Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 1834
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. - PETITIONERS
Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA . & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 562/2009
Decided On : 13-09-2017
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.(A.C.), Mr. A.D.N Rao, Adv. (A.C.), Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury (A.C.), Adv., Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv., Mr. Govind Jee, Adv., Mr. Omanakuttan K.K., Adv., Mr. T. Sudhaker, Adv., Mr. Raju Ramchandran, Sr. Adv., Mr. Madhusudan R. Naik, Adv.Gen., Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Adv., Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Adv., Mr. Jayant Mohan, Adv., Mr. P. Chidambaram, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Aditya Narayan, Adv., Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv., Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, Adv., Mr. K.K. Venugopal, AG, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG, Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, Adv., Mr. Kailash Pandey, Adv., Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Adv., Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Aditya Narayan, Adv., Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv., Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, Adv., Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Mr. K.N. Phanindra, Adv., Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv., Mr. Jayant Mohan, Adv., Mr. Anjuman Tripathy, Adv., Mr. Rohan Sharma, Adv., Mr. Sunil Dogra, Adv., Mr. Vivek Vishnoi, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv., Mr. Rishikesh Madhav, Adv., Mr. Krishnan Venogopal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Uday Tiwari, Adv., Mr. A. Raghunath, Adv. , Mr. Vikas Mehta, Adv., Mr. Rajat Sehgal, Adv., Mr. Tanvir Nayar, Adv., Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv., Ms. Anushree Menon, Adv. , Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjeev K. Kapoor, Adv., Mr. Aakash Bajaj, Adv., Mr. Sahil Narang, Adv., For M/S. Khaitan, Adv., Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Chandra Uday Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sahil Narang, Adv., Mr. Aakash Bajaj, Adv., For M/s. Khaitan, Adv., Ms. Aparna Bhat, AOR, Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG, Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Adv., Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv., Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv., Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG, Ms. Prachi Priyadarshini, Adv., For M/s Aura & Co., AOR, Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv., Mr. Kabir Hathi, Adv., Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv., Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG, Mr. P.K. Dey, Adv., Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, Adv., Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv., Mr. M.K. Maroria, Adv., Mr. N.K. Karhail, Adv., Mr. Raj Bahadur, Adv., Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv., Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv., Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv., Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Adv., Mr. Chanchal K. Ganguli, Adv., Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv., Ms. Rachna Gandhi, Adv., Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG, Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv., Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv., Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv., Mr. Purnima Jauhari, Adv., Dr. B.K. Jauhari, Adv., Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's emphasis on the immediate need for environmental protection and the necessity to place adequate measures as part of the Comprehensive Environment Plan for Mining Impact Zone (CPMIZ), leading to the direction for convening a meeting by the CEC to discuss the proposal and resolve issues in an amicable manner.
Headnote:
Comprehensive Environment Plan for Mining Impact Zone - Implementation of CPMIZ - Environment Protection Act, 1986 - [CPMIZ] - [Environment Protection] - [Environment Protection Act, 1986, Section 3, Section 8] - The court considered the implementation of the Comprehensive Environment Plan for Mining Impact Zone (CPMIZ) and focused on the issues related to a conveyor belt system, railway sidings, and railway sub-lines. The court emphasized the need for environmental protection and the necessity to place adequate measures as part of the CPMIZ. It directed the convening of a meeting by the CEC to discuss the proposal and resolve issues in an amicable manner. The professional bodies RITES and CMPDIL were asked to participate and offer their suggestions, with the expectation of a prompt report to the Court within six weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the issue of implementing the Comprehensive Environment Plan for Mining Impact Zone (CPMIZ) and focused on specific aspects related to environmental protection measures for certain mines in Bellary and Chitradurga districts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that immediate steps should be taken to examine the proposal contained in the note submitted by Shri Jiwrajka, emphasizing the need for environmental protection and the imminent necessity to place adequate measures as part of the CPMIZ. It directed the convening of a meeting by the CEC to discuss the proposal and resolve issues in an amicable manner.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the implementation of environmental protection measures, including the establishment of a conveyor belt system, railway sidings, and railway sub-lines for specific mines in Bellary and Chitradurga districts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the immediate need for environmental protection and the necessity to place adequate measures as part of the CPMIZ, leading to the direction for convening a meeting by the CEC to discuss the proposal and resolve issues in an amicable manner.
