The court affirmed that Forest Clearances are not necessarily co-terminus with mining leases, allowing the petitioner to continue operations based on valid extensions.

Headnote:(A) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Section 2 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 8 - The petitioner challenged the order requiring it to halt mining operations due to expired Forest Clearances, asserting that the leases had been validly extended until 31st December 2033. The court found that the Forest Clearances were valid until 2026 and not co-terminus with the lease period, thus ruling that the petitioner was entitled to continue operations without needing new approvals. (Paras 5.1, 5.9, 7, 8)

(B) Administrative guidelines - The court clarified that departmental instructions cannot override statutory provisions, affirming that the mining leases were deemed extended under Rule 24A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. (Para 5.7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a mining company, contested an order requiring it to stop operations based on the claim that its Forest Clearances had expired along with its mining leases, which were renewed until 2033.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the mining leases remained valid and the Forest Clearances were not co-terminus, allowing the petitioner to continue operations.

Issues: Whether the Forest Clearances were co-terminus with the mining leases and the validity of the impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Forest Clearances were valid until 2026, and the mining leases were deemed extended, thus the petitioner was not required to halt operations.

Result: The impugned communication-cum-order dated 29th January 2014 is set aside.

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the challenge in this petition is addressed to the communication-cum-order dated 29^th January 2014 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change-respondent No.1 herein and the decision reflected therein.

1.1 By the said communication, respondent No.1 required respondent No.2-State Government to direct the petitioner-Company to stop the mining operations and to obtain the prior approval of the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for renewal of petitioner’s two Mining Leases.

2. The impugned order rests on the following grounds, (a) The Forest Clearances which were granted to the petitioner-Company on 12^th March 2007 and 14^th March 2007 respectively, which were for the period of 20 years, were co-terminus with the mining leases given to the petitioner.

(b) Both the Mining Leases of the petitioner ended on 31^st December 2013, consequentially the Forest Clearances also expired along with.

2.1 The prayers made in this petition could be viewed in two segments. The first prayer is to set aside the aforementioned communication-cum-decision dated 29^th January 2014. In second part, a declaration is asked for that the petitioner is in possession of the valid Forest Clearance till 31^st December 2033 which is the renewed period for Mining Leases. The other prayers advanced, which are attendant and incidental to the second part prayer, is for directing all the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue with mining operations till 31^st December 2033; the petitioner further seeks direction against respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to execute Supplementary Forest Lease Agreements in its favour in respect of two mining leases for the extended period valid upto 31^st December 2033.

3. The petitioner-the Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited, a public limited company, operates in the Ballari District in the State of Karnataka. The petitioner was granted mining lease in S.M. and R.M. Block for excavation of Manganese Ore and Iron Ore from 1^st January 1954 for 20 years. In the lease area of the petitioner, the mining operations had commenced much before coming into force of the Indian (Forest) Act, 1927 when the erstwhile ruler of Sandur State granted the mining lease to a Belgium Company over the area of 29 square miles equivalent to 7511 Hectares. The said lease came to be transferred to the petitioner from 1^st January 1954.

3.1 While seeking to set aside the communication dated 29^th January 2014, and for pressing the other prayers in the petition, the case of the petitioner is that the leases were granted initially for a period of 20 years, which were renewed by the authorities from time to time and that both the leases are presently made valid upto 31^st December 2033. Details of the leases as originally granted and the renewal thereof from time to time by the Mining Department, as well as the corresponding Forest Clearances given by the forest authorities, are highlighted hereinafter.

3.2 It deserves to be mentioned that the petitioner had an occasion to challenge the earlier order impugned in this petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Interim Application No.208 of 2014 in the proceedings of Samaj Parivarthana Samudaya and others vs. State of Karnataka and others , which was Writ Petition (Civil) No.562 of 2009. On 10^th February 2014, the Apex Court passed interim stay order, “In the meanwhile, the communication dated 29^th January, 2014 of Ministry of Environment and Forests to the effect that the applicant – the Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited shall stop all mining operations, shall remain stayed,”

3.3 Subsequently, by the order dated 14^th March 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of said Interim Application, permitting the petitioner to approach the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9140

The court affirmed that Forest Clearances are not necessarily co-terminus with mining leases, allowing the petitioner to continue operations based on valid extensions.

Cases Referred (2)