2019 Supreme(SC) 715

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
STATE OF MEGHALAYA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, DIMA-HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10720 OF 2018
WITH
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)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10611 OF 2018
WITH
GARO HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION DIMA HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10907 OF 2018
WITH
KA HIMA NONGSTOIN LAND OWNERS, COAL TRADERS AND PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION DIMA HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5272 OF 2016
WITH
LBER LALOO – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL No. OF 2019 (@C.A. DIARY NO. 3067 OF 2018)
WITH
STATE OF MEGHALAYA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION DIMA HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2968 OF 2019
Decided On : 03-07-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
NGT can exercise its jurisdiction if conditions u/s 14 are satisfied.
The private owners of the land as well as community owners in Hill districts of Meghalaya have both the surface right as well as sub-soil rights.
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.
Restriction contained in Section 4(1) applies to privately owned/community owned land in Hills Districts of Meghalaya.
Rule 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.
Environmental clearance is required for a project of coal for mining of any extent of area.
In case of privately owned coal mines in Hill Districts of Meghalaya private land owners, and not the State, shall grant lease for mining of coal as per provisions of Chapter V of Rules, 1960 after obtaining previous approval of the Central Government through the State Government.
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 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.

Headnote:

(a) Administration of justice - Jurisdiction of NGT not questioned by any party before the Tribunal - Jurisdictional issue raised for the first time before Supreme Court - however, it being a jurisdictional issue, permission granted to raise the same. (Para 59)

       (b) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 14, 15, 16 r/w section 2(m) - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - NGT banning mining, forming a committee and creating "Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund" - Whether beyond jurisdiction - NGT having jurisdiction over all civil cases involving a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment) arising out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I - NGT admitting OA 73 of 2014 based on reports of the State Pollution Control Board - Alleging environmental degradation consequent to illegal coal mining supported by report of the experts - Resulting in violation of various Environmental enactments mentioned in Schedule I - Satisfies requirements of section 14 - Contention of lack of NGT jurisdiction rejected. (Para 65, 67, 68, 72)

       (2018) 11 SCC 734 - Distinguished

       © Land tenure - Hill districts of Meghalaya - All lands are owned privately or by community - Ownership of surface of land as well subsoil or underneath minerals vests in the tribals - These do not vest in State. (Para 75)

       (2013) 9 SCC 725; AIR 1967 SC 1081 - Relied upon

       (d) Constitution of India - Article 244 and Schedule VI - Hill districts of Meghalaya - Autonomous Districts with District and Regional Councils to make laws - Share of royalties to be made over to District Council - Laws made by legislature of Meghalaya to override those made by District or Regional Council - President has to direct by notification as to which Act of Parliament will not apply to Meghalaya - Nothing in Schedule VI indicating inapplicability of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. (Para 80, 82)

       (e) Constitution of India - Entry 23 List II, Schedule VII - Competence of State legislature denuded by MMDR Act, 1957 - However under the MMDR Act, 1957 as well as the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, several statutory obligations/jurisdictions conferred on the State - No lack of jurisdiction in the State to frame policy to give effect to the Act and the Rules - Accordingly State framing Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy, 2012 - Held, direction of NGT to frame policy by the State not without jurisdiction - State framing a draft Guidelines in 2015 - However the guidelines have to be confined to areas under Act 1957 and Rules framed thereunder - State’s request for exemption from certain provisions of Act, 1957 turned down by Central Government - Held, there is nothing in Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which excludes applicability of Act, 1957 in the Tribal areas of Hills District of State of Meghalaya. (Para 90, 92)

       (f) Constitution of India - Schedule VII - Entry 23, List II and Entry 54, List I - Regulation of mines and mineral development subject to List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union - Section 2, MMDR Act 1957 declaring control of mines and mineral development under Union Government - State denuded of its legislative competence to that extent. (Para 97)

       (g) MMDR Act, 1957 - Section 4(1), 5 and 13 - Expression “no person” in section 4(1) without an exception - Owner of the mine not excluded - U/s 5(1) state restrained fro issuing mining lease without previous approval of Central Government with regard to minerals specified in Para A, Schedule, coal included - Section 13(2) empowered Central Government to make Rules for grant of mining lease in respect to any land, Government or private - Tribal owners of minerals fall under section 13(2)(f). (Para 100, 101, 103, 105)

       (h) Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960 - Rules 41 and 42 - Provisions for grant of lease in respect of minerals vesting in person other than Government. (Para 104)