Final Decision: The court directed the convening of a meeting by the CEC to discuss the proposal for environmental protection measures and resolve issues in an amicable manner, with the expectation of a prompt report to the Court within six weeks. It also granted liberty to the State of Karnataka to auction viable Category 'C' mines.
ORDER :
1. The issue of implementation of the Comprehensive Environment Plan for Mining Impact Zone (CPMIZ) pursuant to this Court's previous orders is the subject matter of consideration for the day.
2. In this regard we have read and considered the reports of the CEC, particularly, the report dated 10th August, 2017. We have also read and considered the notes submitted by Shri M.K. Jiwrajka, former Member Secretary, C.E.C., pursuant to this Court's order dated 16.8.2017. We have heard Shri Shyam Divan, learned amicus curiae, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, Shri P. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for FIMI (Southern Region) and Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka.
3. By our previous order dated 21.03.2017, we have made it clear that the truncated scope of consideration, insofar as implementation of CPMIZ is concerned, would be the issues of relating to a conveyor belt system; railway sidings and railway sub-lines. Consideration of all other aspects of the Scheme recommended by the CEC was deferred.
4. Having now considered the matter, we are of the view that what has been stated by Shri Jiwrajka in paragraph 24 of the note submitted to the Court is a suggestion that the Court would like to act upon. The said suggestion is to the effect that as nine mines mentioned in paragraph 24 produces about 80% of the iron-ore in the Districts of Bellary and Chitradurga, the primary concentration of the Court to control pollution and ensure a safe environment should be, in the first instance, in respect of the aforesaid nine mines. The names of leases and the other particulars as set out in the note of Shri Jiwrajka is extracted below:-
| S.No. | Name of the Lease | District | MPAP |
| 1. | NMDC Ltd.(ML No.1111) | Bellary | 6.00 MMT |
| 2. | NMDC Ltd.(ML No.2396) | Bellary | 6.00 MMT |
| 3. | MML (ML No.2605) | Bellary | 1.06 MMT |
| 4. | MML (ML No.2629) | Bellary | 3.00 MMT |
| 5. | Sesa Goa (ML No.2677) | Chitradurga | 2.29 MMT |
| 6. | MSPL (ML No.2416) | Bellary | 1.80 MMT |
| 7. | SMIORE (ML No.2580) | Bellary | 1.60 MMT |
| 8. | B.Kumar Gowda (MLNo.2516) | Bellary | 1.26 MMT |
5. Out of the aforesaid nine mines two mines of NMDC can be left out of consideration for the present as there is a conveyor belt system already operating therein. Insofar as MSPL (ML No.2416) is concerned, there is a special suggestion of Shri Jiwrajka keeping in mind that the aforesaid lease is expiring in 2022 which is to the effect that the costs should be borne proportionately. In the remaining six mines/leases conveyor belt system should be set up by the lessees themselves. Insofar as railway sidings is concerned, it has been stated by Shri Jiwrajka that railway sidings would be required only in three of the leases, namely, MML(ML No.2605), B.Kumar Gowda (ML No.2156) and VESCO (ML No.2296). Insofar as railway sub-lines are concerned, it is the suggestion of Shri Jiwrajka that only two sub-lines i.e. between Lakshmipur Cross and Dharmapura (about 4-5 km in length) & between Sandur existing line and Susheel Nagar (about 11 km in length) will be required.
6. Having regard to the immediate need for environmental protection and the imminent necessity to place adequate measures as a part of the CPMIZ, we are of the view that to begin with steps should be taken to examine the aforesaid proposal contained in the note of Shri Jiwrajka. To enable smooth execution of the proposal, as indicated above, we are of the view that a meeting should be convened by the CEC in which all the stake-holders should be present. All issues including who has to bear the cost, keeping in mind the long term benefits that would come to the lessees and, perhaps, in the distant future to others who are not before the Court, should be debated, discussed and attempted to be resolved in an amicable manner. The CEC wil
