# SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS v. STATE OF KARANATAKA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2013] 6 S.C.R. 810
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-04-18
- **Bench:** Aftab Alam, K.S. Radhakrishnan, RANJAN GOGOi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/samaj-parivartana-samudaya-ors-v-state-of-karanataka-ors-29320
- **Pages:** 71

## Headnote

Environment Protection and Pollution Control:
Forest - Illegal mining in forest area of Karnataka and
Andhra Pradesh - PIL - Court appointed Central Powered
Committee (CEC) in its report indicating illegal mining- Joint
Team constituted by Court, determined boundaries of
0 concerned 166 mining leases - CEC in its final report
recommended categorization of mines into 3 categories viz.
A, B and C on the basis of extent of encroachment of mining
pits and overburden dumps - CEC recommended resumption
of A and B category mines subject to certain conditions and
E closure of category C mines - The credibility of CEC, sanctity
of the process of survey undertaken by Joint Team and
acceptability of recommendations of CEC were questioned -
Held: Credibility of CEC cannot be questioned - The body
is performing its tasks as per the directions of the Court - The
credibility of the survey conducted by the Joint Team under
F the orders of the Court, also cannot be questioned -
The
categorization of leases done by CEC, is reasonable and
hence acceptable - Embargo placed by the Court on grant
of fresh mining licences is lifted - Operation of the leases,
located on or near the inter-State boundary of Kamataka and
G Andhra Pradesh, is suspended until the boundary issue is
resolved - Investigations in respect of alleged criminal
offences by lessees to be brought to its logical conclusion -
Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 - Forest Conservation Act,
1980 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
H
810
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v.
811
STATE OF KARANATAKA
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Articles 32 and 142 - Illegal mining - Causing large
scale damage to forest wealth - Remedy u/Arts. 32 and 142
-
Resort to -
Jn view of availability of remedies under
provisions of relevant statutes - Held: Court can resort to
constitutional jurisdiction to remedy the enormous wrong -
The relevant statutes would not be effective and efficacious
A
B
to deal with extraordinary situations arisen on account of large
scale
illegalities
in
mining
operations
The
recommendations of CEC, accepted by the Court does not
come in conflict with the statutory provisions - Mines and C
Minerals Act, 1957 - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 -
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Art.14 - Classification - Test of arbitrariness - Held:
Arbitrariness in the adoption of a criteria for classification has
D
to be tested on the anvil of Art. 14 and not on the subjective
notions of availability of a better basis of classification.
Article 21 - Right to life - Enforcement of - Held: In
enforcing such rights affecting large number of citizens,
E
supreme Court cannot be constrained by restraints of
procedure.
Words and Phrases - 'Mining operations' - Meaning of
- In he context of Mines and Minerals Act.
Justice U.L. Bhat Committee was appointed on the
issue of indiscriminate mining in the State of Karnataka.
Thereafter, the matter was referred to Lokayukta of the
State, who in his report indicated indiscriminate mining
in the Bellary District of the State.
The petitioner filed the present PIL u/Art. 32 of the
Constitution, seeking Court's intervention in the matter.
The Court asked the Central Empowered Committee
(CEC) to submit its report on the allegations of illegal
F
G
H
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 6 S.C.R.
A mining in the Bellary region of the State of Karnataka. The
CEC, in its reports indicated large scale illegal mining.
The Court by order dated 29.7.2011 imposed complete
ban on mining in the Bellary district, and further by order
dated 28.8.2011 in the districts of Tumkur and
B Chitradurga. The Court constituted a Joint Team to
determine the boundaries of initially 117 mining leases
which subsequently extended to 166 mining leases. The
survey conducted by the Joint Team was subjected to reexamination by the Special Team, at the behest of the
c lease-holders. CEC submitted its final report dated
3.2.2012 recommending for categorization of the mines
into three categories i.e. 'A', 'B' and

## Text

_Characters 0–39,650 of 132,541. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39650 for what follows._

[2013] 6 S.C.R. 810
A
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS.
B
c
v.
STATE OF KARANATAKA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (CIVIL) No. 562 of 2009 etc.)
APRIL 18, 2013
[AFTAB ALAM, K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND
RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]
Environment Protection and Pollution Control:
Forest - Illegal mining in forest area of Karnataka and
Andhra Pradesh - PIL - Court appointed Central Powered
Committee (CEC) in its report indicating illegal mining- Joint
Team constituted by Court, determined boundaries of
0 concerned 166 mining leases - CEC in its final report
recommended categorization of mines into 3 categories viz.