       (i) Property law - Lease - Occurring in Section 3 ©, MMDR Act, 1957 - Not as narrow as in Section 105, Transfer of Property Act yet having all characteristics of a lease as defined in the Transfer of Property Act - Mining lease given a specific meaning in MMDR Act, 1957 - Held, it cannot be said Rules 1960 do not contemplate mining lease with respect to land where mineral vests exclusively in a private person. (Para 108, 111)

       (1979) 3 SCC 106; (1930) 58 IA 29; 1993 Supp. (3) 290 - Relied upon

       (j) Mines Act, 1952 - Section 16, 18, 57 and 75 - Applicable to coal mining in Meghalaya - Section 5(3) empowering District Magistrate to exercise powers and perform duties of an Inspector, subject to general and special orders of Central Government - S.R.O. 1789 putting restrictions in matters of technical direction, management or supervision of any mine - Section 75 also empowering District Magistrate to institute prosecution against any owner, agent or manager for any offence under the Act - Contention that District Magistrate has no jurisdiction under the Act to take any action rejected. (Para 114, 115, 116, 118)

       (k) Environmental Protection Act, 1986 - Section 3 and notification dated 14.09.2006 - Mining of minerals requiring prior environmental clearance. (Para 119)

       (l) Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rule 45, 47 and 63 - Conditions for mining lease - In case private mine, Lessor may determine the lease on breach of any condition of the lease and not the State Government - State Government not to grant lease in case of private mine. (Para 126, 128, 130)

       (m) Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rules 42(2), 50, 51, 52 - No mining lease can be granted without previous permission of Central Government, through State Government (Rules 42(2) - Rule 50 empowers State Government for prohibition of working of mines - Under Rule 51 mining lessee required to file certain returns and statements to State Government - Rule 52 prescribes penalty for violation of Rules - State’s contention that no mining lease is to be obtained for privately owned/community owned land in Hills District of State of Meghalaya rejected. (Para 133, 134, 135, 137)

       (n) MMRD Act, 1957 - Section 2 - Like State of Meghalaya, the District Councils also denuded of the legislative power in regard to mines and minerals - District councils can only grant licence in respect of trade - They do not have any power to make any law with regard to grant of mining lease - Mining leases for winning the major minerals has to be granted in accordance with 1957 Act and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. (Para 139, 141, 144)

       (o) Natural resources - Sustainable development - Need to maintain fine balance in utilisation of natural resources and its conservation and preservation - Instantly no effective steps being taken to control Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) - NGT banning all mining - Meant for illegal mining - No error - clarified that mining operations undertaken by 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 apply. (Para 146, 148, 149, 151)

       (1981) 2 SCC 205; (2011) 7 SCC 338 - Relied upon

       (p) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 19 r/w Order XXVI Rule 10A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - NGT being a court empowered to obtain reports by experts - Jurisdiction of NGT not shackled by strict terms of Rule 10A. (Para 155)

       (q) National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011 - Rule 24 - Tribunal given wide powers 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. (Para 157)

       ® Interpretation of statute - 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' - Confer wide discretion - Tribunal duty bound to exercise such powers for achieving the objects of the NGT Act, 1957 - Held, Tribunal does not lack jurisdiction to direct for appointment of committee or to obtain a report from a committee, or creation of a fund therefor. (Para 157, 160, 161, 163)

       (1970) 2 SCC 355 - Relied upon

       (s) Administration of justice - Constitution of committee by NGT - Cannot be said to be delegation of essential judicial powers of NGT to the committee. (Para 165)

       (t) Constitution of India - Schedule VI - NGT constituting committee for transportation of extracted minerals or for preparing time bound action to deal with the restoration of environment and to ensure its implementation - Committee so constituted concerned only with Environmental degradation and illegal coal mining - In no way encroaching upon administration of Tribal areas by District and Regional Councils. (Para 168)

       (u) MMDR Act, 1957 - Section 4(1) and 21(5) - Section 21(5) prescribing penalties for illegal mining in contravention of section 4(1) - Instantly coal mining being illegal attracted section 21(5) - NGT directing that coal remaining after 15.05.2016 shall vest in the State - U/s 21(5) state exercises its power to recover the minerals extracted illegally - Proprietary right of owner of the minerals is lost - Held, 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. (Para 182)

       Facts of the case:

       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.

       Finding of the Court:

       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.

       

       Result: 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) dismissed.

       Civil Appeal No. 5272 of 2016 allowed. Civil Appeal No. 2968 of 2019 partly allowed.

       All I.As. seeking direction for transportation of coal disposed of.