, but note that  

a large number of disconcerting facts have  

been brought out in the judgment which need  

serious consideration by those in authority,  

particularly the State Governments that make  

appointments or nominations to the SPCBs.  

Such appointments should not be made casually  

or without due application of mind  

considering the duties, functions and  

responsibilities of the SPCBs.”  

70. In the above background, this Court held that the  

failure of the State Government to appoint  

professionals and experience persons to the key  

positions in the State Pollution Control Board cannot  

be classified as a primary dispute over which the NGT

83  

could have jurisdiction. Following was laid down in  

paragraph 21: -  

“21. As far as we are concerned, in the  

context of the Act, a dispute would be the  

assertion of a right or an interest or a claim  

met by contrary claims on the other side. In  

other words, the dispute must be one of  

substance and not of form and it appears to  

us that the appointments that we are  

concerned with are not “disputes” as such or  

even disputes for the purposes of the Act —  

they could be disputes for a constitutional  

court to resolve through a writ of quo  

warranto, but certainly not for the NGT to  

venture into. The failure of the State  

Government to appoint professional and  

experienced persons to key positions in the  

SPCBs or the failure to appoint any person  

at all might incidentally result in an  

ineffective implementation of the Water Act  

and the Air Act, but this cannot be  

classified as a primary dispute over which  

the NGT would have jurisdiction. Such a  

failure might be of a statutory obligation  

over which, in the present context and not  

universally, only a constitutional court  

would have jurisdiction and not a statutory  

body like the NGT. While we appreciate the  

anxiety of the NGT to preserve and protect  

the environment as a part of its statutory  

functions, we cannot extend these concepts  

to the extent of enabling the NGT to consider  

who should be appointed as a Chairperson or  

a member of any SPCB or who should not be so  

appointed.”  

71. The issue involved in the above case was entirely  

different which did not directly pertain to  

environmental degradation. Whether NGT has

84  

jurisdiction to entertain a particular cause is a  

question which depends on the facts of each case. To  

find out as to whether NGT has jurisdiction to  

entertain a case, the case set up before the Tribunal  

has to be looked into to answer the question. The  

judgment of Techi Tagi Tara (supra) was on its own  

facts and does not help the appellant in the present  

case.  

72. In view of the foregoing discussion, we reject the  

submission of the learned counsel for the State that  

the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under Sections  

14 and 15 in entertaining the application O.A.No.73 of  

2014. We also record our dis-approval to the stand  

taken by the State in this regard.  

Point No.2   

73. Before we proceed to consider the above points,  

first of all, we need to notice the nature of land  

tenure in the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya.  

Learned counsel for the parties are not at variance on  

the question of nature of land tenure in the Hills  

Districts of State of Meghalaya. By the North-Eastern

85  

Area Reorganisation Act, 1971 the State of Meghalaya  

was formed as independent full-fledged State. After  

the enforcement of the Constitution the area, now  

comprised in the State of Meghalaya, was included in  

the State of Assam, the Administration and control of  

which area was as per Article 244 of the Constitution  

of India read with Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.  

In so far as the land tenure in the Hills Districts of  

Meghalaya, there is no substantial change after the  

advent of the Constitution. There was no payment system  

of land revenue before the advent of the Constitution  

in the Hills Districts of Meghalaya. Learned counsel  

for the parties have referred to various materials  

pertaining to the land tenure system prevalent in the  

Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya. The lands in  

the Khasi Hills District of Meghalaya come under two  

divisions Ri Raid and Ri Kynti. Ri raid lands are  

community lands which are set apart for the benefit  

and use of entire community. Ri kynti lands are  

privately owned lands which were also owned by  

community as well as by individuals. The owner of the  

re kynti land is an absolute proprietor. The tenure

86  

system in Jaintia Hills classified into two types of  

lands, namely, Hali /irrigated land and High land.  

Hali lands are further categorised in Raj land, service  

land, village puja land and private land. Proprietary  

right does not vest in the State in respect to majority  

of lands which are either privately owned or owned by  

the Tribal community. No system of payment of land  

revenue is prevalent in the Hills District of Meghalaya  

except lands which belong to State. For the purposes  

of present case where the submission of the appellant  

is that land in which mining operations of coal is  

being done are lands belonging to Tribals who are  

owners of the land as well as of the sub-soil, we  

proceed with the assumption that Tribal is the owner  

of the land. It is further the case of the appellant  

that in Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya in land  

which is privately owned by the Tribal or community  

owned, the Tribals or the community or the clan are  

owners of both surface right and sub-soil. It is the  

case of the appellant that the State does not have any  

right in sub-soil or minerals. The judgment of this in  

Thressiamma Jacob and others vs. Geologist, Department

87  

of Mining and Geology and others, 2013(9) SCC 725, is  

relied on. This Court in the above case had occasion  

to consider the question of ownership of sub-

soil/mineral rights in reference to genmom lands in  

Malabar area of the State of Madras. Holder of the  

genmom rights also claimed not only as proprietor of  

the soil but the owner of the minerals in the soil.  

This Court laid down following in paragraph 58:  

“58. For the abovementioned reasons, we are  

of the opinion that there is nothing in the  

law which declares that all mineral  

wealth/subsoil rights vest in the State, on  

the other hand, the ownership of  

subsoil/mineral wealth should normally  

follow the ownership of the land, unless the  

owner of the land is deprived of the same by  

some valid process. In the instant appeals,  

no such deprivation is brought to our notice  

and therefore we hold that the appellants are  

the proprietors of the minerals obtaining in  

their lands. We make it clear that we are not  

making any declaration regarding their  

liability to pay royalty to the State as that  

issue stands referred to a larger Bench.”  

74. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Raja Anand  

Brahma Shah vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others,  

AIR 1967 SC 1081, had laid down that prima facie owner  

of a surface of the land is entitled to everything  

beneath the land unless there is an express or implied

88  

reservation in the grant. In paragraph 13 following  

has been laid down:  

“13. In our opinion, a reading of the two  

sanads supports the case of the appellant  

that there is no reservation of mineral  

rights in favour of the Government. The  

expression used in the sanad of 1803 A.D. is  

“You ought to consider him the Raja of  

immovable jagir and of mahal and everything  

appertaining thereto belongs to him.” In  

effect, the grant to the Raja in the two  

sanads is a grant of the lands comprised in  

the mahal of Agori and everything  

appertaining thereto and as a matter of  

construction the grant must be taken to be  

not only of the land but also of everything  

beneath or within the land. Prima facie the  

owner of a surface of the land is entitled  

ex jure to everything beneath the land and  

in the absence of any reservation in the  

grant minerals necessarily pass with the  

rights to the surface (Halsbury’s Laws of  

England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 26, p. 325). In other  

words, a transfer of the right to the surface  

conveys right to the minerals underneath  

unless there is an express or implied  

reservation in the grant. A contract  

therefore to sell or grant a lease of land  

will generally include mines, quarries and  

minerals beneath or within it (Mitchell v.  

Mosley). It is manifest that when the sanad  

was executed in favour of the Raja the  

Government made over the land with all its  

capabilities to the Raja and merely imposed  

on him a fixed sum of revenue in lieu of all  

the rights the Government had as a proprietor  

of the soil. When neither of the parties knew  

undiscovered minerals underneath the land and  

the idea of reservation never entered their  

minds it cannot be held that there was any  

implied reservation in the grant. Nor can

89  

afterwards a distinction be drawn between the  

various rights that may exist on the land for  

the purpose of qualifying the original grant  

and importing into it what neither party  

could have imagined. It was argued on behalf  

of the respondents that the assessment was  

made on the agricultural income, but this  

circumstance cannot derogate from the rights  

conveyed to the Raja in the two sanads  

because no restriction was placed on the use  

of the land and the use by the Raja was not  

limited to agriculture.”  

75. Thus, looking to the nature of the land tenure as  

applicable in the Hills Districts of State of  

Meghalaya, the most of the lands are either privately  

or community owned in which State does not claim any  

right. Thus, private owners of the land as well as  

community owners have both the surface right as well  

as sub-soil right. We are, thus, of the opinion that  

Tribals owned the land and also owned the minerals,  

which is an inescapable conclusion. We, thus, proceed  

to examine the issues on the premise that in privately  

owned land or community land minerals also vest in the  

owner. We first need to consider as to whether the  

provisions of MMRD Act, 1957 are applicable in the  

Tribal area of Hills District of State of Meghalaya.  

90  

76. Part X of the Constitution separately deals with  

Scheduled and Tribal areas. Hills Districts of State  

of Meghalaya were treated to be Tribal area and were  

to be governed by Article 244 sub-clause (2) read with  

Schedule VI. Provisions of Article 244 after formation  

of State of Meghalaya is as follows:  

“Article 244. Administration of Scheduled  

Areas and Tribal Areas.-(1) The provisions  

of the Fifth Schedule shall apply to the  

administration and control of the Scheduled  

Areas and Scheduled Tribes in any State other  

than the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura  

and Mizoram.  

(2) The provisions of the Sixth Schedule  

shall apply to the administration of the  

tribal areas in the State of Assam,  

Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.”  

77. Sixth Schedule of the Constitution contains  

‘Provisions as to the Administration of Tribal Areas  

in the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and  

Mizoram’. Paragraph 20 of Sixth Schedule refers to  

Tribal areas and Part II of which consists of Khasi  

Hills District, Jaintia Hills District and Garo Hills  

District which have been referred as Autonomous  

Districts. Sixth Schedule Para 1(1) is as follows:  

“1. Autonomous districts and autonomous  

regions.-(1)Subject to the provisions of this  

paragraph, the tribal areas in each item of

91  

Parts I, II and IIA and in Part III of the  

table appended to paragraph 20 of this  

Schedule shall be an autonomous district.  

78. Para 2 of Sixth Schedule provides for Constitution  

of District Councils and Regional Councils. Para 3  

provides for powers of the District Councils and  

Regional Councils to make laws which is to the  

following effect:  

“3. Powers of the District Councils and  

Regional Councils to make laws.—(1) The  

Regional Council for an autonomous region in  

respect of all areas within such region and  

the District Council for an autonomous  

district in respect of all areas within the  

district except those which are under the  

authority of Regional Councils, if any,  

within the district shall have power to make  

laws with respect to—   

(a) the allotment, occupation or use, or  the setting apart, of land, other than  

any land which is a reserved forest  

for the purposes of agriculture or  

grazing or for residential or other  

non-agricultural purposes or for any  

other purpose likely to promote the  

interests of the inhabitants of any  

village or town:   

Provided that nothing in such laws  

shall prevent the compulsory  

acquisition of any land, whether  

occupied or unoccupied, for public  

purposes 1 [by the Government of the  

State concerned] in accordance with  

the law for the time being in force  

authorising such acquisition;  

92  

(b) the management of any forest not being  a reserved forest;   

(c) the use of any canal or water-course  for the purpose of agriculture;   

(d) the regulation of the practice of jhum  or other forms of shifting  

cultivation;   

(e) the establishment of village or town  committees or councils and their  

powers;  

(f) any other matter relating to village  or town administration, including  

village or town police and public  

health and sanitation;   

(g) the appointment or succession of  Chiefs or Headmen;   

(h) the inheritance of property;   

(i) marriage and divorce;   

(j) social customs.   

(2) In this paragraph, a “reserved forest”  

means any area which is a reserved forest  

under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, or  

under any other law for the time being in  

force in the area in question. (3) All laws  

made under this paragraph shall be submitted  

forthwith to the Governor and, until assented  

to by him, shall have no effect.”  

79. Para 9 of the Sixth Schedule which is relevant for  

the present case is as follows:  

“9. Licences or leases for the purpose of  

prospecting for, or extraction of, minerals.—

(1) Such share of the royalties accruing each  

year from licences or leases for the purpose  

of prospecting for, or the extraction of,  

minerals granted by  the Government of the

93  

State] in respect of any area within an  

autonomous district as may be agreed upon  

between the Government of the State] and the  

District Council of such district shall be  

made over to that District Council.   

(2) If any dispute arises as to the share of  

such royalties to be made over to a District  

Council, it shall be referred to the Governor  

for determination and the amount determined  

by the Governor in his discretion shall be  

deemed to be the amount payable under sub-

paragraph (1) of this paragraph to the  

District Council and the decision of the  

Governor shall be final.”  

80. Para 12A which is relevant for Meghalaya is as  

follows:  

“12A. Application of Acts of Parliament and  

of the Legislature of the State of Meghalaya  

to autonomous districts and autonomous  

regions in the State of Meghalaya.—  

Notwithstanding anything in this  

Constitution, —   

(a) if any provision of a law made by a  

District or Regional Council in the State of  

Meghalaya with respect to any matter  

specified in subparagraph (1) of paragraph 3  

of this Schedule or if any provision of any  

regulation made by a District Council or a  

Regional Council in that State under  

paragraph 8 or paragraph 10 of this Schedule,  

is repugnant to any provision of a law made  

by the Legislature of the State of Meghalaya  

with respect to that matter, then, the law  

or regulation made by the District Council  

or, as the case may be, the Regional Council  

whether made before or after the law made by  

the Legislature of the State of Meghalaya,  

shall, to the extent of repugnancy, be void

94  

and the law made by the Legislature of the  

State of Meghalaya shall prevail;  

(b) the President may, with respect to any  

Act of Parliament, by notification, direct  

that it shall not apply to an autonomous  

district or an autonomous region in the State  

of Meghalaya, or shall apply to such district  

or region or any part thereof subject to such  

exceptions or modifications as he may specify  

in the notification and any such direction  

may be given so as to have retrospective  

effect.  

81. Now, we revert back to Mines and Minerals  

(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Act, 1957 has  

been enacted to provide for development and regulation  

of mines and minerals under the control of the Union.  

Section 1 of the Act is as follows:  

“Section 1. Short title, extent and  

commencement. ―(1) This Act may be called the  

Mines and Minerals (Development and  

Regulation) Act, 1957.  

(2) It extends to the whole of India.   

(3) It shall come into force on such date3  

as the Central Government may, by  

notification in the Official Gazette,  

appoint.”  

