SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 498

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N. V. Ramana, CJI., Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, JJ.
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka and Ors. - Respondents
IA. No. 205/2014, IA No. 206/2014, IA No. 24335/2018, IA No. 98216/2020, IA No. 98219/2020, IA No.152631/2018, IA No.64798/2019 in IA No.152631, IA No. 61304/2019, IA No.97376/2019 in IA No. 24335/2018 and 152631/2018, IA No.61452/2020, IA No.17007/2021, IA No. 37678/2022 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 OF 2009
Decided On : 20-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Ms. Aparna Bhat, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Rajesh K. Singh, Adv. Mr. R.R. Rajesh Pd., Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Adv. Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, AOR Mr. Rajat Jariwal, Adv. Saniya Mirani, Adv. for M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR Mr. Sunil Dogra, Adv. Mr. Vivek Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, AOR Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR M/S. Lex Regis Law Offices, AOR Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, AOR Mr. A. Raghunath, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-i, AOR Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Adv. Ms. Neha Jain, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Parmar, Adv. Mr. Prateek samajpati, Adv. Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR Ms. Manjula Gupta, AOR Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, AOR M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narayan, Adv. Mr. Rounak, Adv. Mr. Arju Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. A. Benegal, Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR Mr. P. V. Dinesh, AOR Mr. Munawwar Naseem, AOR Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR Mr. Akhil Anand, AOR Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR M/S. Ap & J Chambers, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR Ms. Surbhi Mehta, AOR Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. A. Sundaram,Sr. Adv. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Ms. Mansi Taneja, Adv. Ms. Deepshikha Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pratap Swain, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, Adv. Mr. Kailash Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Adv. Shri. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Mr. Pulkit Tare, AOR Mr. Rituraj Biswas, AOR Ms. Rohini Musa, AOR Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv. Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv. Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv. Ms. Swati Kamat Wagh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pratap Swain, Adv. Mr. Ivo D’costa, Adv. Ms. Anshula Grover, AOR Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.K. Rajora, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. S. Ashok Reddy, Adv. Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv. Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv. Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv. Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Illegal mining – It is necessary to create a level playing field for mines situated in districts of Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur with others situated in rest of country – Time has come to review the system that was put in place over a decade ago, on halting unchecked excavation of iron ore in three prime Districts in State of Karnataka.

Headnote:

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 7 – Illegal mining – Repeated attempts to resort to e-auction process for sale of already excavated iron ore mined in three districts of Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur in State of Karnataka, have not borne any fruitful results – As a consequence thereof, large stock of iron ore, including sub-grade iron ore, is lying unused – It was on account of rampant illegal mining that had been taking place in State of Karnataka and had severely impacted ecology of region that Court was compelled to impose a blanket ban on mining operations in three specific districts – Post imposition of ban, Court was confronted with a situation where a huge stock-pile of iron ore had accumulated in mines and stock yards that needed to be disposed of – It is necessary to create a level playing field for mines situated in districts of Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur with others situated in rest of country – Time has come to review the system that was put in place over a decade ago, on halting unchecked excavation of iron ore in three prime Districts in State of Karnataka – Ever since then, e-auction has been only mode available for disposal of excavated iron ore – Permission granted to applicants to enter into direct contracts to lift excavated iron ore through inter State sales. (Paras 23, 24, 29 and 30)

Facts of the case:

Writ petitioner had approached this Court against indiscriminate and rampant mining activity that was being carried out under the nose of the Authorities, in particular in the District of Bellary. The reports submitted by Central Empowered Committee2 bore out submissions made by the petitioner regarding large scale illegal mining in the area resulting in complete degradation of the environment. As a result, vide order dated 29.07.2011, all mining activity was prohibited in the District of Bellary, followed by the Districts of Tumkur and Chitradurga.

Findings of Court:

With respect to the submissions of the parties in relation to lifting of the ceiling limit for production of iron ore for mining leases in the Districts of Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur, it would be expedient to obtain an opinion from Oversight Authority appointed by this Court vide order dated 21st April, 2022 about the same before deciding the said issue. Oversight Authority requested to take inputs from the stakeholders, including CEC and the Monitoring Committee, and to send his opinion to this Court preferably within a period of 4 weeks.

Result : Applications allowed.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition was filed under Article 132 of the Constitution of India over two decades ago, seeking directions to the respondent No. 1/State of Karnataka, respondent No. 2/State of Andhra Pradesh and respondent No.3/Union of India to stop all mining and related activities in the forest areas of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh being carried out and in violation of the order dated 12.12.1996, passed by this Court in T.N. Godavarman Tirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

2. Directions were also sought to be issued to the respondents/States and the Union of India to declare all mining contracts/sub-leases issued in violation of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as illegal and take penal actions against the violators. The third prayer made was for directing stoppage of all mining activities along side the border and within the forest areas in the Bellary Reserve Forest. Lastly, directions were sought to declare Notification dated 15.03.2003 and other related Notifications dereserving lands for mining operations, as null and void.

3. The writ petitioner had approached this Court against the indiscriminate and rampant mining activity that was being carried out under the nose of the Authorities, in particular in the District of Bellary. The reports submitted by the Central Empowered Committee2[For short the “CEC”] bore out the submissions made by the petitioner regarding large scale illegal mining in the area resulting in complete degradation of the environment. As a result, vide order dated 29.07.2011, all mining activity was prohibited in the District of Bellary, followed by the Districts of Tumkur and Chitradurga. Taking note of the rampant encroachment in forest land by lease-holders and illegal mining operations taking place in the same area, a joint team was constituted vide order dated 06.05.2011 to conduct a survey of the area which revealed how illegal mining had ravaged the forest area of the aforesaid districts.

4. The CEC submitted a report, termed as the “Final Report” dated 03.02.2012, making several recommendations one of which was to categorise the mines into three categories based on the extent of encroachment in respect of the mining pits and overburden dumps, determined in terms of percentage qua the total lease area. Three categories of the mines were suggested as ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’. Another recommendation made by the CEC was relating to the conditions proposed for reopening of mining and resumption of the mining operation for this Court to consider as part of the Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plans.

5. The recommendation made by the CEC vide its report dated 13th March, 2012, relating to the prescription of a ceiling limit for the total production of iron ore for mining leases in the Districts of Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur, prohibition of export of iron ore outside the country using the mode of e-auction to be conducted by a Monitoring Committee for the sale of iron ore, deposit of 10% of the sale price received during the e-auction with the Monitoring Committee along with the other charges and constitution of and assigning various responsibilities to the Monitoring Committee, were duly considered and accepted by this Court in its order dated 13th April, 2012. On 3rd September, 2012 permission was granted by this Court to re-open all eighteen categories of ‘A’ and ‘B’ mines subject to certain conditions. A similar recommendation was made by the CEC for reopening of the remaining categories of ‘A’ and ‘B’ mines in its report dated 15th February, 2013.

6. Coming to the directions issued by this Court regarding the sale of existing stock of iron ore extracted through illegal mining, vide order dated 23rd September, 2011, this Court had directed disposal of the accumulated iron ore through the process of e-auction con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top