A, B and C on the basis of extent of encroachment of mining
pits and overburden dumps - CEC recommended resumption
of A and B category mines subject to certain conditions and
E closure of category C mines - The credibility of CEC, sanctity
of the process of survey undertaken by Joint Team and
acceptability of recommendations of CEC were questioned -
Held: Credibility of CEC cannot be questioned - The body
is performing its tasks as per the directions of the Court - The
credibility of the survey conducted by the Joint Team under
F the orders of the Court, also cannot be questioned -
The
categorization of leases done by CEC, is reasonable and
hence acceptable - Embargo placed by the Court on grant
of fresh mining licences is lifted - Operation of the leases,
located on or near the inter-State boundary of Kamataka and
G Andhra Pradesh, is suspended until the boundary issue is
resolved - Investigations in respect of alleged criminal
offences by lessees to be brought to its logical conclusion -
Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 - Forest Conservation Act,
1980 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
H
810
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v.
811
STATE OF KARANATAKA
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Articles 32 and 142 - Illegal mining - Causing large
scale damage to forest wealth - Remedy u/Arts. 32 and 142
-
Resort to -
Jn view of availability of remedies under
provisions of relevant statutes - Held: Court can resort to
constitutional jurisdiction to remedy the enormous wrong -
The relevant statutes would not be effective and efficacious
A
B
to deal with extraordinary situations arisen on account of large
scale
illegalities
in
mining
operations
The
recommendations of CEC, accepted by the Court does not
come in conflict with the statutory provisions - Mines and C
Minerals Act, 1957 - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 -
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Art.14 - Classification - Test of arbitrariness - Held:
Arbitrariness in the adoption of a criteria for classification has
D
to be tested on the anvil of Art. 14 and not on the subjective
notions of availability of a better basis of classification.
Article 21 - Right to life - Enforcement of - Held: In
enforcing such rights affecting large number of citizens,
E
supreme Court cannot be constrained by restraints of
procedure.
Words and Phrases - 'Mining operations' - Meaning of
- In he context of Mines and Minerals Act.
Justice U.L. Bhat Committee was appointed on the
issue of indiscriminate mining in the State of Karnataka.
Thereafter, the matter was referred to Lokayukta of the
State, who in his report indicated indiscriminate mining
in the Bellary District of the State.
The petitioner filed the present PIL u/Art. 32 of the
Constitution, seeking Court's intervention in the matter.
The Court asked the Central Empowered Committee
(CEC) to submit its report on the allegations of illegal
F
G
H
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 6 S.C.R.
A mining in the Bellary region of the State of Karnataka. The
CEC, in its reports indicated large scale illegal mining.
The Court by order dated 29.7.2011 imposed complete
ban on mining in the Bellary district, and further by order
dated 28.8.2011 in the districts of Tumkur and
B Chitradurga. The Court constituted a Joint Team to
determine the boundaries of initially 117 mining leases
which subsequently extended to 166 mining leases. The
survey conducted by the Joint Team was subjected to reexamination by the Special Team, at the behest of the
c lease-holders. CEC submitted its final report dated
3.2.2012 recommending for categorization of the mines
into three categories i.e. 'A', 'B' and 'C' on the basis of
the extent of encroachment in respect of he mining pits
and over burden dumps determined in terms of
0 percentage qua the total lease area. It also recommended
conditions subject to which reopening of the mines and
resumption of mining operations were to be considered
by the Court.
CEC
also submitted modified
recommendations alongwith detailed guidelines for
preparation and implementation of Reclamation and
E Rehabilitation Plans (Rand R Plans) on 13.3.2012. The
guidelines were prepared after consultation with different
stake-holders including the Federation of Indian Mineral
Industries (FIMI) a representative body of the majority of
the mining lessees in the present case.
F
In terms of the order of the Court dated 10.2.2012,
CEC considered 66 representations of the lease-holders.
CEC found 4 representations tenable and made
corrections in respect of the 4 leases. CEC placed the
G cases of 2 lease-holders viz. 'V' and 'H' for consideration
of the Court for their upgradation from category 'C' to 'B'.
The Court, by order dated 3.9.2012 permitted
reopening of 18 category 'A' mines subject to certain
conditions. The Court by order dated 28.9.2012 also laid
H
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v.
813
STATE OF KARANATAKA
down certain conditions for resumption of mining
A
operations by Category-'B' lease-holders. The 7 mines,
located on the inter-State border (Karnataka-Andh"ra
Pradesh) were placed in Special category (81) out of the
72 category-B mines. The 7 category-B mines and the
cases of 2 lessees i.e. 'S' and 'Sh' (which were tentatively
B
placed by CEC in Category-8), were placed before the
Court for their appropriate categorization.The CEC in its
report dated 15.2.2013 recommended resumption of
mining operation in the remaining category-A and
category-8 mines.
c
The Court directed investigation by CBI, in respect
'of criminal offences by lessees. The Court also ordered
disposal of iron-ore accumulated on account of illegal
mining, by the process of e-auction through a Monitory
Committee. The court also constituted Special Purpose
D
Vehicle (SPV) for taking of ameliorative and mitig~tive
measures as per 'Comprehensive Environment Plans for
the Mining Impact Zone' (CPMIZ) around mining leases in
Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur.