82. The Act came into effect w.e.f. 01.06.1958.  

Whether there are any indications in the Sixth Schedule  

or any other provision of the law by which it can be  

contended that Act, 1957 is not applicable in Hills

95  

District of Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya? We may  

first refer to Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which  

is a provision for Administration of Tribal areas in  

the State of Meghalaya. Para 12A sub-clause (b)  

empowers that the President may, with respect to any  

Act of Parliament, by notification, direct that it  

shall not apply to an autonomous district or an  

autonomous region in the State of Meghalaya, or shall  

apply to such district or region or any part thereof  

subject to such exceptions or modifications as he may  

specify in the notification. No notification has been  

issued by the President under Para 12A(b) of the VIth  

Schedule of the Constitution, although, the said Para  

12A(b) is in the Constitution with effect from  

21.1.1972. Thus, there is nothing in Sixth Schedule of  

the Constitution which may indicate about the  

inapplicability of Act, 1957 with regard to the Hills  

Districts of State of Meghalaya. At this juncture, we  

may also notice the report of the Comptroller and  

Auditor General of India for the year ended 31st March,  

2013. In para 7.5.1 the report mentions:  

“7.5.1. Introduction  

96  

Meghalaya is endowed with sizeable deposits  

of valuable minerals like coal, limestone,  

uranium, granite and clay. Minerals being  

valuable resource, the extraction needs to  

be maximised through scientific methods of  

mining with aim to ensure extraction and  

utilisation of minerals. Besides, most of the  

mineral reserves are in areas which are under  

forest cover and hence, mining in the State  

has environmental implications. In  

Meghalaya, individual and local communities  

have ownership over the land and the minerals  

and barring a few reserve forest areas, the  

State Government has no ownership over the  

minerals. The activities of the Mining &  

Geology (M&G) Department, Government of  

Meghalaya (GOM) are limited to collection of  

royalty on the minerals exported outside the  

State besides geological  

investigation/exploration of minerals. The  

Mines and Minerals (Development and  

Regulation) Act, 1957 lays down the legal  

framework for regulation of mines and  

development of minerals. The Mineral  

Concession Rules, 1960 and the Mineral  

Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 were  

accordingly framed under the MMDR Act framed  

for conservation and systematic development  

of minerals and for regulating grant of  

permits, licences and leases. The GOM has  

introduced the Meghalaya Mineral Cess Act,  

1988 to mobilise additional revenue. Further  

with a view to facilitating systematic,  

scientific and planned utilisation of mineral  

resources and to streamline mineral based  

development of the State, the Meghalaya Mines  

and Mineral Policy, 2012 has also been  

notified with effect from 5 November 2012.”  

83. The Comptroller and Auditor General has clearly  

stated that Act, 1957 is fully applicable for

97  

regulation of mines and regulation of minerals in the  

State of Meghalaya.   

84. Learned counsel for the State of Meghalaya has  

also filed before us along with an affidavit of Joint  

Secretary of Government of Meghalaya, Mining and  

Geology Department dated 13.04.1018 by which Meghalaya  

Mines and Minerals Policy, 2012 issued by the  

Government of Meghalaya as well as draft guidelines of  

coal mining activities in the State prepared in the  

year 2015 has been brought on the record.   

85. Clause 10 of the Policy provides for “Regulatory  

Framework for Mine Development and Mining”. Sub-clause  

b) of Clause 10 required application for mineral  

concession either fresh or renewal is to be submitted  

to the State Government through the Deputy  

Commissioner of the District wherein the area applied  

for is situated and with NOC from District Council  

concerned and land owner. Clause 10 also refers to  

clearance of the Pollution Control Board of Meghalaya  

and other requirement. Sub-clause (l) further

98  

contemplated that order for grant of mineral  

concessions will be issued by the State Government,  

with the approval of the Central Government wherever  

necessary. Thus, the Policy of 2012 contemplated  

regulatory regime for mining lease by the State. The  

Mining and Geology Department of the Government had  

framed a draft guidelines for coal mining activity in  

the State which has also been brought on record along  

with the above affidavit dated 13.04.2018.  

86. The above guidelines were prepared after in  

consultation with the Central Government.   

87. The above draft guidelines prepared by the State  

clearly mentions about the unregulated and  

unscientific mining being carried out in the State of  

Meghalaya. The Policy Guidelines of Coal Mining which  

is part of the guidelines also contains following  

statement:  

“The Mines Act, 1952 and the Mines and  

Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,  

1957 (MMDR), together with the rules and  

regulations framed under them constitute the  

basic laws governing the mining sector in

99  

India. While the Mines Act, 1952 governs the  

health and safety of the workers, the MMDR  

Act, 1957 (including all amendments) lays  

down the legal frame work for the regulation  

of mines and development of all minerals  

other than petroleum and natural gas. The  

relevant rules in force under the MMDR Act,  

1957 are the Mineral Concession Rules (MCR),  

1960 outlines the procedures and conditions  

for obtaining a Prospecting Licence or Mining  

Lease. The MCDR, 1988 lays down guidelines  

for ensuring mining on a scientific basis,  

while conserving the environment, at the same  

time.  

Apart from the mining statutes, which also  

govern environment in mines, India has  

elaborate environment statutes for  

protection of environment in mining.”   

88. One submission of Shri Naphade with respect to  

direction of NGT to frame mining policy by the State  

also needs consideration.  Shri Naphade submits that  

the State of Meghalaya having no legislative  

competence with regard to major minerals, National  

Green Tribunal could not have directed the State of  

Meghalaya to frame Mining Policy.    

89. There can be no dispute to the preposition that  

in view of MMDR Act, 1957, the legislative competence  

of State of Meghalaya under Entry 23 List II stands

100  

denuded.  However, under the MMDR Act, 1957 as well as  

the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, several statutory  

obligations/jurisdictions have been conferred on the  

State of Meghalaya, which shall be referred to later  

in this judgment.  

90. When under a Parliamentary enactment, State has  

been given some statutory obligations, there is no  

lack of jurisdiction in the State to frame policy to  

give effect to or implement the jurisdictions  

conferred on the State by Parliamentary enactments.   

It is true that Mining Policy to be framed by the State  

has to confine to the jurisdiction conferred on it as  

per the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder.   

There are other related issues concerning Mining like  

protection of environment and forests for which the  

State has to declare its policy for implementation of  

its objective.  Several other aspects relating to  

mining like, rehabilitation, reclamation and  

restoration have to be effectively implemented by the  

State for which also, it may be required to frame a  

policy.  We may further notice that Meghalaya Mines

101  

and Minerals Policy, 2012 was already framed by the  

State of Meghalaya, even before directions were issued  

by the NGT.  In pursuance of NGT directions, it was  

draft guidelines of 2015, which were prepared by State  

of Meghalaya.  We, thus, are of the view that direction  

of NGT to declare Mining Policy by the State of  

Meghalaya cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.   

However, the State in its Mining Policy can only  

include those areas where it has jurisdiction under  

the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder.   

91. A perusal of the entire Policy documents indicate  

that Policy has been framed by the State as per the  

Act, 1957 and Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960.  

92. The Government of Meghalaya has also made a  

request to the Government of India in the year 2015  

for issuance of Presidential notification under Para  

12A(b) of Sixth Schedule for exempting State of  

Meghalaya from certain provisions of the MMDR Act,  

1957. After several deliberations, the Union of India  

has communicated through its O.M. dated 12.03.2019

102  

that it is not possible to accede to the request of  

the Government of Meghalaya for issuance of  

Presidential notification under Para 12A(b) of Sixth  

Schedule. Thus, the request made by the State of  

Meghalaya to issue exemption has not also been acceded  

to. The request of the State of Meghalaya that  

exemption be granted by Presidential notification  

under Para 12A(b) itself expresses recognition of the  

State of Meghalaya that provisions of Act, 1957 are  

applicable. We, thus, conclude that there is nothing  

in Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which in any  

manner exclude the applicability of Act, 1957 in the  

Tribal areas of Hills District of State of Meghalaya.   

Point No.3  

93. We need to scan through the statutory scheme of  

Act, 1957 to find out as to whether Parliamentary  

legislation requires obtaining lease for winning the  

minerals in so far as mining of coal from privately  

owned land/community owned land are concerned?    

103  

94. Section 2 of the Act, 1957 contains declaration  

to the following effect:  

“2. Declaration as to expediency of Union  

Control.―It is hereby declared that it is  

expedient in the public interest that the  

Union should take under its control the  

regulation of mines and the development of  

minerals to the extent hereinafter  

provided.”  

95. The Act, 1957 has been enacted in reference to  

Entry 54 List I of Seventh Schedule to the following  

effect:  

“Entry 54. Regulation of mines and mineral  

development to the extent to which such  

regulation and development under the control  

of the Union is declared by Parliament by  

law to be expedient in the public interest.”  

96. At this juncture, we may notice Entry 23 of List  

II which is to the following effect:  

“Entry 23. Regulation of mines and mineral  

development subject to the provisions of List  

I with respect to regulation and development  

under the control of the Union.”  

97. The Legislative power under Entry 23 is subject  

to the provision of List I with respect to regulation  

and development under the control of the Union. When  

the Union has declared to have taken under its control

104  

the regulation of mines and development of minerals to  

the extent provided in the Act. Legislative power of  

the State to the above extent is denuded. Learned  

counsel for the appellant have also very fairly not  

disputed the position in law.   

98. Section 3 of the Act contains definition clause.  

Section 3(c) defines mining lease and Section 3(d)  

defines a mining operation which are to the following  

effect:  

“Section 3(c) “mining lease” means a lease  

granted for the purpose of undertaking mining  

operations, and includes a sub-lease granted  

for such purpose;  

Section 3(d) “mining operations” means any  

operations undertaken for the purpose of  

winning any mineral;”  

99. Section 4 of the Act contains general restriction  

on undertaking prospecting and mining operation.  

Section 4 is couched in terms of an injunction. No  

person shall undertake any mining operations in any  

area, except under and in accordance with the terms  

and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a  

prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a mining

105  

lease, granted under this Act and rules made  

thereunder. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 is relevant  

in the present case which is as follows:  

4. Prospecting or mining operations to be  

under licence or lease.―(1)  No person shall  

undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or  

mining operations in any area, except under  

and in accordance with the terms and  

conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of  

a prospecting licence or, as the case may be,  

of a mining lease, granted under this Act and  

the rules made thereunder:   

Provided that nothing in this sub-section  

shall affect any prospecting or mining  

operations undertaken in any area in  

accordance with terms and conditions of a  

prospecting licence or mining lease granted  

before the commencement of this Act which is  

in force at such commencement:   

Provided further that nothing in this  

sub-section shall apply to any prospecting  

operations undertaken by the Geological  

Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines,  

the Atomic Minerals Directorate for  

Exploration and Research of the Department  

of Atomic Energy of the Central Government,  

the Directorates of Mining and Geology of any  

State Government (by whatever name called),  

and the Mineral Exploration Corporation  

Limited., a Government company within the  

meaning of clause (45) of section 2 of the  

Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), and any  

such entity that may be notified for this  

purpose by the Central Government]:    

Provided also that nothing in this sub-

section shall apply to any mining lease  

(whether called mining lease mining  

concession or by any other name) in force

106  

immediately before the commencement of this  

Act in the Union territory of Goa, Daman and  

Diu.”  

100.  The use of word no person in Section 4(1) is  

without an exception. There is nothing in Section 4(1)  

to indicate that restriction contained in Section 4(1)  

does not apply with regard to a person who is owner of  

the mine.  Further, word ‘any area’ under Section 4(1)  

also has significance which does not have any  

exception. Further phrase ‘except under and in  

accordance with terms and condition with a mining lease  

granted under the Act’ are also significant which make  

the intent and purpose of prohibition clear and loud.  

Section 5 contains restriction on the grant of  

prospecting licences and mining lease in the following  

words:  

5. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting  

licences or mining leases.― (1) A State  

Government shall not grant a reconnaissance  

permit, prospecting licence or mining lease  

to any person unless such person―   

(a) is an Indian national, or company as  defined in 1clause (20) of section 2  

of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of  

2013)]; and   

(b) satisfies such conditions as may be  prescribed:  

107  

Provided that in respect of any mineral  

specified in Part A and Part B of the First  

Schedule, no reconnaissance permit,  

prospecting licence or mining lease shall be  

granted except with the previous approval of  

the Central Government.  

Explanation. ―For the purposes of this sub-

section, a person shall be deemed to be an  

Indian national,―  

(a) in the case of a firm or other  association of individuals, only if  

all the members of the firm or members  

of the association are citizens of  

India; and   

(b) in the case of an individual, only if  he is a citizen of India.  

(2) No mining lease shall be granted by the  

State Government unless it is satisfied that―  

(a) there is evidence to show the  existence of mineral contents in the  

area for which the application for a  

mining lease has been made in  

accordance with such parameters as  

may be prescribed for this purpose by  

the Central Government;  

(b) there is a mining plan duly approved  by the Central Government, or by the  

State Government, in respect of such  

category of mines as may be specified  

by the Central Government, for the  

development of mineral deposits in  

the area concerned:   

Provided that a mining lease may be  

granted upon the filing of a mining plan in  

accordance with a system established by the  

State Government for preparation,  

certification, and monitoring of such plan,  

with the approval of the Central Government.

108  

101. The proviso to Section 5(1) is relevant since it  

contains a further restriction that no mining lease  

shall be granted with regard to any minerals specified  

in Para A of First Schedule except with the previous  

approval of the Central Government. We in the present  

case are concerned with coal which is in Para A of  

First Schedule.   

102.   The next provision which is relevant is Section  

13 which provides for Rule making power of Central  

Government in respect of minerals. Section 13 sub-

section (1) and Section 13 sub-section (2) in so far  

as relevant in the present case are as follows:  

“13. Power of Central Government to make  

rules in respect of minerals.―(1) The Central  

Government may, by notification in the  

Official Gazette, make rules for regulating  

the grant of reconnaissance permits,  

prospecting licences and mining leases in  

respect of minerals and for purposes  

connected therewith.   

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to  

the generality of the foregoing power, such  

rules may provide for all or any of the  

following matters, namely:―   

(a) the person by whom, and the manner in  which, applications for reconnaissance

109  

permits, prospecting licences or mining  

leases in respect of land in which the  

minerals vest in the Government may be  

made and the fees to be paid therefor;   

……………………………  

(f) the procedure for obtaining 5 [a  

reconnaissance permit, a prospecting  

licence or a mining lease] in respect of  

any land in which the minerals vest in a  

person other than the Government and the  

terms on which, and the conditions  

subject to which, such 6 [a permit,  

licence or lease may be granted or  

renewed;  

…………………………”  

103. When we read clause (a) and clause (f), it  

makes clear that the Rules can be made for grant of  

mining lease in respect of land in which minerals vest  

in the Government as well as in respect of any land in  

which minerals vest in person other than Government.  

The statutory scheme, thus, is clear that lease can be  

granted with regard to both the categories of land,  

land in which Government is owner of minerals and land  

in which minerals vest in person other than Government.  

The Tribals, owners of the minerals shall expressly  

fall in Rule making power of the Government under  

Section 13(f).   

110  

104. The Central Government in exercise of power  

under Section 13 has framed Rules, namely, Minerals  

(Concession) Rules, 1960. Chapter IV of the Rules  

contains a heading “Grant of Mining Lease in respect  

of land the Minerals vest in the Government”. Rules 22  

to 40 contain various provisions under Chapter IV.  

Chapter V has a separate heading which is “Procedure  

for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining lease in  

respect of land in which the minerals vest in a person  

other than the Government”. Thus, Chapter V contains  

provisions for grant of lease in respect of minerals  

which vest in the person other than the Government.  

Rules 41 and 42 which are relevant are quoted below:  

“41. Applicability of this chapter: - The  

provisions of this chapter shall apply only  

to the grant of prospecting licences and  

mining leases in respect of land in which the  

minerals vest exclusively in a person other  

than the Government.  

42. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting  

licence and mining lease:- (1) No prospecting  

licence or mining lease shall be granted to  

any person unless he has filed an affidavit  

stating that he has–   

(i) filed up-to-date income tax returns;   

111  

(ii)   paid the income tax assessed on  

him, and   

(iii)  paid the income tax on the basis  

of self-assessment as provided in  

the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of  

1961). (2) Except with the  

previous approval of the Central  

Government, no prospecting licence  

or mining lease shall be granted  

in respect of any mineral  

specified in the First Schedule to  

the Act.”  

