Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE-._v
DATED mxs THE as' DAY or JUNE, 2909' -« * _
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAI<Q§ItRA_|}jT, §cr"»:;|a'?!-'_ _ , ti'
3""
THE HON'BLE MR. Ju's.ticE v.e;----sABti.nri"Ij""
WRIT A.PPEAL«.N"Cu 533:;/2oo3,"~ ~'
cm warr APPEI_\_l._S__i)l_g.'o.5(3+2._t1-_,_§928, 5032,
5050,5051,5O52;§05§A5O64g5O6§.5066,
§QE§_@$
!i&A$iBw*8;&3JQ§7J§§,
w.A.Ng.§o25,g._i«_+9_§fL ~
BETWEEN: V V' V
M/s. Jindal vihjfi/aJ.i.;aVg.aE3'stee,§§'~«1.,td._, _'
P.O.Toran.ag'aHu, ' = "
Sandur TaI'uk," ' V
Beflary Distritt, Kavrnatalaai, "
Now known as JSW Steel Ltd.,
Rep. hi; itstAManaging1,'Director. .. APPELLANT
_ (By-sh. D'.'£.:.E\*.: Rao - Sr. Adv. with
E5 ris. Aru n "Kym ar Va-rrna a nd
M'¥ss=.S.R. 'vAh'aIfad!fra--v"- Advs. for Applt.)
AND'--...__
M/s. MSPL Limited,
.4 The State of Karnataka,
':'.E.C. Colony, Hospet,
- Belféiry District,
'"._Ré'p'.'by its Executive Director
Sri. Rahul N. Baldota.
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Mines,
SSI & Textiles,
Department of Mines and Geology,
M.S Building,
Bangalore-01.
3. The Director of Mines and Geoiogy,
Department of Mines and Geology ,
Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, =
Bangalore-01
4. Union of India,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Government of India, __
Ministry of Coal and Mines,
Department of Mines, " "
Shastiri Bhavan,
New Deihi. l RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. Krishnan ';\ienu"g'epal"-+.'j*sr;rAdv. V
With M.M. Swamyi:-V Adv.*for=R.--.1_ ,
Sri. Uc!a"y'a"Hol'lja ~-- Afdv. G-e,n'erai W'i"i;i'3* 'V
Sri. B.?_Veerappva_--..Addl.'Govt. Adv.
For R.2:an'd R.3. V' M
Sri. Arav'ind"Kumar '~~.Asst;-.._Soli"éitor General for R.4)
This Writ"A,ppe.a.l'- isdfiiedll under Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Courtjjict praying toflset aside the order dated 7.8.2008 passed by the
" «E.earned'"sin-gieJtldge in"'W;P.No.21608/2005.
l'-.@.Ng,.;vo_24'gjaoa§
BET.\iVE'ENV:' '
'Sri. M.'S.rin\/Vasulu,
S,/o. Late Sri. Venkataswamy,
A " Agedabout 56 years,
":2./e._Nc5;168/c, 18"' Ward,
_ -_3"§._CrosAs, Gandhinagar,
.___'"Beliary. .. APPELLANT
Sri. i<.N. Phanindra - Adv. for Appit.)
AND
1.M/s. MSPL Limited,
N.R. Coiony, Hospet,
Beliary District, Rep. by its Executive Director,
Sri. Rahui N. Baidota,
Aged about 37 years.
2. State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Mines, SSI & Textties, ,
Department of Commerce & Ind'us't.ries,
Vikasa Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veecihi,,
Bangalore-560 001.
3. The Director of Mines &'f3éoiogy, Z V
Department of Mines and'Geoiogy,";i. .
Khanija Bhavan, 5"' Floor, " _ I 1
Race Course Road, V "
Bangalore-56Q~vG3«.1.,'--
4. Union oi'i'ndi_a,T; _
Rep. by its _Secreta,ry,. ., . _'
Ministry of Coal anc'i'~M§i:es,tV..__
Shastri Blfiavan,' ' .