E
Interlocutory applications were filed questioning the
sanctity of the survey carried out by the Joint Team, the
categorization of the lease-holders, on the grounds of
lack of procedural fairness and inherent defects in the
technical part of the exercise of survey. The credibility of
F
CEC was also questioned.
It was contended by the lease-holders that the
categorization of the allegedly offending leases on the
basis of percentage of the alleged encroachment qua the
total lease area was constitutionally fragile and
G
environmentally self-defeating; that resort to the powers
u/Art.32 r/w. Art. 142 of the Constitution for the issues in
question, was uncalled for because the issue was
covered under the statutory scheme under Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; Forest
H
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R
A (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986.
Disposing of the Writ Petition 562 of 2009 and
detagning the other connected SLPs and Writ Petitions,
B the Court
HELD: 1. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC)
was first constituted by the Court by its order dated
9.5.2002 as an interim body until creation of the statutory
agency contemplated under the provisions of Section 3
C (3) of the Environment (Protection) Act. Thereafter by a
Notification dated 17.9.2002 published in the Gazette of
India, the constitution of the CEC for a period of 5 years
was notified indicating its composition together with the
extent of its powers and duties. As the period of five years
D mentioned in the Notification dated 17.9.2002 had expired
and the terms of reference to the body had been
redetermined by this Court, perhaps, a fresh notification
should have been issued which was not forthcoming. It
is in such a situation that the CEC had continued to
E function under orders of the Court submitting its reports
from time to time in various environmental issues
pending before this Court. It is on consideration of such
Reports that the Court has been passing its orders from
time to time. In view of these circumstances, the
F questions concerning the credibility of the CEC are
unfounded, particularly in the absence of any materials
to substantiate the apprehensions, if not allegations, that
have been leveled. The said body has been performing
such tasks as had been assigned by this Court by its
G orders passed from time to time. The directions on the
basis of which the CEC had proceeded and had
submitted its Reports, are within the framework of the
terms of reference of the CEC as determined by this Court
by order dated 14.12.2007. [Paras 21 to 23] [851-E-F; 853H E-H; 854-A]
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v.
815
STATE OF KARANATAKA
2. The mechanism provided by any of the statutes in
A
question viz. Mines and Minerals (Development &
Regulation) Act, 1957; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 would neither be
effective nor efficacious to deal with the extraordinary
situation that has arisen on account of the large scale
B
illegalities committed in the operation of the mines in ,
question resulting in grave and irreparable loss to the
forest wealth of the country besides the colossal loss
caused to the national exchequer. The situation being
extraordinary, the remedy, indeed, must also be c
extraordinary. Considered against the backdrop of the
statutory schemes
in
question, none of the
recommendations of the CEC, if accepted, would come
into conflict with any law enacted by the legislature. It is
only in the above situation that the Court may consider
0
the necessity of placing the recommendations made by
the CEC on a finer balancing scale before accepting the
same. Therefore, the Court would proceed to exercise its
constitutional jurisdicfion to remedy the enormous
wrong that has happened and to provide adequate
protection for the future, as may be required. [Para 33)
E
[865-B-E]
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India and Ors. (1984)
3 SCC 161: 1984 (2) SCR 67; M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India
and Ors. (1987) 1 SCC 395: 1987 (1) SCR 819; M.C. Mehta
vs. Union of India and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 142 - relied on.
Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India and
Anr. (1998) 4 SCC 409: 1998 (2) SCR 795 - held not
applicable.
3.1. The participation of the lessee or his
representative throughout the process of survey by the
Joint Team; the manner of conduct of the actual process
of survey; the use of the state of the art technology; the
composition of the Joint Team entrusted with the
F
G
H
816
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R
A responsibility of the survey and the constitution of the 7
teams that conducted the field survey under the
supervision of the Joint Team; the two stages of reverification of the findings of the survey in the light of the
objections raised by the lease holders under orders of
B this Court dated 26.9.2011 and 10.2.2012 and the
corrections made on the basis thereof can leave no
doubt as to the credibility of the findings of the survey
conducted under the orders of the Court. Therefore, all
complaints and grievances must fade away in the light,
c of the survey undertaken by the Joint Team and the
events subsequent thereto. [Para 38] [871-G-H; 872-A-B]
3.2. It is directed that in supersession of all orders
either of the authorities of the State or Courts, as may be,
the boundaries of leases fixed by the Joint Team will
D henceforth be the boundaries of each of the leases who
will have the benefit of the lease area as determined by
the Joint Team. All proceedings pending in any court with
regard to boundaries of the leases involved in the present
proceeding shall stand adjudicated by means of present
E order and no such question would be open for reexamination by any body or authority. [Para 39] [872-GH; 873-A]
4. The wide terms of the definition contained in
F Section 2(d) of the Mines and Minerals Act encompasses
all such activity within the meaning of expression "mining
operations". Hence dumping of mining waste
(overburden dumps) do not constitute operations under
Section 2(d) of the Mines and Minerals Act. Use of forest
G land for such activity would require clearance under the
Forest Conservation Act. In case the land used for such
purpose is not forest land the mining lease must cover
the land used for any such activity. [Para 40] [873-B-C]
5.1. Inter-generational equity and sustainable
H development have come to be firmly embedded in our
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v.
