Judgment

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

These I.As. are in essence oft shoot of a judgment of this Court in IA 670 of 2001 in Writ Petition (C) 202 of 1995 in K.M. Chinnappa (applicant in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others (2002 (10) SCC 606). It related to the uestion whether functioning of Kudremukh Iron and Ore Company Ltd. (in short KIOCL) was having adverse effect on the environment and ecosystem. In paras 51 and 52 of the judgment it was inter alia directed as follows:

"51. Taking note of the factual background and the legal position highlighted above, we think it proper to accept the time period fixed by the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Conservation Act. That means mining should be allowed till the end of 2005 by which time the weathered secondary ore available in the already broken area should be exhausted. This is, however, subject to fulfilment of the recommendations made by the Committee on ecological and other aspects.

52. The modalities as to how these have to he worked out shall be done in the manner recommended by the Committee. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the State of Karnataka that the recommendation made about transfer of buildings and other infrastructure to the Forest Department of the State Government at book value is not acceptable to it. This is a matter which can be considered by the Committee on an appropriate motion being made by the State before it. The modalities to be adopted to effectuate the order passed by this Court and recommendations of the Committee shall be

worked out by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the State Government and the Company under the supervision and guidance and monitoring of the Committee."

Unfortunately the Central Government for reasons best known to it notwithstanding the clear position indicated in the judgment construed that the expression "Committee" meant "Forest Advisory Committee" (in short FAC). There was no scope for taking the stand in view of what has been stated in para 5 of the judgment. It has been stated that FAC is also a statutory committee. By order dated 20th January, 2006 it has

been observed that the constitution of the Monitoring Committee is not in consonance with the directions of this court.

Learned counsel appearing for KIOCL submitted that in line with direction of this Court and keeping in view the Rule 23C of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 (in short the Rules) which became operative with effect from 10.4.2003, an approved final Mine Closure Plan was submitted. Views of expert bodies were taken. It has been stated that in line with the statutory prescriptions, which even though became operative after the judgment various steps have been taken. Indian Bureau of Mines (in short the IBM) has also given its report. It is, therefore, stated that though IIT Delhi was asked to give its view but that has no relevance. If there would have been non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Rule 23C of the Rules, it would have exposed it to penal consequences. In essence the stand is taken that IIT Delhis report should not be accepted and the following modalities on the other hand should be adopted.

(a)It would utilize its machinery and workmen for the purpose of achieving slope stability by excavating the 33.81 hectares on the basis that out of the net profit generated by the mining operation, 50% of the net profit would be paid over to a fund to be established and operated by a committee constituted by the Government of Karnataka or in any other manner directed by this Court or a high powered statutory committee created for this purpose (in the nature of the Tennessee Valley Authority) for the purpose of utilizing this 50% net profit for rehabilitation and eco-restoration for the Kudremukh Forest Area. (b) On a rough estimate, the 50% of net profit is likely to be in the range of Rs.50 to 75 crores per annum, for the purpose of rehabilitation and eco-restor