SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., HIMA KOHLI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka and Others – Respondents
I.A. Nos. 10973 of 2018, 72931, 83141 of 2017, 218 of 2014, W.P. (Civil) No. 562 of 2009
Decided On : 26-08-2022
Iron Ore Mining - Ceiling Limit - Karnataka State - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Section 4(1) - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3 - Intergenerational Equity - Sustainable Development
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the issue of lifting the ceiling limit for production of iron ore in certain districts of Karnataka. The original petitioner objected to lifting the ceiling limit, citing concerns about unsustainable mining and intergenerational equity. The respondents argued that the situation had changed, and the ceiling limits were unfairly penalizing compliant mining lease holders.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the progress made in addressing illegal mining activities and environmental concerns in Karnataka. It balanced the concerns of over excavation and intergenerational equity against the need for economic development. The court decided to raise the ceiling limit for iron ore mining, taking a cautious approach to ensure a gradual change in the mining activity.
Issues: The main issue was whether to lift the ceiling limit for iron ore production in Karnataka, considering the changed circumstances and competing concerns of sustainable development and environmental conservation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized the need to balance economic development with environmental conservation and intergenerational equity. It considered the recommendations of the oversight authority and the stakeholders, ultimately deciding to raise the ceiling limit for iron ore mining in a cautious manner.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the applications, allowing a cautious increase in the ceiling limit for iron ore mining in the specified districts of Karnataka.
ORDER :
1. The present hearing is in continuation of our earlier hearing and order dated 20.05.2022, whereby this Court had considered and granted certain reliefs relating to the sale and export of iron ore in the Districts of Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga in the State of Karnataka. In the said order, we had specifically left open the question of the lifting/relaxation of the ceiling limit for production of iron ore in the abovementioned Districts and had sought an opinion from the Oversight Authority appointed by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2022. The observations made by this Court were as follows:
“22......For the present, we propose to confine the scope of this order to examining the twin prayers made by learned counsel for the applicants namely, permission to sell the unsold stock of iron ore already excavated without resorting to the process of e-auction conducted through the Monitoring Committee and for lifting the ban on export of iron ore/pellets from the districts of Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur situated in the State of Karnataka. Although certain submissions were made by the parties regarding lifting of the ceiling limit for total production of iron ore, at this juncture we are not inclined to decide the said issue.
32. With respect to the submissions of the parties in relation to the lifting of the ceiling limit for production of iron ore for mining leases in the Districts of Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur, we are of the considered opinion that it would be expedient to obtain an opinion from the Oversight Authority appointed by this Court vide order dated 21st April, 2022 about the same before deciding the said issue. We request the Oversight Authority to take inputs from the stakeholders, including the CEC and the Monitoring Committee, and to send his opinion to this Court preferably within a period of 4 weeks.”
2. On the last date of hearing, this Court took on record the Report filed by the learned Oversight Authority and had directed that copies of the same be made available to the parties whereafter, the matter was posted for considering the issue of lifting of ceiling limit.
3. Heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioner and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries, South.
4. Mr. Prashant Bhushan submitted that the ceiling limits were imposed in view of the earlier CEC recommendation and the report of the learned Lokayukta, which suggested that the rate of mining of iron ore in the State of Karnataka was unsustainable and would result in exhaustion of the iron ore deposits in the State of Karnataka within 30 years. This as per the learned counsel would seriously impact the goal of intergenerational equity. Lastly, he submitted that as the learned Oversight Authority has sought additional information regarding the infrastructural capacity before giving an opinion as to the viability of lifting of the ceiling limit, this Court should presently refrain from passing any orders at this juncture.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Dushyant Dave, Senior Advocate submitted that the present regime relating to iron ore mining in the State of Karnataka, with Court imposed ceiling limits, has been in existence for over a decade. When the ceiling limit was first imposed, the Court was confronted with a vastly different situation, where there was rampant illegal mining activity taking place in the State of Karnataka. The said situation has now been remedied through series of orders passed by this Court. As a result, all illegal mining in the area has been halted and several ameliorative measures have been taken for the improvement of the environment and ecology of the region. In such circumstances, the learned Senior Advocate submitted that the present mining lease holders, who are complying with all the laws, are being unfairly penalized for the illegalities that were committed a decade ago. Such ceiling limits has
AI
The judgment establishes the principle of balancing economic development with environmental conservation and intergenerational equity in the context of natural resource extraction.
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 t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's intervention to address the rampant pilferage and illegal extraction of natural resources, particularly iron ore, and the environmental....
Illegal mining activities and consequent harm caused to environment – Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, State of Karnataka will be entitled to procure assistance from domain experts, specialize....
The State Government cannot re-open concluded ceiling proceedings under the Rajasthan Ceiling Act beyond the prescribed limitation period, rendering such actions invalid.
The court ruled that ownership documentation is essential for the interim release of seized iron ore, allowing e-auction under supervision to mitigate losses and maintain public interest.
Temporary EC amendment for increased road ore transport upheld despite challenges, balancing national interest against environmental concerns via phased limits, mitigation, and infrastructure deadlin....
Temporary EC amendments for increased road ore transport upheld pending rail completion, balancing national development needs against environmental concerns via strict phased safeguards, real-time mo....
The court affirmed the right to interim relief for stone removal from a quarry operating outside the Eco-Sensitive Zone, balancing environmental regulations with the entitlement of the quarry owner.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.