817
STATE OF KARANATAKA
constitutional jurisprudence as an integral part.of the
A
fundamental rights conferred by Article 21 of the
Constitution. In enforcing such rights of a large number
of citizens who are bound to be adversely affected by
environmental degradation, this Court cannot be
constrained by the restraints of ·procedure. The CEC
B
which has been assisting the Court in various
environment related matters for over a decade now was
assigned certain specified tasks which have been
performed by the said body giving sufficient justification
for the decisions arrived and the recommendations made. c
If the said recommendations can withstand the test of
logic and reason, there is no reason not to accept the said
recommendations and embody the same as a part of the
order in the present case. [Para 41] [873-F-H; 874-A]
5.2. Arbitrariness in the adoption of a criteria for D
classification has to be tested on the anvll of Article 14
and not on the subjective notions of availability of a better
basis of classification. The test, therefore, ought not to
be what would be a 'better' basis for the categorization
for that would introduce subjectivity in the process; the
E
test is whether categorization on the basis adopted
results iJl hostile discrimination and adoption of the
criteria of percentage has no reasonable nexus with the
object sought to be achieved, namely, to identify the ·
lessees who have committed the maximum violations and
F
damage to environment. Viewed from the aforesaid
perspective, the categorization made does not fail the test
of reasonableness and would commend acceptance of
the Court. In the totality of the circumstances, the
categorization suggested by the CEC in its Report dated
G
3.2.2012 should be accepted. [Para 42] [874-C-E; 875-B]
5.3. The conditions subject to which Category 'A' and
'B' mines are to be reopened and the R&R Plans that have
been recommended as a precondition for reopening of
Category 'B' mines are essentially steps to ensure
H
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A scientific and planned exploitation of the scarce mineral
resources of the country. The recommendations are
wholesome and in the interest not only of the
environment and ecology but the mining industry as a
whole so as to enable the industry to run in a more
B organized, planned and disciplined manner. FIMI was
actively associated in the framing of the guidelines and
the preparation of the R&R Plans. There is nothing in the
preconditions or in the details of the R&R plans
suggested which are contrary to or in conflict or
C inconsistent with any of the statutory provisions of the
Mines and Minerals Act, Environment Protection Act and
Forest Conservation Act. In such a situation, while
accepting the preconditions subject to which the
Category 'A' and 'B' mines are to be reopened and ttie
R&R plans that must be put in place for Category 'B'
D mines the suggestions made by the CEC for reopening
of Category 'A' and 'B' mines as well as the details of the
R&R plans should be accepted. [Para 43] [875-C-F]
5.4. It is evident from the compilation submitted to the
E Court by the CEC that several of the Category 'C' mines
were operating without requisite clearances under Forest
Conservation Act or even in the absence of a mining
lease for a part of the area used for mining operations.
The satellite imageries placed before the Court with
F regard to environmental damage and destruction has
shocked judicial conscience. It is in the light of the above
facts and circumstances that the future course of action
in respect of the maximum violators/polluters, i.e.,
Category 'C' mines has to be judged. While doing so, the
Court also has to keep in mind the requirement of Iron
G Ore to ensure adequate supply of manufactured steel and
other allied products. Once the result of the survey
undertaken and the boundaries of the leases determined
by the Joint Team has been accepted by the Court and
the basis of categorization of the mines has been found
H to be rational and constitutionally permissible, it will be
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v.
819
STATE OF KARANATAKA
difficult for this Court to visualize as to how the Category
A
'C' mines can be allowed to reopen. There is no room for
compassion; fervent pleas for clemency cannot have
even a persuasive value. As against the individual
interest of the 49 Category 'C' leaseholders, public
interest at large would require the Court to lean in favour
B
of demonstrating the efficacy and effectiveness of the
long arm of the law. Therefore, the Court orders for the
complete closure of the Category 'C' mines and for
necessary follow up action in terms of the
recommendations of the CEC in this regard. [Paras 44 c
and 4S] [876-B-F]
6. By an order dated 2.11.2012 passed by this Court
an embargo has been placed on grant of fresh mining
licenses. In view of the developments that have taken
,.
place in the meantime and in view of the fact that the
D
Court is inclined to accept the recommendations at SI.
