SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjiv Khanna, M.M. Sundresh, Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Karnataka & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 OF 2009 With W.P.(C) No. 768 OF 2013
Decided On : 03-04-2024
The court disposed of numerous applications related to mining leases, finding many to be infructuous and dismissing others as withdrawn or in default. The court also granted liberty to file fresh applications in some cases and issued notices in others. The court clarified that parties should approach the court for grievances related to mining leases in specific districts.
Fact of the Case:
The court addressed and disposed of multiple applications related to mining leases, including issues of infructuousness, withdrawal, default, and granting of liberty to file fresh applications. The court also issued notices and clarified the procedure for parties to approach the court for grievances related to mining leases in specific districts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found many applications to be infructuous and dismissed others as withdrawn or in default. The court also granted liberty to file fresh applications in some cases and issued notices in others. The court clarified the procedure for parties to approach the court for grievances related to mining leases in specific districts.
Issues: The issues revolved around the disposal of various applications related to mining leases, including determining their infructuousness, withdrawal, default, and granting of liberty to file fresh applications. The court also addressed the procedure for parties to approach the court for grievances related to mining leases in specific districts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the determination of the status of the applications, including whether they were infructuous, withdrawn, or in default. The court also clarified the procedure for parties to approach the court for grievances related to mining leases in specific districts.
Final Decision: The court disposed of numerous applications related to mining leases, finding many to be infructuous and dismissing others as withdrawn or in default. The court also granted liberty to file fresh applications in some cases and issued notices in others. The court clarified that parties should approach the court for grievances related to mining leases in specific districts.
ORDER :
Writ Petition (C) No. 562/2009
1. To avoid prolixity and repetition, we refrain from restating the facts and developments in the present writ petitions, as they have already been delineated in our prior order dated 14.03.2024.
2. We address and answer the applications listed before us in the manner provided below.
I.A. No. 232/2014
3. To await report(s) of the Central Empowered Committee1[For short, “CEC”.] and the Monitoring Committee, and reply/response thereto, re-list in the week commencing 20.08.2024.
I.A. No. 237/2015
4. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant(s) that the present application has become infructuous. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as infructuous.
I.A. No. 238/2015
5. The present application has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
I.A. No. 239/2015 and 240/2015
6. None appears on behalf of the applicant(s).
7. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out that the issue raised in the present applications is covered by the decision of this Court, dated 30.07.2015 in “Samaj Partivartana Samudaya and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.”, (2017) 11 SCC 509.
8. It appears that the applications may have become infructuous.
9. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed in default.
I.A. No.241/2015
10. According to the applicant’s declarations before the Indian Bureau of Mines3[For short, “IBM”], they had extracted 9,23,582 Metric Tonnes4[For short, “MT”] of iron ore in the period commencing 01.04.2011 till the suspension of mining leases vide this Court’s order(s). However, the Monitoring Committee had sold 10,67,813 MT of iron ore. Therefore, the total excess iron ore sold by the Monitoring Committee stood at 1,44,231 MT.
11. The excess iron ore sold totaling to 1,44,231 MT includes 39,725 MT of iron ore which was found lying on the railway sidings. If we exclude 39,725 MT of iron ore from the total quantum of excess iron ore sold, that is, 1,44,231 MT, we arrive at a balance of 1,04,506 MT of iron ore.
12. It is the contention of the applicant(s) that they had filed revised return(s) to the IBM on 26.10.2011. We are not inclined to accept the said submission for several reasons including the fact that the revised return(s) was submitted post the order(s) of this Court suspending the mining activities. The revised return(s) itself indicates wrong-doing or, at least discrepancies. Finally, no provision or rule permits the revision of returns.
13. In view of the aforesaid, we do not think that the applicant(s) is entitled to payment viz. 1,04,506 MT of excess iron ore sold by the Monitoring Committee.
14. For the 39,725 MT of iron ore found lying at the railway sidings, the CEC report states that the applicant(s) was required to establish that the said quantity had been legally extracted and transported to the railway sidings. The applicant must establish that 39,725 MT of the iron ore was declared in the return(s) filed by them with the IBM.
15. It will be open to the applicant(s) to file the papers and documents before the CEC, which will thereupon, in consultation with the Monitoring Committee pass appropriate order(s). However, any order passed for payment, will not be implemented without the permission of the Court.
16. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant(s) states that in view of the order passed today, nothing survives in Writ Petition No. 35626/2024, which is pending before the High Court of Karnataka, and the same shall be withdrawn. The statement is taken on record.
17. The application is disposed of accordingly.
I.A. No. 245/2015
18. None is present on behalf of the applicant(s).
19. It appears that the present application may have become infructuous.
20. Accordingly, the application is dismissed in default.
I.A. No. 249/2015
21. None is present on behalf of the applicant.
22. It appears that the present application may have become infructuous.
23. Accordingly, the application is dismissed in default.
I.A. No. 251/2016
24. None is present t
Samaj Partivartana Samudaya and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
AI
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 – 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....
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....
Point of law : If there are any of disqualifications attached to any of these applicants, the same will have to be considered by the State Government. The factual inquiries as above cannot be appropr....
The issuance of a mining lease without affording adequate opportunity for a hearing violates principles of natural justice.
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.