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

2024 Supreme(SC) 342

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

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Siddharth Chowdhary, Adv. (A.C.) Ms. Sudipta Sirkar, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makkar, Adv. Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Mr. Anurag Tiwary, Adv. Mr. Debadutta Kanungo, Adv. Mr. C. A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Hariharan, Adv. Mr. Amaan Shreyas, Adv. Ms. Mannat Tipnis, Adv. Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR Ms. Aparna Bhat, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv. Mr. Ivo D’costa, Adv. Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Adv. Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Niroop Sukrithy, Adv. Mr. D. Girish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv. Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv. Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, AOR Mr. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. Mr. Priyesh Mohan Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Sonal K. Chopra, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narayan, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Purohit, Adv. Mr. Jatin Lalwani, Adv. Ms. Pratiksha Nagayach, Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. K M Natraj, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Shubranshu Padhi, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rajeeva Ranjan Rajesh, Adv. Mr. B K Satija, Adv. Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv. Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR Mr. Amrendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Kartik Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Kshama Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Priya Parmar, Adv. Mr. Niranjan Swami, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Maurya, Adv. Mr. Chandra Pratap, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Mr. Susheel Joseph Cyriac, Adv. Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Adv. Mr. Varun Kanwal, Adv. M/S. Lex Regis Law Offices, AOR Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Mr. K. M. Natraj, A.S.G. Mr. R Bala, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mrs. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Shubranshu Padhi, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. T.s. Sabarish, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev K Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Aakash Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Avirat Kumar, Adv. Ms. Arushi Yadav, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Sumit Goel, Adv. Ms. Sonal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Thakral, Adv. M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Munawwar Naseem, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-I, AOR Mr. S. K. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. Ms. Shalaka Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sunil Dogra, Adv. Mr. Vivek Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, AOR Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Ms. Nisha Pandey, Adv. Mr. Yashvir Kumar, Adv. Mr. Maitreya Mahaley, Adv. M/S. A P & J Chambers, AOR Mr. T.L.V. Ramachari, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. T.N. Rama Rao, Adv. Mr. S. S. Reddy, Adv. Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Jhamba, Adv. Ms. Raman Deep Kaur, Adv. Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, AOR Mrs. Apurva Upmanyu, Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Srilok Nath Rath, Adv. Ms. Reena Rao, Adv. Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vivekanand Rana, Adv. Mr. P. V. Dinesh, AOR Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. Akhil Anand, AOR Mr. A. Raghunath, AOR Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishanth Patil, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Omkar Kambi, Adv. Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ayush P. Shah, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Adithiya S, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR Ms. Manjula Gupta, AOR Mr. K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Shubranshu Padhi, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Mr. S.K. Singhania, Adv. Mr. T. S. Sabarish, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Ms. Divya Singh Pundir, Adv. Ms. Mahima Kapur, Adv. Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Adv. M/S. Lawyers Knit & Co, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, AOR Mrs. Taherabi Kalebudde, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mrs. Anuparna Bordoloi, Adv. Ms. Anusha R, Adv. Ms. Mythili Srinivasmurthy, Adv. Mr. Shivamm Sharrma, Adv. Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. N. Bhat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwin Kumar D. S., Adv. Mr. Ishan Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Mehta, AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishanth Patil, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Omkar Kambi, Adv. Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ayush P. Shah, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Adithiya S, Adv. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. Mr. Priyesh Mohan Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Sonal K. Chopra, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Tare, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Ms. Nisha Pandey, Adv. Mr. Yashvir Kumar, Adv. Mr. Maitreya Mahaley, Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev K Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Aakash Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Avirat Kumar, Adv. Ms. Arushi Yadav, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, AOR Mr. Mayan Prasad, Adv. Mr. Sanjoit Ray, Adv. Ms. Sujaya Bardhan, Adv. Ms. Rohini Musa, AOR Mr. A. Raghunath, AOR Mr. Ishaan George, AOR M/S. Aura & Co., AOR

The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to dispose of applications related to mining leases, including determining their status as infructuous, withdrawn, or in default, and granting liberty to file fresh applications. The court also clarified the procedure for parties to approach the court for grievances related to mining leases in specific districts.

Headnote:

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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