Nos. VI and VII of the CEC's Report dated 3.2.2012 it is
not necessary to continue with the order dated 2.11.2012
in so far as grant of fresh leases are concerned. [Para 46]
[876-H; 877-A]
E
7. In so far as settlement of the inter-state boundaries
between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka is
concerned, both tht! States have agreed to have the
boundaries fixed under the supervision of the Geological
F
Survey of India. In view of the agreement between the
States on the said issue the Court permits the States to
finalize the issue in the above terms. The operation of the
7 leases (Category 81) located on or near the inter-State
boundary is presently suspended. Until the boundary G
issue between the two States is resolved resumption of
mining operations in the 7 leases cannot be allowed.
[Para 47) [877-B-C]
8. The CEC has provisionally categorised ML
No.2515 and ML No.2553 in Category "B" though the
H
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 6 S.C.R.
A encroached area under illegal mining pits has been found
to be 24.44% and 23.62% respectively. According to the
CEC, it is on account of "the complexities involved in
finalizing the survey sketches and in the absence of intervillage boundary" that the said leases have been placed
8 in Category "B" instead of Category "C". The Court
cannot agree with the tentative decision of the CEC. On
the basis of the findings of the survey and the
categorization made, both of which have been accepted
by the Court by the present order, the aforesaid two
c leases, are directed to be placed in Category "C".
Necessary consequential action will naturally follow.
[Para 48) [877-D-F]
9. The CEC in its Report dated 28.3.2012 has placed
the cases of 'V.S.' and 'H' (placed in Category "C") for final
D determination by the Court. The CEC has reported that
the encroachment by ' V.S.' is only in respect of the
overburden dumps and exceeds the percentage (15%)
marginally, i.e., by 0.17% which could very well be due to
the least count error used by the Joint Team. In so far as
E 'H' is concerned, the CEC in its Report dated 28.3.2012
has recorded that according to the lessee it has carried
on its mining operation for the last 50 years in the lease
area allotted to it which may have been wrongly identified
in the earlier surveys and demarcations by taking into
F account a wrong reference point. Having considered the
facts on which the two lessees have sought upgradation
from "C" to "B" Category, such upgradation cannot be
allowed. Both the lessees, in fact, accept the results of
the survey by the Joint Team which findings have already
G been accepted by this Court. [Para 49) [877-G-H; 878-A-B]
H
10. The investigations in respect of alleged criminal
offences by lessees which have been ordered by this
Court to be investigated by the CBI, would necessarily
have to follow the procedure prescribed by law. Each of
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v.
821
STATE OF KARANATAKA
such investigation shall be brought to its logical A
conclusion in accordance with law and any aggrieved
party would be entitled to avail of all legal remedies as
may be available. [Para 13] [847-D-E]
11. As per the CEC's Report dated 15.2.2013 sale of 8
almost the entire quantity of illegally extracted Iron Ore
has been effected through the Monitoring Committee and
the sub-grade Iron Ore lying in dumps in and around
several lease areas may not have adequate commercial
potential. Besides removal thereof for sale, in many
cases, may also give rise to environmental problems in
C
as much as removal of such dumps may constitute a
hazard to the stability of the dumps which have been in
existence for many years. Permission for sale of subgrade iron ore, only when the same is commercially
viable and removal thereof from the dumps is an
D
environmentally safe exercise, has been sought by the
CEC in its last Report dated 15.2.2013. There is no
impediment in accepting the recommendations of the
CEC in the Report dated 15.2.2013 in respect of removal
and sale of sub-grade Iron Ore. Similarly, there is no
E
difficulty in continuing the previous orders of the Court,
permitting sale of iron ore to be mined after resumption
of operations through the Monitoring Committee on the
same terms and conditions as presently in force. [Para
15] [848-D-G]
12. Court's order dated 02.11.2012 placing an embargo
on grant of fresh mining leases need not be continued any
further. Grant of fresh mining leases and consideration of
pending applications be dealt with In accordance with law,
F
the directions contained in the present order as well as the
G
spirit thereof. [Para 50] [880-C]
Case Law Reference:
1984 (2) SCR 67
1987 (1) SCR 819
relied on
relied on
Para 28
Para 30
H
A
B
822
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 6 S.C.R.
(2009) s sec 142
relied on
Para 31
1998 (2) SCR 795
held not applicablePara 32
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
562 of 2009.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
SLP (C) No. 7366-7367, 32690 of 2010, W.P.(Crl.) No.
66 of 2010, SLP (C) Nos. 17064-17065 of 2010 SLP(C) Nos.
(CC Nos. 16829 & 16830 of2010, W.P. (C) No. 411 of2010,
C SLP (C) No. 353 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No. 76 of 2012.
G.E. Vahanvati, Attorney General, H.P. Raval, P.P.
Malhotra, A.S. Chandhiok, ASG, Shyam Divan (A.C.) (Assisted
by Vasuman Khandelwal), Arvind Datar, C.A. Sundaram, V.
Giri, D.L.N. Rao, Dushyant Dave, F.S. Nariman, Chander Uday
D Singh, Nalini Chidambaram, C.S. Vaidyanathan, K.K.