105. The statutory scheme delineated by Section  

13(2)(f) and the Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960  

clearly contemplate grant of mining lease, with regard  

to both the categories of land, that is, land in which  

minerals vest in the Government, and the land in which  

minerals vest in a person other than the Government.  

In statutory provisions there is no kind of exception  

as contended by the learned counsel of the appellant  

that when owner himself wants to win the minerals he  

does not require any mining lease. The submission is  

contrary to the express statutory scheme, in the event  

submission of appellant is accepted that with regard  

to minerals which vest in a private person no mining  

lease is required, the whole object of the Union by  

which it declared to have taken under its control

112  

regulation of mines and development of minerals shall  

be frustrated.   

106. Another limb of submission of the appellant  

needs to be noticed here. Shri Naphade submits that  

there is no concept of owner of a land granting lease  

to himself. He submits that concept of lease is well  

known and well recognised concept as contained in  

Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act. Section 105  

of the Transfer of Property Act is as follows:  

“Section 105. Lease defined. A lease of  

immovable property is a transfer of a right  

to enjoy such property, made for a certain  

time, express or implied, or in perpetuity,  

in consideration of a price paid or promised,  

or of money, a share of crops, service or any  

other thing of value, to be rendered  

periodically or on specified occasions to the  

transferor by the transferee, who accepts the  

transfer on such terms.  

Lessor, lessee, premium and rent defined: The  

transferor is called the lessor, the  

transferee is called the lessee, the price  

is called the premium, and the money, share,  

service or other thing to be so rendered is  

called the rent.”  

113  

107. Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition Para  

321 defines nature of mining lease in the following  

manner:  

“321. Nature of mining lease. A lease may be  

granted of land or any part of land, and since  

minerals are a part of the land it follows  

that a lease can be granted of the surface  

of the land and the minerals below, or of the  

surface alone, or of the minerals alone. It  

has been said that a contract for the working  

and getting of minerals, although for  

convenience called a mining lease, is not in  

reality a lease at all in the sense in which  

one speaks of an agricultural lease, and that  

such a contract, properly considered, is  

really a sale of a portion of the land at a  

price payable by instalments, that is, by way  

of rent or royalty, spread over a number of  

years.”  

108. This Court had occasion to consider the concept  

of mining lease under Act, 1957 in SRI TARKESHWAR SIO  

THAKUR JIU vs. DAR DASS DEY & CO. AND OTHERS, 1979(3)  

SCC 106, this Court held that term lease occurring in  

Section 3(C) of Act 67 of 1957 does not appear to have  

been used in the narrow technical sense in which it is  

defined in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act  

but it has all the characteristics of  a lease as  

defined in the Transfer of Property Act. In paragraph  

31 following was laid down:

114  

“31. It is important to bear in mind that the  

term “lease” occurring in the definition of  

“mining lease” given in Section 3(c) of Act  

67 of 1957 does not appear to have been used  

in the narrow technical sense in which it is  

defined in Section 105 of the Transfer of  

Property Act. But, as rightly pointed out by  

a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Fala  

Krishna Pal v. Jagannath Marwari. a  

settlement of the character of a mining lease  

is everywhere in India regarded as “lease”.  

A mining lease, therefore, may be  

meticulously and strictly satisfy in all  

cases, all the characteristics of a “lease”  

as defined in the Transfer of Property Act.  

Nevertheless, in the legal accepted sense,  

it has always been regarded as a lease in  

this country.”  

109. This Court proceeded further to consider  

Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and opined  

following in paragraphs 37:  

“37. A right to carry on mining operations  

in land to extract a specified mineral and  

to remove and appropriate that mineral, is a  

“right to enjoy immovable property” within  

the meaning of Section 105; more so, when —  

as in the instant case — it is coupled with  

a right to be in its exclusive khas  

possession for a specified period. The “right  

to enjoy immovable property” spoken of in  

Section 105, means the right to enjoy the  

property in the manner in which that property  

can be enjoyed. If the subject-matter of the  

lease is mineral land or a sand-mine, as in  

the case before us, it can only be enjoyed  

and occupied by the lessee by working it, as  

indicated in Section 108, Transfer of  

Property Act, which regulates the rights and

115  

liabilities of lessors and lessees of  

immovable property.”  

110. This Court further following the Nageshwar Bux  

Roy vs. Bengal Coal Co., LR (1930) 58 IA 29, in State  

of Karanataka and others vs. Subhash Rukmayya Guttedar  

and others, 1993 Supp.(3) 290 laid down following in  

paragraph 6:  

“6………The question, therefore, is whether the  

grant of the right to extract the minor  

mineral from Government quarry is a lease or  

a licence and whether the contractor is  

liable to pay the royalty in respect of minor  

mineral extracted from the Government quarry.  

Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act  

defines a lease of immovable property as a  

transfer of a right to enjoy such property  

made for a certain time, express or implied,  

or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price  

paid or promised, or of money, a share of  

crops, service or any other thing of value,  

to be rendered periodically or on specified  

occasions to the transferor by the  

transferee, who accepts the transfer on such  

terms. The normal connotation of the term  

lease is the preservation of the demised  

estate to be in occupation and enjoyment  

thereof for a specified period or in  

perpetuities for consideration; the corpus by  

user thereof does not disappear and at the  

expiry of the term or on termination the same  

is handed over to the lessor subject to the  

terms of the contract, express or implied. A  

right to carry on mining operations in the  

land on surface or sub-soil is to extract the  

specified quantity of the minerals found  

therein, to remove and appropriate that

116  

mineral. Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals  

(Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 affords  

the guidance in this behalf. It says that the  

holder of a mining lease or agent, etc. is  

entitled to remove or consume the mineral.  

It would mean destruction of the estate  

leased out and appropriation thereof on  

payment of consideration i.e. royalty.  

Therefore, it is a right to enjoy immovable  

property within the meaning of Section 105  

more so when, as in the instant case, it is  

coupled with a right to be in occupation or  

enter into possession for a specified period.  

Section 3(d) of the Act defines ‘mining  

operations’ to mean any operation undertaken  

for the purpose of winning any minerals. It  

is true that no right, title or interest has  

been created in the contractor over the  

mining area. But he has been permitted to  

remove and use the minor minerals in the  

execution of the works as its (sic his) right  

to enjoy immovable property spoken of in  

Section 105 which means the right to enjoy  

the property in the manner in which that  

property can be enjoyed. In Nageshwar Bux Roy  

v. Bengal Coal Co.1 Lord Macmillan speaking  

for the Board held that:  

“In considering the character and  

effect of acts of possession in the  

case of a mineral field, it is  

necessary to bear in mind the nature  

of the subject and the possession of  

which it is susceptible. Owing to the  

inaccessibility of minerals in the  

earth, it is not possible to take  

actual physical possession at once of  

a whole mineral field: it can be  

occupied only by extracting the  

minerals and until the whole minerals  

are exhausted the physical occupation  

must necessarily be partial.”  

117  

111. The word mining lease has been given specific  

meaning under Act, 1957. It is well settled principle  

of interpretation that the provisions of an Act  

including definition of a term is to be interpreted in  

a manner which may advance the object of the  

legislation. The essential characteristic of mining  

lease is that it is granted for the purpose of  

undertaking mining operation and mining operation  

means any operation undertaken for the purpose of  

winning the mineral. Applying aforesaid definition in  

the Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960 under Chapter V  

it cannot be said that no mining lease is contemplated  

with respect to land where mineral vests exclusively  

in a private person.   

112. The examination of a statutory scheme  

applicable in Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya shall  

not be complete unless we notice two more aspects,  

they are (i) the Mines Act, 1952 and the Regulations  

framed thereunder; (2) Environmental Protection Act,  

1986 and the notification issued thereunder with  

regard to mining project.

118  

113. The Mines Act, 1952 is an Act to amend and  

consolidate the law relating to the regulation of  

labour and safety of mines. The act contains various  

provisions regarding inspection of mining operation  

and management of mines. Section 16 provides a notice  

to be given to mining operations by the owner agent or  

manager of a mine. Section 16 is as follows:  

“Section 16. Notice to be given of mining  

operations.-(1) The owner, agent or manager  

of a mine shall, before the commencement of  

any mining operation, give to the Chief  

Inspector, the Controller, Indian Bureau of  

Mines and the district magistrate of the  

district in which the mine is situate, notice  

in writing in such form and containing such  

particulars relating to the mine as may be  

prescribed.  

    (2) Any notice given under sub-section  

(1) shall be so given as to reach the persons  

concerned at least one month before the  

commencement of any mining operation.”  

114. Section 18 contains duties and  

responsibilities of owners, agents and managers. There  

are various other provisions in the Mines Act, 1952  

which are mandatory to be followed before working any  

mine. Learned counsel for the appellant has not

119  

disputed that the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952  

are applicable with regard to the coal mining in the  

State of Meghalaya. He, however, submits that there  

are no powers with the District Magistrate or State  

Officials under the Mines Act, 1952.  Chapter II of  

the Mines Act, 1952 deals with Inspectors and  

Certifying Surgeons.  Section 5(3) provided that the  

District Magistrate may exercise the powers and  

perform the duties of an Inspector subject to the  

general or special orders of the Central Government.   

Section 5(3) is as follows:-  

“5(3) The district magistrate may exercise  

the powers and perform the duties of an  

Inspector subject to the general or special  

orders of the Central Government.”  

115. The above provision clearly empowers the  

District Magistrate to exercise the powers and perform  

the duties of an Inspector but subject to general and  

special orders of Central Government, which means that  

there may be some restriction on the power of the  

District Magistrate as directed by Central Government.  

In this context, Shri Naphade has referred to a  

notification dated 18.09.1953 issued under sub-section

120  

3 of Section 5 of the Mines Act, 1952, which is to the  

following effect:-  

“New Delhi, the 18th September, 1953  

S.R.O. 1789 – In pursuance of sub-section 3  

of section 5 of the Mines Act, 1952 (XXXV of  

1952), the Central Government hereby directs  

that in exercising the powers and performing  

the duties of an Inspector, the District  

Magistrate shall not, without prior reference  

to the Chief Inspector, take direct action  

or issue any order in respect of any matter  

solely connected with the technical  

direction, management or supervision of any  

mine, even though such direction, management  

or supervision may appear to him to be  

dangerous or defective.   

[No.M-41(370 52.]  

P.N. SHARMA, Under Secy.”  

116. The restriction as is apparent from the above  

notification is with regard to matters solely  

connected with the technical direction, management or  

supervision of any mine.  The above notification does  

not take away all the functions of the District  

Magistrate but restriction is with regard to area  

mentioned therein.  As noted above, Section 16 obliged  

the owner, agent or manager of a mine to give notice  

before the commencement of any mining operation to the  

district magistrate of the district in which the mine  

is situate.  Section 75 of the Mines Act, 1952 also

121  

empowers the District Magistrate to institute  

prosecution against any owner, agent or manager for  

any offence under the Mines Act, 1952.  Section 75 is  

as follows:-  

“75.  Prosecution of owner, agent or  

manager.--No prosecution shall be instituted  

against any owner, agent or manager for any  

offence under this Act except at the instance  

of the Chief Inspector or of the district  

magistrate or of an Inspector authorised in  

this behalf by general or special order in  

writing by the Chief Inspector;  

Provided that the Chief Inspector or the  

district magistrate or the Inspector as so  

authorised shall, before instituting such  

prosecution, satisfy himself that the owner,  

agent or manager had failed to exercise all  

due diligence to prevent the commission of  

such offence.  

Provided further that in respect of an  

offence committed in the course of the  

technical direction and management of a mine,  

the district magistrate shall not institute  

any prosecution against an owner, agent or  

manager without the previous approval of the  

Chief Inspector.”  

117. We, thus, do not accept the submission of Shri  

Naphade that District Magistrate has no jurisdiction  

under the Mines Act, 1952 to take any action.   

118. In exercise of the power under Section 57 of  

Mines Act, 1952 a new set of regulations has been

122  

framed, namely, Coal Mines Regulations, 2017.  

Regulation 2(r) defines “District Magistrate”. The  

Regulations contain various regulatory provisions with  

regard to mines. Chapter II deals with returns, notices  

and records. Chapter IV deals with Inspectors and Mine  

Officials. The Regulations contain several regulatory  

provisions which need to be followed while working a  

mine by the owner or his agent. The enforcement of  

Mines Act, 1952 and the Regulations, 2017 have to be  

ensured in the public interest by the state of  

Meghalaya.  

119. Now we come to the Environment (Protection)  

Act, 1986. A notification dated 14.09.2006 was issued  

by the Ministry of Environment and Forests in exercise  

of power under Section 3(3) of the Environment  

Protection Act, 1986. Section 3 of the Act, 1986 which  

provided for requirements of prior environmental  

clearance with regard to projects enumerates therein.  

Schedule to the notification listed the projects or  

activities requiring prior environmental clearance.  

“Mining of minerals” included at Item No.1(a) but even

123  

for mining project requirement of minimum 5 hectares  

area was required for applicability of the project.  

Substituting Item No.1(a) of Notification dated  

14.09.2006 a new notification dated 15.01.2016 has  

been issued. In place of Item No.1(a) new entry has  

been substituted in respect of coal mine lease which  

is to the following effect:  

(1)    (2)    (3)    (4)    (5)  

“1(a) (i)  

Mining  

of  

minerals  

>50 ha of  

mining lease  

areas in  

respect of  

non-coal mine  

lease  

>150 ha of  

mining lease  

area in  

respect of  

coal mine  

lease  

Asbestos  

mining  

irrespective  

of mining area  

<50 ha of  

mining  

lease  

area in  

respect  

of non-

coal mine  

lease  

<150 ha  

of mining  

lease  

area in  

respect  

of coal  

lease  

General  

Conditions  

shall  

apply  

except:  

(i) for  

project or  

activity  

of mining  

of minor  

minerals  

of  

Category  

‘B2’(up to  

25 ha of  

mining  

lease  

area);  

(ii) River  

bed mining  

projects  

on account  

of inter-

state  

boundary.

124  

120. If the project was under Category ‘A’,  

environmental clearance is required from Ministry of  

Environment and Forests whereas as per new notification  

dated 15.01.2016 for project ‘B’ environmental  

clearance is required from State Environmental  

Assessment Authority with respect of coal mining lease  

area of less than or equal to 150 hectares. Now as per  

statutory regime brought in force by notification dated  

15.01.2016 environmental clearance is required for a  

project of coal for mining of any extent of area. We  

have dealt with the notification dated 15.01.2016,  

since it was placed before us and submissions were made  

by learned counsel for the parties.  The notification  

dated 15.01.2016 being a statutory provision shall  

operate on its own force and no order of any Court is  

required for enforcement of notification dated  

15.01.2016.  We have dealt the matter only in view to  

clarify the statutory regime pertaining to mining of  

coal.   

125  

121. While implementing statutory regime for  

carrying mining operations in the Hills District of the  

State of Meghalaya, the State of Meghalaya has to  

ensure compliance of not only MMDR Act, 1957 but Mines  

Act, 1952 as well as Environment (Protection)Act, 1986.  

Point No.4  

122. We having held that for carrying out mining  

operations in privately owned and community owned land  

in Hills Districts of Meghalaya, obtaining a mining  

lease is a mandatory requirement for carrying out the  

mining, we have to examine the procedure for grant of  

such mining lease and the authority/person, who is  

competent to grant such lease.   

