IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 8357-8360 OF 2009 VIBHUTI GUDDA MINES PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant(s)

VERSUS REDDY VEERANNA & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. These civil appeals are filed against the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2009, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos. 1095 of 2008 and 1096 of 2008 arising out of the Writ Petition Nos.

22564 of 2005 and 1097 of 2006.

2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals, are that the Government of Karnataka issued a Notification dated 15.03.2003, identifying land available for the grant of mining leases. The appellant company on 16.04.2003, applied for the grant of mining lease for an area of 224 hectares, and similarly on 17.04.2003, Respondent no.1, Reddy Veeranna also applied for the grant of mining lease for an area of 25.25 hectares.

3. The State Government, by notification dated 18.11.2003, delegated to the Director of Mines & Geology, Government of Karnataka [in short, “DMG”], the authority Signature Not Verifiedto hear the applicants and to submit recommendations to Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2026.03.19 Reason:

mining lease.

4. The DMG prepared the Evaluation Report dated 12.02.2004 after considering all 23 applications and observed that only one applicant, i.e., the appellant herein, had sufficient financial resources with a proposed investment of Rs. 25 Crores, and is well-equipped to undertake mining activities. The evaluation report also stated that the recommended application may be sent to the Government of India for necessary action.

5. In the meanwhile, the State Government examined all 23 applications afresh in accordance with Section 11 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 [in short, “MMDR Act”] and Rule 35 of the Mineral Rules and issued a letter on 13.02.2004 addressed to central government, recommending the grant of mining lease in favour of the present appellant for the whole area of 224 hectares.

6. The Ministry of Mines, Government of India, passed the order dated 12.07.2005 approving the grant of mining lease to the appellant for the area of 224 hectares.

7. Respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition, being W.P. No. 22564 of 2005, before the High Court for quashing the recommendations of the State Government dated 13.02.2004 and Central Government’s approval of the mining lease in favour of the appellant dated 12.07.2005.

8. Pending disposal of the Writ Petition, by order dated 21.12.2005, the State Government issued a Notification granting mining lease in favour of the appellant for a period of 20 years. Respondent No. 1 filed another Writ Petition, being W.P. No. 1097 of 2006 before the High Court to quash the notification dated 21.12.2005 issued by the State Government.

9. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, senior counsel for the appellant submitted that on 16.10.2006, the appellant surrendered an area of 87 hectares, out of 224 hectares, to Karnataka Forest Department after verifying that the mineral-bearing area, including roads and waste dumping area, is only 137 hectares. The Forest Department on 12.12.2006 gave Forest Clearance for the diversion of 137 hectares of forest land in favour of the appellant for iron ore mining. The Environment Clearance Certificate was also granted to the appellant on 24.01.2007. On 16.03.2007, in partial modification of the notification dated 21.12.2005, the extent of area for the grant of mining lease was modified to 137 hectares. Pursuant to the modification, an Agreement was executed between the State Government and the appellant on 21.03.2007 for iron ore mining over 137 hectares for a period of 20 years.

10. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by Respondent No. 1 on 16.06.2008, holding that the State Government has the power to delegate the authority to the DMG for receiving applications and sending recommendations for grant of mining lease. The learned Single Judge also held that there was no v