Venugopal, P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Pallav Shishodia,
Gurukrishna Kumar, Krishnan Venugopal, Raju Ramachandran,
S. Ganesh, S.P. Singh, Jaideep Gupta, P.H. Parekh, Nirman
Sharma, Abhinav Malhotra, A.D.N. Rao (Assisted by Mansha
E Monga), Neelam Jain, A. Venkatesh, Siddharth Chowdhury,
Prashant Bhushan, Ramesh K. Mishra, Pranav Sachedva
(A.C.), K. Raghavacharyulu, D. Julius Riamei, Sanjeev Kapur,
Raja! Jariwal (for Khaitan & Co.), Vikas Mehta, Ravi Shankar,
Shubham Tripathi, P.V. Dinesh, S.K. Kulkarni, Ankur S.
F Kulkarni, A. Raghunath, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina
Madhavan, Anindita Pujari (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.), Devadat
Kamat, Sunil Dogra (for Lawyer's Knit & Co.), Simar Suri,
Chanchal Kr. Ganguli, K. Maruthi Rao, K. Radha, Anjani
Aiyagari, K. Dheeraj Kumar, K. Subba Rao, G. Umapathi, R.
G Mekhala, Rakesh K. Sharma, Kiran Suri, K.N. Phanindra, S.J.
Amith, Apama Mattoo, Girish Ananthamurthy, Vaijayanthi Girish,
Nabikur Rahman Barbhuiya, Dr. Vipin Gupta, Shashi Kiran
Shelly, Sharan Thakur (For Dr. Sushil Balwada), Bhargava V.
Desai, Shreyas Mehtrotra, Naveen R. Nath, Lalit Mohini Bhat,
H Amrita Sharma, Darpan K.M., Sanjay R. Hegde, D.M. Rajesh,
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v.
823
STATE OF KARANATAKA
S. Nithin, Anil K. Misra, Kashi Vishweshwar, A. Sumati, Madhu
A
Singh Satya Siddiqui, S.K. Mishra, Asha G. Nair, A. Dev
Kumar, D.S. Mahra, Ranjana Narayan, B.K. Prasad, Mahesh
Agarwal, Aparna Singhal, E.C, Agrawala, Dr. Sumant
Bharadwai, Manoj Kumar, Ajit Kumar Gupta, Mridula Ray
Bharadwaj, A. Raghunath, Sidharth Singh, Ravindra Kolle,
Anitha Shenoy, Syed Naqvi, N.K. Sharma, P.P. Kanwer, Kunal
Verma, Rashmi Malhotra, Gunwant Dara, S.K. Bajwa (for S.N.
Terdal), A.K. Vasanth, Shefali Malhotra, Balaji Srinivasan,
Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Ranvir Singh, Sumi! Goel,
Sarabjot Walia (for Parekh & Co.), Priya Hingorani, Syed c
Tanweer Ahmad (for B.V. Balramdas), S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh
Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Kuriakose Varghese, V., Shyamohan,
lram Hassan, Rayjith Mark, Abir Phukan, Pratap Parmal,
Shaheen Parveen (for B.V. Bairam Das) for the appearing
parties.
B
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANJAN GOGOi, J.
W.P. !Cl No.562 of 2009
1. What should be the appropriate contours of this Court's
jurisdiction while dealing with allegations of systematic plunder
of natural resources by a handful of opportunists seeking to
achieve immediate gains? This is the core question that arises
in the present proceeding in the context of mining of Iron Ore
and allied minerals in the State of Karnataka.
E
F
2. Over exploitation, if not indiscriminate and rampant
mining, in the State of Karnataka, particularly in the District of
Bellary, had been purportedly engaging the attention of the
G
State Government from time to time. In the year 2006, Justice
U.L. Bhat Committee was appointed to go into the issues which
exercise, however, did not yield any tangible result. Thereafter,
the matter was referred to the Lokayukta of the State and a
Report dated 18.12.2008 was submitted which, prima facie,
H
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A
indicated indiscriminate mining of unbelievable proportions in
the Bellary district of the State. It is in these circumstances, that
the petitioner- Samaj Parivartana Samudaya had instituted the
present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
complaining of little or no corrective action on the part of the
B State; seeking this Court's intervention in the matter and
specifically praying for the reliefs noted hereinbelow.
c
D
E
F
G
H
"(A) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing
immediate steps be initiated by both the
Respondent States and the Union of India to stop
all mining and other related activities in forest areas
of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka which are in
violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated
12.12.1996 in W.P (C) No 202 of 1995 and the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
(B)
To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing as null
and void retrospectively all 'raising contracts' I sub
leasing because which are in violation of the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 and initiate penal action against the violators.
(C)
To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
stoppage of all mining along the border and in forest
areas in the Bellary Reserve Forest till a systematic
survey of both the interstate border and the mine
lease areas along the entire border is completed
by the Survey of India along with a representative
of the Lokayukta of Karnataka.