123. Chapter IV of the Mineral Concession Rules,  

1960 deals with grant of mining leases in respect of  

land in which the minerals vest in the Government and  

Chapter V deals with procedure for obtaining a  

prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of land  

in which the minerals vest in a person other than the  

Government.  Chapter IV contains Rules 22 to 40 and

126  

Chapter V contains Rules 41 to 52 and the procedure and  

manner of applying for mining lease and grant of lease  

as contained in Chapter IV is not made applicable to  

the procedure as given in Chapter V except that by  

virtue of Rule 45(i) certain conditions of mining lease  

as contained in Rule 27 under Chapter IV are made  

applicable for mining lease under Chapter V.   

124. Rule 22(1) provides that an application for the  

grant of a mining lease in respect of land in which the  

minerals vest in the Government shall be made to the  

State Government in Form I through such officer or  

authority as the State Government may specify in this  

behalf.  In Chapter V, there is no such rule, which  

requires making an application for lease to the State  

Government. There is a marked difference between the  

rules contained in Chapter IV and rules contained in  

Chapter V, few of which are relevant to notice for the  

purposes of this case.  Rule 27(2) provides that a  

mining lease may contain such other conditions as the  

State Government may deem necessary in regard to the  

matters enumerated therein.  Whereas Rule 45(iii)

127  

provides that every mining lease may contain such other  

conditions, not being inconsistent with the provisions  

of the Act and these rules, as may be agreed upon  

between the parties.  The above provision gives an  

indication that in the lease executed by Chapter V, the  

omission of word “State Government” in Rule 45(iii) is  

indicative of the fact that conditions, which are to  

be added has to be agreed upon between the parties.   

Most important rule to be noticed is Rule 45 in this  

context, which is to the following effect:-  

“45. Conditions of mining lease : - Every  

mining lease shall be subject to the  

following conditions :-   

(i) the provisions of clauses (b) to (l) and  

(p) to (u) of sub-rule (1) of rule 27 shall  

apply to such leases with the modification  

that in clauses (c) and (d) for the words  

"State Government" the word "lessor" shall  

be substituted ;   

(ia) mining operations shall be undertaken  

in accordance with the duly approved mining  

plan ;  

(ii)  Omitted.;   

(iii) the lease may contain such other  

conditions, not being inconsistent with the  

provisions of the Act and these rules, as may  

be agreed upon between the parties;   

(iv) if the lessee makes any default in  

payment of royalty as required by section 9

128  

or commits a breach of any of the conditions  

of the lease, the lessor shall give notice  

to the lessee requiring him to pay the  

royalty or remedy the breach, as the case may  

be, within sixty days from the date of the  

receipt of the notice and if the royalty is  

not paid or the breach is not remedied within  

such period, the lessor without prejudice to  

any proceeding that may be taken against the  

lessee determine the lease;   

(v) the lessee may determine the lease at any  

time by giving not less than one year’s  

notice in writing to lessor.”  

125. It is provided in Rule 45(i) that in clauses  

(c) and (d) of Rule 27 for the words “State Government”  

the word “lessor” shall be substituted, which gives a  

clear indication that State Government is not a lessor  

in a lease granted under Chapter V.  Rule 27(5) and  

Rule 45(iv) is also relevant to notice.  Rule 27(5)  

provides as follows:-  

”27(5) If the lessee makes any default in the  

payment of royalty as required under section  

9 or payment of dead rent as required under  

section 9A or commits a breach of any of the  

conditions specified in sub-rules (1), (2)  

and (3), except the condition referred to in  

clause (f) of sub-rule (1), the State  

Government shall give notice to the lessee  

requiring him to pay the royalty or dead rent  

or remedy the breach, as the case may be,  

within sixty days from the date of the  

receipt of the notice and if the royalty or  

dead rent is not paid or the breach is not  

remedied within the said period, the State

129  

Government may, without prejudice to any  

other proceedings that may be taken against  

him, determine the lease and forfeit the  

whole or part of the security deposit.”  

126. Under Rule 27(5), if the lessee makes any  

default in the payment of the royalty or the payment  

of dead rent or commits breach of any of the conditions,  

the State Government shall give notice to the lessee  

and determine the lease and forfeit the whole or part  

of the security deposit.  Whereas under rule 45(iv),  

the said power has been vested in the lessor, which  

also indicates that it is lessor, who will determine  

the lease and not the State Government.  Other  

provisions of Chapter V also support the above  

conclusion. Rule 47 provides for submission of copy of  

licence or lease to the State Government within three  

months of the grant of such licence or lease.   

Requirement of submitting the licence or lease copy to  

the State Government indicate that the State Government  

is not the authority, who is granting the lease,  

otherwise there was no requirement of submitting a copy  

to the State Government, if it was contemplated that  

State Government shall grant the lease.  Rule 63 in

130  

Chapter V provides that previous approval of the  

Central Government to be obtained through State  

Government, which is to the following effect:-  

“63. Previous approval of the Central  

Government to be obtained through State  

Government:- Where in any case previous  

approval of the Central Government is  

required under the Act or these rules, the  

application for such approval shall be made  

to the Central Government through the State  

Government .”  

127. Our above conclusion is reinforced when we look  

into the statutory regime regarding grant of mining  

lease as per the Mineral Concession Rules, which were  

in force prior to enforcement of Mineral Concession  

Rules, 1960.  Prior to MMDR Act, 1957, earlier Central  

Legislation which was governing the field was Mines and  

Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, under  

which rules have been framed by Central Government  

namely, Mineral Concession Rules, 1949.  Rule 14 of  

Chapter III contemplated application for prospecting  

license.  Chapter IV of the Rules, 1949 contained the  

heading “grant of Mining Lease in respect of land in  

which the minerals belong to Government”.  The  

provisions of Rule 27 of Chapter IV provide for

131  

application for mining lease and there were several  

other rules under Chapter IV, which in substance have  

been retained in Chapter IV of Rules, 1960.  Chapter V  

of Rules, 1949 contained the heading “grant of mineral  

concessions by private persons.”  As noted above, the  

heading of Chapter V under Rules, 1960 is “procedure  

for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining lease in  

respect of land in which the minerals vest in a person  

other than the Government.”  Rule 47 of Chapter V of  

Rules, 1949 provide for “conditions in a mining lease”,  

which are in substance similar as Rule 45 of Rules,  

1960.  Rule 47(iv) of the Rules, 1949 was akin to  

present Rule 45(i) of the Rules, 1960.  Rule 47(iv) of  

the Rules, 1949 is as follows:-  

“47. Conditions of mining lease : - A mining  

lease granted by a private person shall be  

subject to the following condition:-   

XXXXXXX  

(iv) the provisions of clauses (i), (ii),  

(iii), (iv), (v), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x),  

(xi0 and (xv) of sub-rule (1) of rule 41 shall  

apply to such lease with the modification  

that in clauses (ii), (iii), (iv) and (xv)  

for the words "State Government" the word  

"lessor" shall be substituted;  

XXXXXXXXX”

132  

128. Thus, the Chapter V of Rules, 1949 dealt with  

the mining lease granted by private persons, i.e., the  

category where the minerals were not owned by the  

Government but was owned by private persons.  Chapter  

V of the Rules, 1960 contains substantially similar  

provisions.  Thus, Chapter V of Rules, 1960 has to be  

treated to be dealing with minerals owned by private  

owners.  The earlier statutory regime, which was  

enforced as per Rules, 1949 made it amply clear that  

mineral concessions are to be granted by private  

persons also, which is in substances retained in  

Chapter V of Rules, 1960.  Thus, mining lease to be  

granted as per Chapter V of Rules, 1960 is mining lease  

by the owner of mineral and similar concept has to be  

borrowed and read in Chapter V as noted above.  Absence  

of any procedure to make an application for mining  

lease to the State Government in Chapter V of the Rules,  

1960 and lessor being the private persons and not the  

State Government, clearly indicates that State  

Government is not to grant the lease in respect of land  

of privately owned/community owned owners.  

133  

129. Another reason for not providing any  

application to State Government for grant of mining  

lease in respect of minerals, which vests in the  

private owners and community owners is that; without  

consent or willingness of private owners/community  

owners of minerals, no authority is empowered to grant  

any mining lease with regard to minerals, of which he  

is the owner, it is the owner of the minerals may be  

private persons or community owners, who is entitled  

to grant lease of minerals as per the provisions of  

Chapter V of Rules, 1960.   

130. We, thus, conclude that as per the statutory  

provisions contained in Rules, 1960 especially Chapter  

V, a mining lease for minerals, which belongs to a  

private owner or a community owner, it is not the State  

Government, which is entitled to receive any  

application or grant any mining lease, but it is the  

private owner or community owner, who is entitled to  

grant a lease for mining minerals owned by them.  Issue  

No.4 is answered accordingly.     

134  

Point No.5  

131. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel  

appearing for the State of Meghalaya has submitted that  

State of Meghalaya has no control over the mining of  

the coal by owners of the minerals since it is the  

owners, who have right to carry on mining, which has  

been traditionally going on in the State of Meghalaya  

for last several decades.  To find out as to whether  

State of Meghalaya has any statutory control over the  

mining operations in State of Meghalaya, which is going  

on for last several decades, we have to examine the  

statutory provisions governing the field.    

132. We have already held that provisions of MMRD  

Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 are  

applicable in the Hills Districts of the State of  

Meghalaya.  We, in the present case, are concerned with  

the mining of coal, which is a major mineral as per the  

Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.  Rule 42  

of Chapter V of the Rules, 1960 provides for  

restrictions on the grant of prospecting licence and  

mining lease, which is to the following effect:-

135  

“42. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting  

licence and mining lease:- (1) No prospecting  

licence or mining lease shall be granted to  

any person unless he has filed an affidavit  

stating that he has–   

(i) filed up-to-date income tax returns;   

(ii) paid the income tax assessed on him,  

and  

(iii) paid the income tax on the basis of  

self-assessment as provided in the  

Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961).   

(2) Except with the previous approval of the  

Central Government, no prospecting licence or  

mining lease shall be granted in respect of  

any mineral specified in the First Schedule  

to the Act.”  

133. As per Rule 42(2), except with the previous  

approval of the Central Government, no prospecting  

licence or mining lease shall be granted in respect of  

any mineral specified in the First Schedule to the Act.   

Thus, previous approval of Central Government is  

mandatory before grant of mining lease of coal.  Rule  

63 provides that the approval of the Central Government  

has to be obtained through the State Government.  Thus,  

the State Government has to be aware that any previous  

approval of the Central Government for mining coal has  

been obtained or not.  Thus, restriction being

136  

statutory and without any exception State Government  

cannot say that it has no role to play with regard to  

mining of coal.  All applications for previous approval  

of Central Government has to be routed through State  

Government.  There are other rules in Chapter V itself,  

which provides for control of the State government in  

the mining of coal.  Rule 50 empowers the provision for  

prohibition of working of mines by the State  

Government, which is to the following effect:-  

“50. Prohibition of working of mines:- If the  

State Government has reason to believe that  

the grant or transfer of a prospecting  

licence or a mining lease or of any right,  

title or interest in such licence or lease  

is in contravention of any of the provisions  

of this chapter, the State Government may,  

after giving the parties an opportunity to  

represent their views and with the approval  

of the Central Government, direct the parties  

concerned not to undertake any prospecting  

or mining operations in the area to which the  

licence or lease relates.”  

134. The above rule empowers the State Government  

with the approval of the Central Government to direct  

the parties concerned not to undertake any mining  

operations, if it has reasons to believe that the grant  

or transfer of mining lease is in contravention of any  

of the provisions of Chapter V.  Thus, when mining

137  

operations of coal are being conducted without prior  

approval of Central Government, State is not powerless  

to direct the parties not to undertake any prospective  

mining operations in the area.  The power given under  

Rule 50 is not only enabling power, but is a statutory  

obligation on the State to exercise the power in the  

public interest.  Rule 51 requires a mining lease to  

furnish to the State Government such returns and  

statements as may be prescribed.  Rule 52 provides for  

penalty, which is to the following effect:-  

“52. Penalty:- (1) If the holder of a  

prospecting licence or a mining lease or his  

transferee or assignee fails, without  

sufficient cause, to furnish the documents  

or information, or returns referred to in  

rule 46, rule 47, rule 48, or rule 51, or  

acts in any manner in contravention of rule  

49 or rule 50, he shall be punishable with  

imprisonment for a term which may extend to  

one year or fine which may extend to five  

thousand rupees or with both.   

(2) If any person grants or transfers or  

obtains a prospecting licence or mining lease  

or any right, title or interest therein, in  

contravention of any of the provisions of  

this chapter, he shall be punishable with  

imprisonment which may extend to one year or  

fine which may extend to five thousand rupees  

or both.”  

138  

135. Rule 52 gives the State Government ample power  

to prosecute and punish mining leases or his  

transferees or assignees on violation of the rules or  

contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter V,  

which is ample power to the State to ensure that the  

Act is faithfully followed.    

136. The State was advised by the Comptroller and  

Auditor General of India in its report ended 31st March,  

2013 in para 4.5.1 that to regulate mining by following  

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,  

1957. Para 7.5.8 of the same report has made the  

following as recommendation No.1:  

“Recommendation No.1: The M&G Department  

should take necessary measures to regulate  

mining in the State in accordance with the  

provisions of the MMDR Act and Rules  

thereunder.”  

137. The State is thus well aware of its statutory  

obligation which is reflected in Mining Policy of 2012  

and Draft Guidelines, 2015 but still before this Court  

their contention that no mining lease is to be obtained  

for privately owned/community owned land in Hills

139  

District of State of Meghalaya is unacceptable and not  

in a good spirit. Our country being governed by the  

Constitution of India all the States are to implement  

Parliamentary Acts in true spirit and in the present  

case the State having been advised time and again by  

Comptroller and Auditor General and being well aware  

of its statutory obligation as noticed above it comes  

ill from the State to contend before this Court that  

there is no requirement of mining lease for winning the  

minerals. The above stand of the State taken before  

this Court gives the impression that instead of  

implementing the Parliamentary enactment and  

regulatory regime for mineral regulation some vested  

interests wants to continue the illegal regime of  

illegal mining to the benefit of the few persons which  

is unacceptable and condemnable. We, thus, conclude  

that the State of Meghalaya has jurisdiction and power  

to ensure that no mining of coal should take place  

except when a mining lease granted under Mineral  

Concession Rules, 1960, Chapter V, as discussed above.   

140  

Point No.6  

138. One more point which needs to be considered is  

as to whether power to allot land for mining purpose  

is vested in Autonomous District Council? The  

submission on behalf of one of the Autonomous District  

Council which is the appellant before us as well as on  

behalf of State of Meghalaya is that Autonomous  

District Council being constitutional authority  

constituted under Schedule VI of the Constitution has  

legislative and administrative power. Reference to  

various legislation framed by Autonomous District  

Council which received the assent of the Governor has  

also been relied on. Para 3 of Schedule VI enumerates  

the power of District Council and regional council to  

make laws which we have extracted above.  

139. Certain legislation framed by District Council  

has also been referred namely the Khasi Hills District  

(Trading by Non Tribals) Regulation, 1954, the United  

Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Management and  

Control of Forest) Rules, 1960. The Khasi Hills  

Autonomous District (Trading by Non Tribals) Rules,

141  

1959, all framed in exercise of power under para 3 of  

Sixth Schedule. The power to make law entrusted to  

Autonomous District Council under para 3 of Schedule  

VI is power to make law referable to List 2 and List 3  

of the Seventh Schedule. We have already noticed above  

that with regard to regulation and development of  

mineral, the Union has made declaration by Section 2  

of 1957 Act and the power of the State Legislature is  

denuded in that respect. The logical corollary of the  

above principle is that power of Autonomous District  

Council shall also be denuded in so far as regulation  

and development of minerals to the extent which is  

covered by 1957 Act. We may refer to one Rule 4 of  

United Khasi Jaintia Hills District (Trading by non  

Tribals) Rules,1959, which contemplates form of licence  

and one of the licence referred to is under Rule 4 is  

licence in Form E. Rule 4 is as follows:  

"4. Form of License.-   

....  

(5) License in form 'E' shall be issued for  

the mining of minerals and the sale or  

purchase of minerals accruing from the  

autonomous district and for the import of  

minerals into the autonomous district for  

sale therein as specified in Part 'E' of the

142  

First Schedule on payment of prescribed  

license fee subject to the conditions  

specified in the license..  

. . . . ”  

140. It is relevant to notice that the United Khasi  

Jaintia Hills District (Trading by Non-Tribal) Rules,  

1959 has been repealed insofar as Jaintia Hills  

Districts are concerned by the Jaintia Hills Autonomous  

District (Trading by Non-Tribal) Regulation Act, 2011,  

Section 18. Rules, 1959 is still in force in Khasi  

Hills Autonomous Districts, since, no other regulations  

have been placed before us repealing the Rules, 1959.   

In Regulations, 2011, one aspect needs to be noted in  

Section 2, which is definition clause. By clause  

(viii), “trade” has been defined, which is to the  

following effect:-  

“(viii)  "Trade" means any trade involving  

buying and selling or business for profit and  

includes exchange of goods or commodities or  

business or import, export and transport of  

goods/commodities or entry of goods into  

market for sale or trade and business such as  

construction works or other work rendered by  

the contractor or his agent and it also  

includes person and persons engaged by such  

contractor or agent or any other profession  

or vocation such as barber, cobbler,  

tailoring, cattle rearing (which include  

piggery, goatary, poultry) milk and dairy

143  

products, automobiles making or repairing,  

electrician, furniture makers, pharmacist,  

physician, transport and any other similar  

vocation or profession and the term "trade"  

and "trading" shall be construed accordingly.”  

141. The grant of licenses contemplated by  

Regulations are only with respect to the “trade” as  

defined in 2(viii).  The entire Regulations do not  

refer to any kind of trade in mining of coal or mining  

operations.  Thus, the Regulations, 2011 have nothing  

to do with the mining of coal.   

142. Constitutional provisions of Schedule VI are  

also relevant to be noticed. Paragraph 9 of the  

Schedule VI refers to Licences or leases for the  

purpose of prospecting for, or extraction of, minerals.  

Para 9 is as follows: -  

“9. Licences or leases for the purpose of  

prospecting for, or extraction of, minerals.  

-   

(1) Such share of the royalties accruing each  

year from licences or leases for the purpose  

of prospecting for, or the extraction of,  

minerals granted by [the Government of the  

State] in respect of any area within an  

autonomous district as may be agreed upon  

between [the Government of the State] and the  

District Court of such district shall be made  

over to that District Council.

144  

(2) If any dispute arises as to the share of  

such royalties to be made over to a District  

Council, it shall be referred to the Governor  

for determination and the amount determined  

by the Governor in his discretion shall be  

deemed to be the amount payable under sub-

paragraph(1) of this paragraph to the  

District Council and the decision of the  

Governor shall be final.”   

143. Para 9(1) confines to the licences or leases of  

minerals granted by government of the State. Schedule  

VI which constitute the District Councils and Regional  

Councils enumerates their powers.  Para 9 refers to  

licences or leases for extraction of minerals granted  

by the Government of the State. Para 9 only deals with  

share of the royalties to District Councils as agreed  

upon between the Government of the State and the  

District Councils. Further paragraph 12(A)(a) itself  

contemplates that any law made by District Council or  

Regional Council which is repugnant to any law of the  

State shall be void. Thus, the status of law made by  

District Council or Regional councils has to give way  

to the law made by the State. There can be no doubt  

that District Council and Regional Council cannot make

145  

any law which may be repugnant to the provisions of the  

Parliamentary Act.   

144. We, thus, are of the view that District Council  

does not have any power to make any law with regard to  

grant of mining lease. The mining leases for winning  

the major minerals has to be granted in accordance with  

1957 Act and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.   

POINT NOS. 7 & 8  

145. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu versus M/s  

Hind Stone and others, 1981 (2) SCC 205, speaking  

through Chinnappa Reddy,J., has made following weighty  

observations: -  

“6. Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other  

resources constitute a Nation's natural  

wealth. These resources are not to be  

frittered away and exhausted by any one  

generation. Every generation owes a duty to  

all succeeding generations to develop and  

conserve the natural resources of the nation  

in the best possible way. It is in the  

interest of mankind. It is in the interest  

of the nation. It is recognised by  

Parliament. Parliament has declared that it  

is expedient in the public interest that the  

Union should take under its control the  

regulation of mines and the development of  

minerals. It has enacted the Mines and  

Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act,  

1957.....”  

146  

146. No one can dispute the underlying object in the  

above observations of this Court. The use of natural  

resources also plays major role in carrying out  

development. A fine balance has to be maintained in  

utilisation of natural resources and its conservation  

and preservation. One cannot be sacrificed for the  

interest of other. The concept of Sustainable  

Development has been evolved and is being pursued. In  

this context, reference be made to the three-Judge  

Bench judgment of this Court in Lafarge Umiam Mining  

(pvt.) Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others, 2011(7) SCC  

338. In para 75, following legal position was noticed:  

-   

“75. Universal human dependence on the use  

of environmental resources for the most basic  

needs renders it impossible to refrain from  

altering the environment. As a result,  

environmental conflicts are ineradicable and  

environmental protection is always a matter  

of degree, inescapably requiring choices as  

to the appropriate level of environmental  

protection and the risks which are to be  

regulated. This aspect is recognised by the  

concepts of “sustainable development”. It is  

equally well settled by the decision of this  

Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of  

India that environment has different facets  

and care of the environment is an ongoing  

process. These concepts rule out the  

formulation of an across-the-board principle

147  

as it would depend on the facts of each case  

whether diversion in a given case should be  

permitted or not, barring “no go” areas  

(whose identification would again depend on  

undertaking of due diligence exercise). In  

such cases, the margin of appreciation  

doctrine would apply.”  

147. Now we come back to the order of NGT dated  

17.04.2014 by which Tribunal prohibited the Rathole  

mining/illegal mining throughout the State of  

Meghalaya. We have noticed above that in OA No.73 of  

2014 wherein the above order was passed, sufficient  

materials were brought on the record including experts  

report which proved that illegal coal mining in the  

State of Meghalaya is degrading the environment. The  

Court also noticed the report of Professor Dr.O.P.Singh  

which noticed that the Meghalaya Pollution Control  

Board in the year 1997 has submitted the report about  

the environmental pollution consequent to illegal  

mining.   

148. Learned Amicus Curiae has invited our attention  

to report of Comptroller and Auditor General for the  

year ending 31st March, 2013, where the Comptroller and  

Auditor General has noticed that due to Acid Mine  

Drainage several locations of Lukha River were

148  

severally polluted. The report also referred to  

investigation by the Meghalaya State Pollution Control  

Board in November 2011 and noticed that no effective  

steps were taken to control AMD. Paragraph 7.5.23.1 of  

the report is as follows: -  

“7.5.23.1 Pollution of rivers due to Acid  

Mine Drainage from coal mines  

Based on media reports relating to  

pollution of Lukha river in Jaintia Hills,  

the Meghalaya State Pollution Board (MSPCB)  

conducted (November 2011)  an investigation  

to ascertain the water quality of the Lukha  

River and its feeding streams in Jaintia  

Hills District vis-a-vis a similar  

investigation carried out in February 2007.  

For this purpose, eight water and sediment  

samples were collected from the same sampling  

locations investigated during 2007. The  

findings are as follows: -   

Table 1.6  

Station pH  

BIS norms  

6.5-8.5  

Iron(mg/I)  

BIS norms:0.3  

Sulphate(mg/I)  

BIS  

norms:200.0  

2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011  

St.1 3.0 2.7 3.6 6.2 254.0 566.5  

St.2 7.5 5.0 0.13 5.4 13.4 305.0  

St.3 6.8 7.3 0.17 0.4 62.0 8.69  

St.4 4.5 4.3 0.46 4.8 211.8 265.0  

St.5 6.3 5.0 0.32 1.2 188.8 200.0  

St.6 4.3 6.2 0.372 0.26 192.1 118.2  

St.7 7.9 8.2 1.35 0.18 99.0 29.04  

St.8 7.8 8.1 0.3 0.28 101.5 45.6  

149  

The water quality characteristics in terms  

of pH, Sulphate and Iron concentrations with  

respect to Stations 1,2,4 and 5 indicated  

that there is significant deterioration of  

water quality in comparison to that of the  

year 2007 the major cause of which was the  

AMD from coal mining in these areas.   

The investigation made by the MSPCB further  

revealed that the river water on the entire  

stretch of the sampling locations was not  

suitable for drinking purpose......”  

149. Tribunal being satisfied from the materials on  

record has issued the order dated 17.04.2014 which  

cannot be faulted in the facts and materials which are  

on record in the present case. One more fact in the  

above context need to be noticed i.e. after the order  

dated 17.04.2014, several applicants including the  

appellants of Civil Appeal No.5272 of 2016 filed  

application for vacating the ban which was not acceded  

to by the Tribunal. Subsequently the NGT permitted  

transportation of coal till 15.05.2016 and directed  

that after 15.05.2016, all coal within the State of  

Meghalaya shall vest in the State.   

150. The tribunal after considering all pleas and  

materials including reports submitted by the committees  

affirmed the order dated 17.04.2014 and refused to

150  

withdraw the ban. We do not find any error in the order  

of NGT reaffirming its ban order in the facts of the  

present case. But the question which has been raised  

by the appellant before this Court is that whether the  

complete ban as imposed by the NGT deserves to be  

vacated or modified in the interest of the State and  

tribals. The revenue earned by the State from coal  

mining plays substantial part in the economy of the  

State. It is also amply demonstrated from the record  

that tribals are the owners of the land who carry on  

mining of coal in their land by which they earn their  

substantial livelihood.  

151. Though as discussed above the manner in which  

the mining is being carried out by the tribals cannot  

be approved which is clearly in violation of statutory  

regime under 1957 Act and 1960 Rules but in event the  

mining is carried out by tribals or their assignees as  

per the provisions of 1957 Act and 1960 Rules, there  

can be no objections in carrying such mining under the  

regulation and control of State of Meghalaya. We thus  

clarify that in event mining operations are undertaken

151  

by the tribals or other owners of hills districts of  

Meghalaya in accordance with mining lease obtained from  

the State of Meghalaya as per 1957 Act and Mineral  

Concessions Rule, 1960, the ban order dated 17.04.2014  

of the tribunal shall not come in its way of carrying  

mining operations. The ban order is for the illegal  

coal mining which was rampant in the State of Meghalaya  

and the ban order cannot be extended to valid and legal  

mining as per 1957 Act and 1960 Rules.   

Point Nos.9 and 10  

152. The appellants contend that the NGT has no  

jurisdiction to constitute any committee. The NGT vide  

its different orders has constituted different  

committees for submitting reports for different  

purposes. The Constitution of which committees are  

sought to be challenged on the ground that the NGT has  

no jurisdiction to constitute a committee. Similarly,  

order of the Tribunal directing for constituting a  

fund, namely, Meghalaya Environment Protection and  

Restoration Fund has been challenged on the ground that

152  

the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to constitute any  

fund.  

153. What are the powers and jurisdiction of the  

Tribunal given under the National Green Tribunal Act,  

2010 has to be looked into to consider the above  

submission? In so far as jurisdiction of the Tribunal  

is concerned, we have already noticed Sections 14, 15,  

and 16 of the Act. Section 19 of the Act deals with  

procedure and powers of the of the Tribunal. Section  

19 which is relevant for the present case is as follows:  

“19. Procedure and powers of Tribunal. –

(1). The Tribunal shall not be bound by the  

procedure laid down by the Code of Civil  

Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the  

principles of natural justice.  

(2).  Subject to the provisions of this Act,  

the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its  

own procedure.  

(3).  The Tribunal shall also not be bound  

by the rules of evidence contained in the  

Indian Evidence Act, 1872.  

(4).  The Tribunal shall have, for the  

purposes of discharging its functions under  

this Act, the same powers as are vested in a  

civil court under the Code of Civil  

Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit, in  

respect of the following matters, namely:-  

(a)  summoning and enforcing the  

attendance of any person and examining  

him on oath;

153  

(b) requiring the discovery and  

production of documents;  

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;  

(d) subject to the provisions of  

sections 123 and 124 of the Indian  

Evidence Act, 1872, requisitioning any  

public record or document or copy of  

such record or document from any  

office;  

(e) issuing commissions for the  

examination of witnesses or documents;  

(f)  reviewing its decision;  

(g)  dismissing an application for  

default or deciding it ex parte;  

(h)  setting aside any order of  

dismissal of any application for  

default or any order passed by it ex  

parte;  

(i)   pass an interim order (including  

granting an injunction or stay) after  

providing the parties concerned an  

opportunity to be heard, on any  

application made or appeal filed under  

this Act;  

(j) pass an order requiring any person  

to cease and desist from committing or  

causing any violation of any enactment  

specified in Schedule I;  

(k)  any other matter which may be  

prescribed.  

5.   All proceedings before the Tribunal  

shall be deemed to be the judicial  

proceedings within the meaning of sections  

193, 219 and 228 for the purposes of section  

196 of the Indian Penal Code and the Tribunal  

shall be deemed to be a civil court for the

154  

purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of  

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”  

154. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 provides that  

Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down  

by the Code of Civil Procedure but shall be guided by  

the principles of natural justice. What sub-section (1)  

meant to convey is that Tribunal is not shackled with  

the procedure laid down by the CPC for conducting its  

proceedings. Sub-section (2) of Section 19 empowers the  

Tribunal, powers to regulate its own procedure. Section  

19(2) confers vide powers on the Tribunal in so far as  

its procedure is concerned. Section 19(4) vests some  

powers as are vested in civil court, while trying a  

suit, in respect of matters enumerated therein. The use  

of expression “shall not be bound by the procedure laid  

down by the CPC” is not akin to saying that procedure  

as laid down by the CPC is in no manner relevant to the  

Tribunal. Further, Section 19(1) also does not mean  

that Tribunal cannot follow any procedure given in the  

CPC. One provision of CPC inserted by Act 104 of 1976  

with effect from 01.02.1977 is Order XXVI, which is

155  

relevant for present inquiry. Order XXVI Rule 10A  

provides as follows:  

“Order XXVI Rule 10A.Commission for  

scientific investigations"- (1) Where any  

question arising in a suit involves any  

scientific investigation which cannot, in the  

opinion of the Court, be conveniently  

conducted before the Court, the Court may,  

if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the  

interests of justice so to do, issue a  

commission to such person as it thinks fit,  

directing him to inquire into such question  

and report thereon to the Court.  