(D)
To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing action
against all the violators involved either directly or
indirectly in illegal mining including those named in
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v.
825
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
the Report of the Lokayukta of Karnataka (Part-I}.
A
(E)
To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
recovery of the illegal wealth accumulated through
the illegal mining and related activities; and
8
(F)
To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing null
and void notification No. Cl 33 MMM 1994 dated
15.3.2003 and other related notifications/orders
dereserving lands for mining operations."
C
3. The writ petition was entertained and the Central
Empowered Committee (hereinafter for short "the CEC") was
asked to submit a report on the allegations of ill~gal mining in
the Bellary region of the State of Karnataka. The very initial o
order of this Court is dated 19.11.201 O and was restricted to
six mining leases granted in favour of M/s. Bellary Iron Ore Pvt.
Ltd., M/s. Mahabaleswarapa & Sons, M/s. Ananthapur Mining
Corporation and Mis. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd.
What followed thereafter is unprecedented in the history of
E
Indian environmental jurisprudence. It is neither necessary nor
feasible to set out the series of Reports of the CEC and the
various orders of the Court passed from time to time. Rather,
a brief indication of the core Reports of the CEC and the main
orders passed by the Court will suffice to understand what had
happened so to enable the Court to unravel the course of action
for the future.
4. The initial Reports submitted by the CEC in response
F
to the orders of the Court having indicated large scale illegal
mining at the cost and to the detriment of the environment, a
G
stage came when by order dated 29.7.2011 a complete ban
on mining in the district of Bellary was imposed. Extension of
the said ban was made in respect of the mining operations in
the districts of Tumkur and Chitradurga by order dated
26.8.2011. As the materials placed before the Court (including
H
826
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A the Report of the Lokayukta dated 18.12 .2008) indicated large
scale encroachment into forest areas by leaseholders and
ongoing mining operations in such areas without requisite
statutory approval and clearances, a Joint Team was
constituted by this Court by order dated 6.5.2011 to determine
B the boundaries of initially 117 mining leases which number was
subsequently extended to 166 by inclusion of the mines in
Tumkur and Chitradurga districts. The result of the survey by
the Joint Team revealed a shocking state of depredation of
nature's bounty by human greed. Objections of the lease
c holders to the survey came early and were subjected to a reexamination by the special team itself under orders of the Court
dated 23.9.2011 in the course of which 122 cases were reexamined and necessary corrections were effected in 33
cases. Thereafter, the CEC submitted its Report termed as the
0 "Final Report" dated 3.2.2012 which is significant for two of its
recommendations. The first was for categorization of the mines
into three categories, i.e., 'A', 'B' and 'C' on the basis of the
extent of encroachment in respect of the mining pits and over
burden dumps determined in terms of percentage qua the total
lease area. The second set of recommendations pertained to
E the conditions subject to which reopening of the mines and
resumption of mining operations were to be considered by the
Court. A set of modified recommendations along with a set of
detailed guidelines for preparation and implementation of
Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plans (R & R) were also
F submitted to the Court by the CEC on 13.3.2012. Before the
relevant extracts from the Reports of the CEC dated 3.2.2012
and 13.3.2012 are noticed, to make the discussion on the
Report of the Joint Team complete it will be necessary to note
that in terms of the order dated 10.2.2012 of the Court, 66
G representations were considered by the CEC out of which only
4 were found tenable. Accordingly, corrections were made in
respect of the said four leases which corrections, however, did
not involve any change of category. The CEC placed the cases
of two lease holders i.e. Mis. V.S. Lad & Sons and Mis. Hothur
H Traders for consideration of the Court as to whether the said
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v.
827
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.)
two leases placed in Category "C" needed upgradation to
A
Category "B" in view of the minimal violation committed by them
and the circumstances surrounding such violations.
5. We may now proceed to notice the relevant part of the
two Reports of the CEC dated 3.2.2012 and 13.3.2012, as
B
referred to hereinabove.
"IV. CLASSIFICATION OF LEASES IN DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES ON THE BASIS OF THE LEVEL OF
ILLEGALITIES FOUND.
27. The CEC, based on the extent of illegal mining found
by the Joint Team and as appropriately modified by the
CEC in its Proceeding dated 25th January, 2012 and after
considering the other relevant information has classified
c
the mining leases into three categories namely "Category0
A". "Category-B" and "Category-C".
28. The "Category-A" comprises of (a) working leases
wherein no illegality/marginal illegality have been found
and (b) non working leases wherein no marginal/illegalities
have been found. The number of such leases comes to 21
E
& 24 respectively.
29. "Category-B" comprises of (a) mining leases wherein
illegal mining by way of (i) mining pits outside the
sanctioned lease areas have been found to be up to 10%
F
of the lease areas and/ or (ii) over b.urden/waste dumps
outside the sanctioned lease areas have been found to be
up to 15% of the lease areas and (b) leases falling on
interstate boundary between Karnataka and Andhra
Pradesh and for which survey sketches have not been
G
finalized. For specific reasons as mentioned in the
statement of "Category-B" leases, Mis. S.B. Minerals (ML,
No. 2515), M/s. Shantalaxmi Jayram (ML No. 2553), M/s.