(2) The provisions of rule 10 of this Order  

shall, as far as may be, apply in relation  

to a Commissioner appointed under this rule  

as they apply in relation to a Commissioner  

appointed under rule 9.”  

155. Rule 10A provides that where any question  

arising in a suit involves any scientific investigation  

which cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be  

conveniently conducted before the Court, the Court may,  

if it thinks  necessary or expedient in the interests  

of justice so to do, issue a commission to such person  

as it thinks fit, directing him to inquire into such  

question and report thereon to the Court. Rule 10A is  

enabling power to the courts to obtain report from such  

persons as it thinks fit when any question involves

156  

with the scientific investigation. The powers under  

Rule 10A which are to be exercised by the Court can  

very well be used by the NGT to obtain reports by  

experts. The NGT as per the statutory scheme of the NGT  

has to decide several complex questions pertaining to  

pollution and environment. The scientific  

investigation and report by experts are necessary  

requirement in appropriate cases to come to correct  

conclusion to find out measures to remedy the pollution  

and environment. We do not, thus, find any dearth of  

jurisdiction in the NGT to appoint a committee to  

submit a report. We may further say that while asking  

expert to give a report the NGT is not confined to the  

four corners of Rule 10A rather its jurisdiction is not  

shackled by strict terms of Order 26 Rule 10A s per  

Section 19(1) as noticed above.   

156. There is one more provision which throws  

considerable light on the above. Under Section 35 of  

the NGT Act, 2010 Central Government is empowered to  

make rule for carrying out the provisions of the Act.  

Rules have been framed in exercise of powers under  

Section 35, namely, National Green Tribunal (Practice

157  

and Procedure) Rules, 2011. The said Rules have been  

framed in exercise of powers under Section 4(4) as well  

as Section 35. The Rules, 2011 are Rules also for  

practices and procedure of the Tribunal. Rule 24 which  

is relevant for the present case is as follows:  

“Section 24. Order and directions in certain  

cases.- The Tribunal may make such orders or  

give such directions as may be necessary or  

expedient to give effect to its order or to  

prevent abuse of its process or to secure the  

ends of justice.”  

157. Rule 24 empowers the Tribunal to make such  

orders or give such directions as may be necessary or  

expedient to give effect to its order or to secure the  

ends of justice. Rule 24 gives vide powers to the  

Tribunal to secure the ends of justice. Rule 24 vests  

special power to Tribunal to pass orders and issue  

directions to secure ends of justice.  Use of words  

‘may’, ‘such orders’, ‘gives such directions’, ‘as may  

be necessary or expedient’, ‘to give effect to its  

orders’, ‘order to prevent abuse of process’, are words  

which enable the Tribunal to pass orders and the above  

words confer vide discretion.  

158  

158. Professor Justice G.P. Singh, in Principles of  

Statutory Interpretation, 14th Edition while dealing  

with enabling word says:  

“Ordinarily, the words ‘May’ and ‘It shall  

be lawful’ are not words of compulsion. They  

are enabling words and they only confer  

capacity, power or authority and imply  

discretion. “They are both used in a statute  

to indicate that something may be done which  

prior to it could not be done”. The use of  

words ‘Shall have power” also connotes the  

same idea.”  

159. The enabling powers give to the Tribunal under  

Rule 24 is for purpose and object to decide the subjects  

which are to be examined, decided and an appropriate  

relief is to be granted by the Tribunal. Further,  

subjects contain vide range of subjects which require  

technical and scientific inputs. The Tribunal can pass  

such orders as it may think fit necessary or expedient  

to secure ends of justice.   

160. The object for which said power is given is not  

far to seek. To fulfil objective of the NGT Act, 2010.  

NGT has to exercise a wide range of jurisdiction and  

has to possess vide range of powers to do justice in a  

given case. The power is given to exercise for the

159  

benefit of those who have right for clean environment  

which right they have to establish before the Tribunal.  

The power given to the Tribunal is coupled with duty  

to exercise such powers for achieving the objects. In  

this regard reference is made to judgment of this Court  

in L. Hirday Narain vs. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly,  

1970(2) SCC 355, where this Court was examining  

provision empowering authority to do something. This  

Court laid down in paragraph 14:  

“14. The High Court observed that under  

Section 35 of the Indian Income Tax. Act,  

1922, the jurisdiction of the Income Tax  

Officer is discretionary. If thereby it is  

intended that the Income Tax Officer has  

discretion to exercise or not to exercise the  

power to rectify, that view is in our  

judgment erroneous. Section 35 enacts that  

the Commissioner or Appellate Assistant  

Commissioner or the Income Tax Officer may  

rectify any mistake apparent from the record.  

If a statute invests a public officer with  

authority to do an act in a specified set of  

circumstances, it is imperative upon him to  

exercise his authority in a manner  

appropriate to the case when a party  

interested and having a right to apply moves  

in that behalf and circumstances for exercise  

of authority are shown to exist. Even if the  

words used in the statute are prima facie  

enabling the Courts will readily infer a duty  

to exercise power which is invested in aid  

of enforcement of a right — public or private  

— of a citizen.”  

160  

161. We, thus, are of the considered opinion that  

there is no lack of jurisdiction in the NGT to direct  

for appointment of committee or to obtain a report from  

a committee in given facts of the case.   

162. Now coming to the challenge to the Fund which  

has been constituted by the Tribunal, namely,  

“Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration  

Fund”, it is useful to notice the observation of the  

Tribunal in its order dated March 25, 2015 by which the  

said Fund was created. The reasons for constitution of  

Fund are self-explanatory which are to the following  

effect:  

“It is also undisputable that there has been  

huge environmental degradation and pollution  

of the waterbody in the State of Meghalaya,  

because of this illegal, unscientific mining.  

No one has even thought of restoration of the  

area in question, to bring to some 16 extent,  

if not completely, restoration of ecology and  

environment in question. Serious steps are  

required to be taken for cleaning polluted  

waterbodies and ensure that no further  

pollution is caused by this activity and the  

activity which would be permitted to be  

carried on finally including transportation  

of coal. On the basis of `Polluter Pay  

Principle’. We direct that the State  

Government shall in addition to the royalty  

payable to it, shall also collect 10% on the  

market value of the coal for every  

consignment. Having heard the learned Counsel

161  

appearing for the parties and keeping in view  

the notifications of the Central Government  

dated 10.05.2012 and that of the State  

Government dated 22.06.2012, we may notice  

that in the report of Comptroller and Auditor  

General of India for the period ending 31st  

March, 2013 under 7.5.18 of Chapter 7 of  

which the invoice value of the coal has been  

taken Rs. 4850/- per metric tonne. Thus, we  

direct that the State Government shall in  

addition to the royalty payable to it, also  

collect 10% of the said market value of the  

coal per metric tonne from each person. The  

amount so collected shall be deposited in the  

account to be titled as ‘Meghalaya  

Environment Protection and Restoration Fund’  

to be maintained by the State under the  

direct control of the Chief Secretary of the  

State of Meghalaya.   

This amount shall only be used for  

restoration of environment and for necessary  

remedial and preventive measures in regard  

to environment and matters related thereto”  

163. As noticed above the NGT could have passed any  

order or direction to secure ends of justice which  

power especially conferred by Rule 24 as noticed above,  

direction to constitute Fund is thus also saved under  

such power.  

Point No.11  

164. In respect of constitution of committee by the  

Tribunal there are two other limbs of submission; that,

162  

(1) NGT by constituting committees has delegated  

essential judicial power to the committee; (2) the  

Constitution of committees encroaches the  

constitutional scheme of administration of Tribal areas  

under Article 244(2) read with Sixth Schedule of the  

Constitution.   

165. The Tribunal vide its various directions has  

asked for reports from State officials and the  

committees. The various instances where the NGT  

directed for report or investigation and submission of  

report by committees were with the object of ensuring  

the implementation of the orders passed by it and to  

decide the environmental issues raised before it. In  

no manner constitution of committee can be said to be  

delegation of essential judicial powers of the NGT to  

the committee.   

166. Now, we come to the Katakey committee which was  

constituted by the Tribunal on 31.08.2018. In  

paragraphs 14 and 15, the Tribunal while directing for  

constitution of committee headed by Justice B.P.  

Katakey directed:  

“14. Only last question which remains is of  

restoration of the environment and

163  

rehabilitation of the victims for which funds  

are available. We are of the view that for  

this task, it will appropriate that we  

constitute an independent Committee. This  

Committee will be headed by Justice B.P.  

Katoki, Former Judge of the Guwahati 8 Item  

Nos. 06 to 10 August 31, 2018 R High Court  

with representatives from Central Pollution  

Control Board and Indian School of Mines,  

Dhanbad.   

15. The Committee will take the following  

steps:   

• Take stock of all actions taken so far in  

this regard.   

• Prepare time bound action plan to deal with  

the issue and ensure its implementation.”  

167. The Constitution of the committee and its  

functions entrusted were with the object to implement  

the orders passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has  

already directed for preparing a scheme for the  

restoration of the environment and ecology. The  

environment and ecology restoration plan was submitted  

before the Tribunal along with the affidavit dated  

03.10.2017 as has been noticed in the order dated  

02.01.2018 of the NGT. In the constitution of Katakey  

committee, thus, it cannot be said that essential  

judicial functions were delegated to the committee by  

the Tribunal. For the restoration of environment NGT

164  

vide its order dated 31.08.2018 has directed the  

committee to submit its action plan and reports by e-

mail. The Tribunal, thus, had kept complete control on  

all steps which were required to be taken by the  

committee and issued directions from time to time. We,  

thus, do not accept the submission of the appellant  

that the essential judicial powers of the NGT had been  

delegated to the committee. Looking to the enormous  

work of restoration of environment which has to be  

supervised on the spot the committee was constituted.  

We, however, observe that the State is always at  

liberty to obtain particular direction if aggrieved by  

any act of the committee. The matter being pending  

before the Tribunal of acts of the committee are under  

direct control of the Tribunal and if the committee  

oversteps in any direction the same can very well be  

corrected by the Tribunal on the matter being brought  

before it.  

168. Now, we come to the second limb, that the  

constitution of the committee encroaches the  

constitutional scheme of the Tribal areas. We revert  

back to the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. Para 3

165  

of the Sixth Schedule enumerates the powers of the  

District Council and Regional Council to make laws.   

The powers of the District and Regional Councils are  

enumerated under paragraph 3. In the directions of the  

Tribunal to constitute committee for transportation of  

extracted minerals or for preparing time bound action  

to deal with the restoration of environment and to  

ensure its implementation, there is no interference in  

the powers of the District or Regional Councils. Action  

plan for restoration of environment is consequence of  

Tribunal finding out that an unregulated coal mining  

has damaged environment and has caused the pollution  

including water pollution. It is not case of the  

appellant that District and Regional Councils have  

framed any law for restoration of environment which is  

being breached by the committee or its acts. The  

District and Regional Councils are free to exercise all  

their powers and the committee constituted by the  

Tribunal is only concerned with the Environmental  

degradation and illegal coal mining. The committees’  

report or direction of the Tribunal in no manner

166  

encroaches upon the administration of Tribal areas by  

the District and Regional Councils.  

Point No.12  

169. The NGT vide its order dated 04.01.2019  

directed the State of Meghalaya to deposit an amount  

of Rs.100 Crores with the Central Pollution Control  

Board, which was to be spent for restoration of  

environment.  The State of Meghalaya aggrieved by above  

direction has filed Civil Appeal No.2968 of 2019. We  

have already noticed the submission of Shri Amrendra  

Sharan, Senior Advocate.    

170. Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned Amicus Curiae has  

refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for  

the appellant. It is submitted that despite the  

specific ban on coal mining by order dated 17.04.2014  

in the entire State, illegal coal mining had been going  

on, which was proved from the reports and pictures  

referred to in the report.  The State is responsible  

and constitutionally obligated to provide clean  

environment to every citizen.  They having entirely  

failed to stop the illegal mining, which is cause of  

degradation of pollution including pollution of river

167  

streams, the Tribunal has rightly directed the State  

of Meghalaya to deposit Rs.100 Crores.  Shri Gonsalves  

submits that in spite of State Pollution Control Board  

as well as Comptroller Auditor General having invited  

the attention of the State of Meghalaya towards serious  

pollution especially in the river water, no steps were  

taken by the State of Meghalaya. It is further  

submitted that restoration of environment requires  

carrying out various projects and unless the State  

provides for necessary fund and finances, the  

restoration of damaged environment cannot be  

undertaken.  It is further submitted that State had  

collected huge fund Rs.4,33,07,26,731/-, which amount  

had not been spent by the State, although, it was  

required to take steps for restoration of environment.  

171. The NGT vide its order dated 31.08.2018  

constituted a committee headed by Justice B.P. Katakey,  

Former Judge of Gauhati High Court with representatives  

from Central Pollution Control Board and Indian School  

of Mines, Dhanbad.  By subsequent order dated  

19.09.2018 issued by the Tribunal, additional Chief

168  

Secretary to Government of Meghalaya was made the  

Member Secretary/Coordinator for proper functioning of  

the committee.  The committee visited different sites,  

held various meetings, various presentations were also  

made before the committee by Meghalaya State Pollution  

Control Board and other bodies namely North Eastern  

Centre for Technology Application and Reach, North  

Eastern Space Application Centre. In Para 12(g),  

following has been stated by the committee:-  

“12(g) Presentation was also made by the  

Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board on  

the coal mine activities and its impact on  

the land used, water quality, air quality,  

ecology as well as socio-economic impact. The  

Committee, on the basis of the said  

presentation, found the following:-   

(i) Continuation of coal mine activities  for a long time in an unplanned and  

unscientific manner as well as without  

any pollution control measures.   

(ii) Such mining activities are generating  huge ecological disturbances and  

negative environmental impacts.   

(iii) Water in rivers and streams in the  mining areas have become highly acidic  

in nature with pH value of 2.7 since  

1991-92 due to presence of high  

percentage of sulphur in coal, which  

reacts after mixing with oxygen in air  

and water giving rise to AMD problem.

169  

No difference of pH level of water in  

rivers, streams and mine drains have  

been noticed during monsoon.   

(iv) pH level of water in springs, taps  water and hand pumps also found to be  

less than permissible limit of  

drinking water standards.   

(v) Absence of biological life in the  water bodies.   

(vi) Ambient air quality of the coal mining  areas and coal storage areas exceeds  

the National Ambient Air Quality  

Standards on few occasions.   

(vii) Requirement of urgent steps to be  taken to generate social awareness  

about the adverse environmental  

impacts and the health hazards  

associated with unplanned and  

unscientific coal mining activities.  

172. Action plans for restoration of environment  

were also discussed and finalised.    

173. On detailed discussion on Issue No.(A),  

committee with details including photographs and maps  

observed following:-  

“(vi) From the aforesaid materials available  

before the Committee, it is, therefore,  

evident that the coal mining activities,  

which includes the extraction of coal and  

transportation, is going on in the State of

170  

Meghalaya, at least in East Jaintia Hills  

District, where such mining activities are  

most, despite the ban imposed by the Hon’ble  

NGT vide its order dated 17.04.2014. Very  

sincere and honest efforts are required on  

the part of the State Government to stop the  

mining activities, which are going on. Such  

mining activities are going on without  

adopting any safety measures for the workers  

and without caring for adverse environmental  

affect. A sincere desire to stop such illegal  

mining activities is also necessary on the  

part of the State and Central Government  

agencies for implementation and monitoring of  

health, safety and environmental  

regulations.   

(vii) The result of ongoing un-abetted  

illegal mining, despite the ban imposed by  

the NGT, is the very tragic incident occurred  

very recently on 13.12.2018 in a coal mine  

in Ksan Village near Lytein River under  

Saipung Police Station in East Jaintia Hills  

District, where 15(fifteen) coal mine workers  

are reported trapped, while they were working  

in the mine. Unfortunately, none of them so  

far could be rescued. For the said incident,  

Saipung Police Station Case No.15(12)/2018  

under Section 188/304A/34 IPC read with  

Section 3(2)(d) of PDPP Act and Section 21(1)  

of MM(R&D) Act against the coal mine owner  

has been registered. A Magisterial enquiry  

to find out the facts and circumstances  

leading to the said incident, has also been  

directed.”  

174. The fact that on 13.12.2018, 15 coal mine  

workers were trapped in an ongoing coal mining  

operation, who all have been reported to be dead itself  

proves beyond any shade of doubt that order dated

171  

17.04.2014 banning mining in the entire State of  

Meghalaya was neither been enforced nor serious  

endeavours were taken by the State or its authorities  

to save the environmental pollution.  With regard to  

restoration of the environment and restoration of the  

victims, action plans were formulated by the committee.  

175. The first submission raised by Shri Amrendra  

Sharan challenging the order is violation of principles  

of natural justice.  The report dated 31.12.2018 of the  

committee itself in issue No. f(iv) noticed: -  

“Website has been opened and all the  

proceedings of the Committee are uploaded in  

the said website.”  

176. The report being placed on website on  

31.12.2018 itself, there is no question of serving copy  

of the report of the committee to the Stakeholders.  It  

is further relevant to notice that Additional Chief  

Secretary of the Government of Meghalaya was himself  

the Member Secretary and Coordinator of the committee  

under the orders of the Tribunal dated 19.09.2018.  All  

proceedings of the committee, its meetings and minutes,  

were with the knowledge and participation of the

172  

coordinator/ Additional Chief Secretary of the State  

of Meghalaya.    

177. A perusal of the order dated 04.01.2019, which  

is impugned in the appeal indicates that although  

learned counsel for the State of Meghalaya was present  

and was heard but no kind of objection was raised  

regarding acceptability of the report.  The report  

obtained by the NGT through the committee was to take  

effective steps towards protection of environmental  

pollution and for restoration of damaged environment.   

Pollution of the various rivers and streams and steps  

for treating the acidic water was urgently required.   

Several presentations before the committee were also  

made and different steps regarding restoration of  

environment were to be taken as noticed and indicated  

in the report of the committee.  As noticed above, the  

NGT vide its order dated 25.03.2015 constituted a fund  

namely ‘Meghalaya Environment Protection and  

Restoration Fund’ to be maintained by the State under  

the direct control of the Chief Secretary of the State  

of Meghalaya. It is reiterated in the report of the

173  

committee that an amount of Rs.433 Crores is already  

lying in the said fund, which has not been spent.    

178. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much  

emphasis that there had been no calculation of the  

extent of damage nor Tribunal could have arrived at on  

the amount of damages to the extent of Rs.100 Crores,  

which was directed to be deposited by the State of  

Meghalaya with the Central Pollution Control Board.  

179. We are of the view that the amount, which has  

been directed by NGT to be deposited by State of  

Meghalaya is neither a penalty nor a fine imposed on  

the State.  The amount has been directed to be deposited  

for carrying out steps regarding restoration of  

environment. We further agree with the submission of  

the learned counsel for the appellant that the said  

amount cannot be said to be amount of damages to be  

paid by the State. We further find force in the  

submission of the learned counsel for the appellant  

that State of Meghalaya has very limited source of  

revenue and putting an extra burden on the State of  

Meghalaya to make payment of Rs.100 Crores from its own

174  

financial resources and budgetary amount may cause  

great hardship to the State of Meghalaya.  Ends of  

justice be served in modifying the direction of NGT  

dated 04.01.2019 to the extent that State is permitted  

to transfer an amount of Rs.100 Crores from the amount  

lying in the MEPRF to the Central Pollution Control  

Board.  The Central Pollution Control Board as directed  

by the Tribunal (NGT) shall utilise the aforesaid  

amount of Rs.100 Crores only for restoration of the  

environment.  The appeal is thus, partly allowed to the  

above extent.     

Point No.13  

180. Vide order dated 31.03.2016, the NGT had  

permitted transportation of coal till 15.5.2016 under  

terms and conditions as enumerated therein. The order  

dated 31.3.2016 further contemplated that no coal in  

any form whatsoever shall be permitted to be  

transported after 15.05.2016 on which date the entire  

remaining coal shall vest in the State Government and  

shall be disposed of in accordance with law.  

175  

181. The main grievance of the appellant is that NGT  

could not have directed for vesting of coal in the  

State. The submission is that members of the appellant-

association have proprietary rights in the coal with  

which they could not be divested by the Tribunal. We  

have already held that private owners of the land are  

also owners of the minerals and the minerals belong to  

the owners/Tribals. We have also found that coal mining  

was illegally going on unregulated by any statutory law  

in the Hills District of State of Meghalaya without  

there being any mining lease. The entire mining was,  

thus, is clear in contravention of Section 4(1) of Act,  

1957 which attracted penalties under Section 21.  

Section 21 of the Act is as follows:  

“21. Penalties.―(1) Whoever contravenes the  

provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section  

(1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with  

imprisonment for a term which may extend to  

five years and with fine which may extend to  

five lakh rupees per hectare of the area.   

(2) Any rule made under any provision of this  

Act may provide that any contravention  

thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment  

for a term which may extend to two years or  

with fine which may extend to five lakh  

rupees, or with both, and in the case of a  

continuing contravention, with additional  

fine which may extend to fifty thousand  

rupees for every day during which such

176  

contravention continues after conviction for  

the first such contravention.   

(3) Where any person trespasses into any land  

in contravention of the provisions of sub-

section (1) of section 4, such trespasser may  

be served with an order of eviction by the  

State Government or any authority authorised  

in this behalf by that Government and the  

State Government or such authorised authority  

may, if necessary, obtain the help of the  

police to evict the trespasser from the land.   

(4) Whenever any person raises, transports  

or causes to be raised or transported,  

without any lawful authority, any mineral  

from any land, and, for that purpose, uses  

any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other  

thing, such mineral tool, equipment, vehicle  

or any other thing shall be liable to be  

seized by an officer or authority specially  

empowered in this behalf. (4A) Any mineral,  

tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing  

seized under sub-section (4), shall be liable  

to be confiscated by an order of the court  

competent to take cognizance of the offence  

under sub-section (1) and shall be disposed  

of in accordance with the directions of such  

court.  

(5) Whenever any person raises, without any  

lawful authority, any mineral from any land,  

the State Government may recover from such  

person the mineral so raised, or, where such  

mineral has already been disposed of, the  

price thereof, and may also recover from such  

person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may  

be, for the period during which the land was  

occupied by such person without any lawful  

authority.   

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),

177  

an offence under sub-section (1) shall be  

cognizable.”  

182. The mining of coal in contravention of Section  

4(1) invites penalties as enumerated in Section 21. The  

present is not a case where any kind of penalty has  

been imposed on the miners except that the amount of  

royalty as payable on mining of coal is being collected  

by the State as penalty. It is true that the State  

Government has power under Section 21(5) to recover  

from such person the minerals so raised, or, where such  

material has already been disposed of, the price  

thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent,  

royalty or tax, as the case may be, but it is for the  

State Government to exercise its power under Section  

21(5) by way of penalty. The NGT has not given any  

reason as to how coal shall automatically vest in the  

State. The right of recovery of mineral as contemplated  

under Section 21(5) does not amount to say that  

proprietary right of owner of the minerals is lost  

rather State under Section 21(5) exercises its power  

to recover the mineral which has been raised without  

any lawful authority. We, thus, are of the view that

178  

coal extracted and lying in open after 15.05.2016 was  

not automatically vested in the State and the owner of  

the coal or the person who has mined the coal shall  

have the proprietary right in the mineral which shall  

not be lost.   

Point No.14  

183. Several I.A.s have been filed by different  

applicants seeking direction to transport already  

extracted coal lying at different places in hills  

districts of State of Meghalaya.  Different applicants  

may claim to different quantities of coal situate at  

different places.  By our order dated 10.05.2019, we  

have already permitted transportation of balance coal  

to the extent of 75050 MTs for which challans were  

already issued after the order of this Court dated  

04.12.2018.  The above quantity of said 75050 MTs. was  

balance quantity out of 176655 Mts., for transportation  

of which order was passed by this Court on 04.12.2018.  

In addition to the aforesaid quantity, claim with  

regard to different quantities by different applicants  

has been laid.  It is not necessary for the purpose of  

the present case to notice different quantities and

179  

claims of different persons for transportation.  After  

the order of the NGT dated 31.08.2018, the State of  

Meghalaya has constituted committees to assist the  

Commissioner and Secretary, Mining and Geology to  

prepare a separate inventory with regard to coal not  

so far recorded in the inventory available with the  

NGT.  In pursuance of said direction, as contained in  

paragraph No.13 of the order, steps were taken and  

various committees had made certain assessments with  

regard to different quantities of coal lying in four  

Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya.  Katakey  

committee Report dated 31.12.2018 has in chart noticed  

the different quantities as was informed by letter  

dated 13.11.2018 to Commissioner and Secretary to the  

Government of Meghalaya.  While dealing with issue  

No.3, in paragraph Nos.(iii), (iv) and (v), following  

has been stated:-  

“(iii) The Commissioner & Secretary to the  

Government of Meghalaya, Mining & Geology  

Department, in the ATR submitted on  

13.11.2018 has stated about the availability  

of 176655 MTs of already inventorised coal  

for transportation, which has also been  

reflected in the order dated 04.12.2018  

passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The  

Commissioner & Secretary, in the said ATR,  

has also stated that 23,25,663.54 MTs of

180  

coal, other than those inventorized coal,  

remained un-inventorized and available for  

transportation, district-wise break up of  

which is as follows:-   

“REPORT ON EXTRACTED COAL REFLECTED AS    

UN-ASSESSED OR NIL IN THE INVENTORY  

APPROVED BY NGT  

Sl.  

No.  

Name of  

District  

Declared  

Quantity in  

MT  

Assessed  

Quantity in  

MT  

1. East Jaintia  

Hills District  

15,46,687.00 13,22,379.00  

2. West Khasi  

Hills District  

7,29,757.00 7,78,297.99  

3. South-West  

Khasi Hills  

District  

1,25,600.63 2,14,145.55  

4. South Garo  

Hills District  

12,834.00 10,841.00  

Total 24,14,878.63 23,25,663.54”  

(iv) From the aforesaid District wise break  

up of extracted coal, which was un-

inventorised, it appears that the quantity  

of such coal was highest in East Jaintia  

Hills District, where the Deputy  

Commissioner, as noticed above, has admitted  

ongoing coal mining activities despite the  

ban imposed by the Hon’ble NGT vide order  

dated 17.04.2014. The stand of the Government  

that the quantity of coal, as reflected in  

the aforesaid chart were mined prior to the  

said ban, appears to be not acceptable, in  

view of the aforesaid admission of the Deputy  

Commissioner and also what the Committee has  

noticed during its field visit on 12.11.2018.  

It seems that there is an attempt to show the  

freshly mined coal, i.e. the coal mined after  

the ban imposed by the Hon’ble NGT, as the  

coal left out from the assessment and  

remained un-inventorised though mined prior  

to the said ban. The Committee also

181  

apprehends that such freshly mined coal may  

be transported taking advantage of the order  

dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Hon’ble  

Supreme Court.   

(v) The Hon’ble NGT vide its order dated  

31.08.2018 given the responsibility of going  

through the said issue to the Secretary of  

Mining, State of Meghalaya in the first  

instance and to be cross-checked by the Joint  

Team of representatives of the Central  

Pollution Control Board and India School of  

Mines, Dhanbad. As reported, no such cross-

check has so far been made.”  

184. The State of Meghalaya has filed additional  

affidavit dated 06.04.2019 of Commissioner and  

Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Mining and  

Geology Department, where details of assessments made  

by committees appointed by the State of Meghalaya has  

been brought on the record.  In the affidavit, it has  

also been stated that a technical committee was also  

constituted to perform the verification of the  

assessments made by the Deputy Commissioners of  

respective districts.  As per the affidavit, assessment  

of extracted coal stocks in above four districts is  

32,56,715 MTs whereas in the report submitted by  

Katakey committee, the said figure in the above four  

districts is 23,25,663.54 MTs.  Technical committee

182  

submitted their report, which have been brought on the  

record alongwith the Additional Affidavit verifying the  

assessed quantities. In the affidavit of the  

Commissioner and Secretary, it has also been sated that  

the technical committees have submitted that it is  

difficult to define with certainty that which coal was  

mined prior to ban in 2014 and mined after 2014.  From  

the above it is clear that the State Government itself  

has come with a case that huge quantity of coal in the  

four hills districts, which has been extracted is lying  

waiting for orders of transportation.  Learned Amicus  

Curiae and Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel  

have refuted the claim made by the applicants as well  

as the State of Meghalaya.  It is submitted by learned  

Amicus Curiae that in fact State is not making any  

effort to stop the illegal mining, in spite of the ban  

of 17.04.2014, illegal mining of coal has been  

permitted and now such illegal mined coal has also been  

assessed and State also supports the claim of  

transportation of the applicants on the guise that coal  

lying in open is an environmental hazard.  

183  

185. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel  

appearing for private respondents in C.A. No.5272 of  

2016 has submitted that the State auctioned coal on a  

meagre price, whereas market rate of the coal is  

approximately Rs.10,000/- per MT.  In the present case,  

we have noticed that illegal coal mining is going on  

in spite of ban by NGT by its order dated 17.04.2014.   

The Katakey committee report has also opined that all  

the extracted coal lying in different districts is a  

coal, which has been illegally mined after the  

imposition of ban by the order dated 17.04.2014.  All  

coals being illegally mined, the State is fully  

entitled to impose a penalty, i.e., to realise the  

royalty and the amount of MEPR Fund.  The coal being  

major mineral and useful for different industries and  

projects, appropriate disposal of extracted coal is  

also of a paramount importance.    

186. We accept the suggestion of learned Amicus  

Curiae that entire extracted coal lying at various  

places be directed to be taken over by Coal India Ltd,  

a Government of India unit, who may dispose of the same

184  

as per its normal method of disposal and proceeds be  

distributed as per directions issued by this Court  

hereinafter.  The NGT has already directed that for all  

extracted coal lying at different places, it is the  

State, which is the receiver-cum-custodian of the coal.   

The State having carried out the assessment of the coal  

lying in the aforesaid four districts including the  

details of the quantities and the details of owners  

being available with it, it may ensure that the entire  

coal are handed over to the Coal India Ltd., as per the  

mode and manner to be formulated by Katakey Committee,  

in consultation with officers of the Coal India Ltd.  

and State of Meghalaya.   