Gavisiddeshwar Enterprises (ML No. 80) and Mis.
Vibhutigudda Mines (Pvt.) Ltd. (ML No. 2469) have been
H
828
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
assigned in "Category-B". The numbers of such leases in
"Category-B" comes to 72.
30. The "Category-C" comprises of leases wherein (i) the
illegal mining by way of (a) mining pits outside the
sanctioned lease area have been found to be more than
10% of the lease area and/or (b) over burden/waste dumps
outside the sanctioned lease areas have been found to be
more than 15% of the lease areas and/or (ii) the leases
found to be involved in flagrant violation of the Forest
(Conservation) Act and/or found to be involved in illegal
mining in other lease areas. The number of such leases
comes to 49.
RECOMMENDATIONS (as modified by CEC by its
Report dated 13.3.2012. Items 1 to IV of the Report dated
3.2.2012 stood replaced by Items A to I of the Report
dated 13.3.2012 which are reproduced below along with
Items V to XIV of the initial Report dated 3.2.2012).
(A)
the findings of the Joint Team and as modified after
careful examination by the CEC may be accepted
and directed to be followed by the concerned
authorities
and
the
respective
leases,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary. The
boundaries of the mining leases should accordingly
be fixed on the ground.
(B)
a ceiling of 25 Million Metric Tonnes (MMT) for total
production of iron ore from all the mining leases in
District Beltary may be prescribed. A ceiling of 5
MMT for production of iron ore from all the mining
leases in Districts Chitradurga and Tumkur together
may be prescribed;
(C)
the proposed "guidelines for the preparation of the
R&R Plans" may be approved by this Hon'ble Court
and the prescriptions/provisions of the R&R Plans,
"
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v.
829
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
prepared as per these guidelines, may be directed
A
to be followed by the respective lessees and the
concerned authorities;
(D)
the iron ore which becomes available should be
used for meeting the iron ore requirement of the
8
steel plants and associated industries located in
Karnataka and also of those plants located in the
adjoining States which have been using the iron
ore from the mining leases located in these
Districts. Exports, outside the country, should be
C
permissible only in respect of the material which the
steel plants and associated industries are not
willing to purchase on or above the average pdce
realized by the Monitoring Committee for the
corresponding grades of fines/lumps during the sale
of about 25 MMT of the existing stock of iron ore.
D
Similarly, the iron ore produced by the beneficiation ·
plants after processing should also not be
permitted to be exported outside the country;
(E) • the sale of the iron ore should continue to be through
E
e-auction and the same should be conducted by
the Monitoring Committee constituted by this
Hon'ble Court. However, the quantity to be put up
fore-auction, its grade, lot size, its base/floor price
and the period of delivery will be decided/provided
F
by the respective lease holders. The Monitoring
Committee may permit the lease holders to put up
fore-auction the quantities of the iron ore planned
to be produced in subsequent months. The system
of sale through the Monitoring Committee may be
G
reviewed after say two year;
(F)
90% of the sale price (excluding the royalty and the
applicable taxes) received during the e-auction
may be paid by the buyer directly to the respective
lease holders and the balance 10% may be
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A
deposited with the Monitoring Committee alongwith
the royalty, FDT and other applicable taxes/
charges;
(G)
The responsibility of the Monitoring Committee will
8
be (a) to monitor the implementation of the various
provisions/prescriptions of the R&R Plans, (b) to
ensure strict compliance of the conditions on which
the environment clearance, the approval under the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the other
c
statutory approvals/clearances have been
accorded, (c) to ensure that the mining is
undertaken as per the approved Mining Plan, (d) to
ensure that the ceiling on annual production ·fixed
for the lease does not exceed, (e) to ensure that the
D
safety zone is maintained around the lease area
and in respect of the clusters of mining leases
around the outer boundary of such cluster of mining
leases and (f) to ensure compliance of the other
applicable condition/provisions. Any lease found to
be operating in violation of the stipulated
E
conditions/provisions should be liable for closure
and/or termination of the lease;
(H)
the present Members of the Monitoring Committee
should continue for a period of next two years; and
F
(Q
in the larger public interest the mining operations
in the two leases of Mis. NMDC may be permitted
to be continued. However, it will be liable to deposit
penalty/compensation as payable for the mining
G
leases falling in "Category-8"
(V)
In respect of the mining leases falling in
"CATEGORY-8" (details given at Annexure-R-10 to
this Report) it is recommended that:
H
(i)
the R&R Plan, under preparation by the ICFRE,
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v.
831
STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
after incorporating the appropriate changes as per
A
the directions of this Hon'ble Court, should be
implemented in a time bound manner by the
respective lessees at his cost.