187. The Katakey committee and its various members  

and participants have done a commendable job in  

studying and examining various aspects of environment  

in the State of Meghalaya and several valuable  

suggestions have been given by the committee, which are  

also being implemented to mitigate the suffering of the  

citizens consequent to the illegal coal mined.   

185  

188. We direct that Commissioner and Secretary of  

the State in the Department of Mining and Geology  

alongwith the officers of Coal India Ltd. may  

deliberate with the Katakey committee to finalise a  

comprehensive plan for transportation and handing over  

of the coal to Coal India Ltd. for disposal/auction as  

per rules of Coal India Ltd.  Disposal/auction by Coal  

India Ltd. shall be beneficial to both the owners of  

the mines as well as to the State of Meghalaya.   

Receiving fair value of the coal should be a concern  

of both the owners and State.  It is for the Coal India  

Ltd. to decide as to venue, where they shall receive  

the coal, i.e., either at any of its depot or any other  

place in State of Meghalaya and it is for the Coal  

India Ltd. to finalise the process of disposal and  

auction of the coal.  It goes without saying that it  

shall be the duty of the State of Meghalaya and its  

officers especially Deputy Commissioner of the area  

concerned to enter details of quantity of the coal,  

name of the owner and place from where it is collected.   

Coal India Ltd. shall also take steps to ensure  

weighment of the coal when it is received by it and

186  

since all consequent steps regarding disposal, price  

grade of the coal shall be determined as per the weight  

of the coal received by the Coal India Ltd. from  

different places.  The expenses of transportation shall  

be borne by the State of Meghalaya, Coal India Ltd. or  

by both, which expenses shall be deductible from the  

price received of the coal.  The State of Meghalaya  

shall be entitled to royalty and payment towards MERP  

Fund as well as taxes out of the price of the coal.   

After deduction of cost of transportation, the payment  

of royalty and payment to MERP fund and taxes plus 10%  

of value of the coal to be given to Coal India Ltd. for  

the above exercise, balance amount shall be disbursed  

to the owner of the coal towards its price, which  

disbursement shall be the responsibility of the State.   

The Coal India Ltd. after taking its expenses for  

transportation with 10% of price of the coal shall  

remit the entire amount to the State and it is for the  

State after deducting the royalty and payment to the  

MERP Fund and taxes to pay back the balance of the  

amount to the owner.   

187  

189. Another aspect of the matter is also to be  

noticed.  The coal, which has been seized by the State  

in illegal transportation or illegal mining for which  

different cases have been registered by the State, is  

not to be dealt with as directed above.  The said seized  

coal shall be dealt by the State in accordance with  

Section 21 of the Act, 1957 and on being satisfied, the  

State can take a decision to recover the entire  

quantity of coal so illegally raised without lawful  

authority and the said cases has to be separately dealt  

with in accordance with law.    

190. We, thus, are of the view that all I.A.s filed  

by different applicants seeking order of transportation  

of the different quantities stand disposed of in view  

of the directions as given above.  Let the Katakey  

committee in consultation with State of Meghalaya and  

officers of Coal India Ltd. finalise appropriate mode  

and manner to affect the transport and disposal of the  

coal in the above manner.             

188  

Conclusions: -  

191. From the foregoing discussions we arrived at  

following conclusions:-  

1) The application O.A.No.73 of 2014 has clearly  

made out allegations which were sufficient for  

the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction as  

conferred by Section 14 of the National Green  

Tribunal Act, 2010. Both the component as  

appearing in sub-section 1 of Section 14 that  

is (i) substantial question relating to  

environment and (ii) such question arises out  

of the implementation of the enactments  

specified in Schedule I, were present.   

2) The allegations of the applicant of O.A.No.73  

of 2014 of environmental degradation by illegal  

and unregulated coal mining were fully proved  

from  materials on the record including the  

report of the experts, report of the Meghalaya  

State Pollution Control Board, the report of  

Katakey committee, which all proved

189  

environmental degradation of water, air and  

surface.  

3) The stand taken on behalf of the State of  

Meghalaya before this Court that the Tribunal  

has no jurisdiction cannot be approved. The  

State Government is under constitutional  

obligation to ensure clean environment to all  

its citizens. In cases pertaining to  

environmental matter, the State has to act as  

facilitator and not as obstructionist.  

4) According to the land tenure system as  

applicable in the Hills Districts of State of  

Meghalaya, the most of the lands are either  

privately or community owned in which State  

does not claim any right. The private owners of  

the land as well as community owners have both  

the surface right as well as sub-soil rights.  

5) Para 12A sub-clause (b) of Sixth Schedule of  

the Constitution empowers that the President  

may, with respect to any Act of Parliament, by

190  

notification, direct that it shall not apply to  

an autonomous district or an autonomous region  

in the State of Meghalaya, or shall apply to  

such district or region or any part thereof  

subject to such exceptions or modifications as  

he may specify in the notification. No  

notification has been issued by the President  

under Section 12A(b). There is nothing in Sixth  

Schedule of the Constitution which may indicate  

about the inapplicability of Act, 1957 with  

regard to the Hills Districts of State of  

Meghalaya.  

6) There is nothing in Section 4(1) of 1957 Act to  

indicate that restriction contained in Section  

4(1) does not apply with regard to privately  

owned/community owned land in Hills Districts  

of Meghalaya.  Further, word ‘any area’ under  

Section 4(1) also has significance which does  

not have any exception. Further phrase “except  

under and in accordance with terms and  

condition with a mining lease granted under the

191  

Act” are also significant which make the intent  

and purpose of prohibition clear and loud.  

7) The statutory scheme delineated by Section  

13(2)(f) and the Minerals (Concession) Rules,  

1960 clearly contemplate grant of mining lease,  

with regard to both the categories of land,  

i.e., land in which minerals vest in the  

Government, and the land in which minerals vest  

in a person other than the Government.   

8) The Mines Act, 1952 contains various provisions  

regarding inspection of mining operation and  

management of mines. The provisions of The  

Mines Act, 1952 are mandatory to be followed  

before working a mine. The regulations namely  

Coal Mines Regulations, 2017 also contains  

several regulatory provisions which need to be  

followed while working a mine by a mining lease  

holder. The enforcement of Mines Act, 1952 and  

the Regulations, 2017 have to be ensured by the  

State in the public interest.

192  

9) As per statutory regime brought in force by  

notification dated 15.01.2016 issued under  

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,  

environmental clearance is required for a  

project of coal for mining of any extent of  

area. While implementing statutory regime for  

carrying mining operations in the Hills  

Districts of the State of Meghalaya, the State  

of Meghalaya has to ensure compliance of not  

only MMDR Act, 1957 but Mines Act, 1952 as well  

as Environment (Protection)Act, 1986.  

10) In Hill District of State of Meghalaya for  

carrying coal mining operations in privately  

owned/community owned land it is not the State  

Government which shall grant the mining lease  

under Chapter V of Rules, 1960, but it is the  

private owner/community owner of the land, who  

is also the owner of the mineral, who shall  

grant lease for mining of coal as per provisions  

of Chapter V of Rules, 1960 after obtaining

193  

previous approval of the Central Government  

through the State Government.   

11) The State of Meghalaya has ample power and  

jurisdiction under the Act, 1957 and Rules,  

1960 to check, control and prohibit coal mining  

operations in Hill Districts of State of  

Meghalaya.   

12) The Union having made declaration by Section 2  

of 1957 Act taking under its control regulation  

and development of mineral, the power of  

Autonomous District Council to legislate on the  

subject shall also be denuded as that of the  

State Legislature.  

13) In event the mining is carried out by a mining  

lease holder as per the provisions of Act, 1957  

and Rules, 1960 with an approved mining plan  

there can be no objections in carrying of such  

mining operations under the regulation and  

control of the State of Meghalaya. We clarify  

that in event mining operations are undertaken

194  

in privately owned/community owned land in  

Hills Districts of Meghalaya in accordance with  

mining lease with approved mining plan as per  

Act, 1957 and Mineral Concessions Rule, 1960,  

the ban order dated 17.04.2014 of the tribunal  

of the NGT shall not come in way of carrying  

mining operations.   

14) Under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure  

Code, a Court can appoint commission for  

scientific investigation. The power which can  

be exercised by a Court under Order 26 Rule 10A  

of CPC can very well be exercised by the NGT  

also. The NGT while asking expert to give a  

report is not confined to the four corners of  

Rule 10A and its jurisdiction is not shackled  

by strict terms of Order 21 Rule 10A by virtue  

of 19(1) of the NGT Act.  

15) Rule 24 of National Green Tribunal (Practice  

and Procedure) Rules, 2011 empowers the  

Tribunal to make such orders or give such

195  

directions as may be necessary or expedient to  

give effect to its order or to secure the ends  

of justice. The power given to the Tribunal is  

coupled with duty to exercise such powers for  

achieving the objects. There is no lack of  

jurisdiction in NGT in directing for  

appointment of a committee and to obtain a  

report from a Committee.   

16) The direction to constitute a fund namely  

“Meghalaya Environment Protection and  

Restoration Fund”, is also saved under the  

above power.   

17) NGT by directing for constitution of committee  

has not delegated essential judicial functions.  

The Tribunal had kept complete control on all  

steps which were required to be taken by the  

committees and has issued directions from time  

to time. The State is always at liberty to  

obtain appropriate directions if aggrieved by  

any act of the committee. The matter being

196  

pending before the Tribunal all acts of the  

committee are under direct control of the  

Tribunal and if the committee oversteps in any  

direction the same can very well be corrected  

by the Tribunal on the matter being brought  

before it.   

18) NGT by issuing direction to constitute the  

committee for transportation of the extracting  

mineral, for preparing time bound action plan  

to deal with the restoration of environment and  

to ensure its implementation does not in any  

manner interfere with the powers of the  

District or Regional Councils. The District and  

Regional Councils are free to exercise all  

their powers and committee constituted by the  

Tribunal is only concerned with the  

Environmental degradation and illegal coal  

mining. The committees report or direction of  

the Tribunal in no manner encroaches upon the  

administration of Tribal areas by the District  

and Regional Councils.

197  

19) The amount which has been directed by NGT to be  

deposited by State of Meghalaya is neither a  

penalty nor a fine imposed on the State of  

Meghalaya. We accept the submissions of the  

learned counsel for the appellant that State of  

Meghalaya has very limited source of finances  

and putting an extra burden on the State of  

Meghalaya to make payment of Rs. 100 Crores  

from its own financial resources may cause  

great hardship to the State of Meghalaya. Ends  

of justice be served in modifying the direction  

of NGT dated 04.01.2019 to the extent that State  

is permitted to transfer an amount of Rs. 100  

Crores from the amount lying in the MEPRF to  

the Central Pollution Control Board. The  

Central Pollution Control Board as directed by  

the Tribunal shall utilize the aforesaid amount  

of Rs.100 Crores only for restoration of the  

environment in the State of Meghalaya.    

198  

20) The coal extracted and lying in open after  

15.05.2016 does not automatically vest in the  

State of Meghalaya and the owner of the coal or  

the person who has mined the coal shall have  

the proprietary right in the mineral which  

shall not be lost.  

21) The suggestion of learned Amicus Curiae that  

entire extracted coal lying at various places  

in hills districts of Meghalaya be directed to  

be taken over by Coal India Ltd. is accepted.  

The Coal India Ltd. may dispose of the same as  

per its normal method of disposal and proceeds  

be dealt with as per directions issued.   

22) The State having carried out the assessment of  

the coal lying in the aforesaid four districts  

including the details of the quantities and the  

details of owners being available with it, it  

may ensure that entire coal is handed over to  

the Coal India Ltd., as per the mode and manner  

to be formulated by Katakey Committee in

199  

consultation with officers of the Coal India  

Ltd. and the State of Meghalaya.  

23) It is for Coal India Ltd. to decide as to venue,  

where they shall receive the coal, i.e., either  

at any of its depot or any other place in the  

State of Meghalaya and it is for the Coal India  

Ltd. to finalise the process of disposal and  

auction of the coal. It shall be the duty of  

the State of Meghalaya and its officers  

especially Deputy Commissioner of the area  

concerned to enter details of quantity of the  

coal, name of the owner and place from where it  

is collected. All concerned shall take steps to  

ensure weighment of the coal when it is received  

by Coal India Ltd.   

24) The expenses of transportation shall be borne  

by the State of Meghalaya, Coal India Ltd. or  

by both, which expenses shall be deductible  

from the price received of the coal. The State  

of Meghalaya shall be entitled to royalty and

200  

payment towards MERP Fund as well as taxes out  

of the price of the coal. After deducting its  

expenses for transportation with 10% of price  

of the coal, the Coal India Ltd. shall remit  

the balance amount to the State and it is for  

the State after deducting the royalty and  

payment to the MERP Fund and taxes to pay back  

balance the amount to the owner.   

25) The coal which has been seized by the State in  

illegal transportation and illegal mining for  

which different cases have been registered by  

the State, is not to be dealt with as directed  

above. The seized coal shall be dealt by the  

State in accordance with Section 21 of the Act,  

1957 and on being satisfied, the State can take  

a decision to recover the entire quantity of  

coal so illegally raised without lawful  

authority.  

201  

192. In view of the foregoing discussions and  

conclusions, all these appeals are decided in the  

following manner: -  

1) Civil Appeal No. 10720 of 2018, Civil Appeal No.  

10611 of 2018, Civil Appeal No. 10907 of 2018  

and Civil Appeal No………………of 2019 (arising out of  

Civil Appeal Diary No. 3067 of 2018) are  

dismissed subject to declaration and  

clarification of law as made above.   

2) Civil Appeal No. 5272 of 2016 is allowed setting  

aside the order of NGT dated 31.03.2016 to the  

extent it declared that all extracted coal after  

15.05.2016 shall vest in the State of Meghalaya.  

3) Civil Appeal No. 2968 of 2019 is partly allowed  

permitting the State of Meghalaya to transfer  

the amount of Rs.100 Crores to Central Pollution  

Control Board from the Meghalaya Environment  

Protection and Restoration Fund which amount  

shall be used by Central Pollution Control Board  

only for restoration of Environment.   

4) All I.As. seeking direction for transportation

202  

of coal are disposed of directing: -  

i) All extracted coal as assessed by State of  

Meghalaya lying in different districts of  

State of Meghalaya which as per order of NGT  

is in custody of State of Meghalaya shall  

be handed over to Coal India Ltd. for proper  

disposal.   

ii) The Katakey Committee after discussion with  

Coal India Ltd. and State of Meghalaya shall  

formulate a mechanism for transport,  

weighment of all assessed coal.   

iii) The Coal India Ltd. shall auction the coal  

so received by it as per its best judgment  

and remit the proceed to State to the extent  

as directed above.   

iv) All coal seized by the State for which cases  

have already been registered shall be dealt  

by the State in accordance with Section 21  

of 1957 Act.  

193. Before we close, we record our appreciation for  

valuable assistance rendered by learned counsel for the

203  

parties which enable us to decide several important  

issues in these appeals. We also record our  

appreciation for assistance rendered by learned Amicus  

Curiae Shri Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate.   

    ......................J.  

                              ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )  

......................J.  

                              ( K.M. JOSEPH )  

New Delhi,  

July 03,2019