New Dem?"-e__ 110 001. "
5. M/s.._§'Ji'ndai Vinj'ay.anagar Steels Ltd.,
P.~Q_.'iToy_ra rigallu, Sa'ndu'r Taluk,
Beiiary 'DAi5t_r£k:t,_, Rep. by its
' .Managi'n,g'DVireVctor.
6. 'M./.5.»i<a!'yzi~%i;--«Ste§.eis Limited,
Ho-spet _Ftoad,:
Ginigera: 583 228,
_ Koppaiffaluk 8: District,
" 'Rt.-pa. by its Managing Director.
M/s.riNadeem Minerais,
i:io.419, Ground Fioor,
% = ....6"' 'B' Cross, 20"' Main,
6"' Biock, Koramangaia,
Bangaiore--560 095.
;:_..~«~t;3"
8. M/s. Vibhuthigudda Mines Pvt. Ltd,
by its General Manager,
No.60/356-A, Hospet Road,
Allipura, .
Bellary -- 583 204. . .. .'_REspo1:upE'NTs
(By Sri. Krishnan Venugopal -- Senior Ad"-/,oca_te'*S
with Sri. M.M. Swamy -- Adv. for,R.1. . '
Sri. udava Holla, Advocate Genorai-with A . _
Sri. B. Veerappa ---- Addl. Govt. Adv... for R.2 and ,
Sri. Arvind Kumar -- Asst. Solicitor Cieneral -- for «.R.4. ii
Sri. D.L.N. Rao -- Senior Adv. with" =
Miss. S.R. Anuradha -- Ac.'v__. 'for R5,,-R,.6'~.an.d"i2.,.7)
This Writ Appeal is fiiedviunydar £"}ect'iori'§i.,'jo.f--V*'the Karnataka High
Court Act praying to 'set aside the orderdatedy,7.8.2008 passed by the
Eearned single Jucigeén. 'W.P1._N0§.2*l608,/20-05..._...--
w.A.Ng.so2a("2o'o;s
8ETWEEN':"'"' 1. V'
M/s. Kalyani 'S>iI€€iSVi..ii;.;i'i"C--4E.(i;»_'vu"'--.._a _'
Hospet Road, Ginig'er_a~:E83'-.328,"
Koppal Talukand DEstr_ict',., "
Rep. byits Mans9..Eng.p':rector:" .. APPELLANT
V' { By Rao -S9' Serriovr Advocate with
vsri. Aron Kflrnar Verma -- Adv. and
A Miss AntIra.dha ---- Adv. for Applt.)
AND
-,1. M/<5. M"S.PL.Lximited,
. N.R. Colony, Hospet,
"Be.|iary District,
'-- _ R_ep'.; by its Executive Director,
'1.S'r'i."RahuE N. Baldota,
" 2.. ---- State of Ka rnata ka,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Mines,
SSI & Textiles,
Department of Mines and Geology,
M.S. Building, Bangaiore--560 001.
3. The Director of Mines & Geoiogy,
Department of Mines and Geology, ».
Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road,
Bangaiore--560 001.
4. Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of Coai and Mines,
Department of Mines, ' "
Shastri Bhavan,
New Deihi -- 110 001. "~..T"'».7._'gv.._AVRESPONDENTS
(By Sri. Uci~a3;c1--2..i5%oiia 9- Adveica'te Ge'ne_r_aifwith
Sri. V.ee:'a'ppa~v-?«.Add_i. G_ovt.,Adv. for R.2 and R.3
Sri. Arvind. Ktjrnaif "--'--{A-ss't.._,So|Eci,tor Generai -- for R.-4
Sri. Ki"§$h'i3£5V{'} Venugo'pai~-y Senior Advocate
with Sriig-M. M;:.;s.wamy.« Ad'v;"fo"r C/R.1)
This Writ ;xt$pe'e:..,:isflied:"wider Section 4 of the High Court Act
praying to V, set 'a,si'd.ea the "vdi'der dated 7.8.2008 passed in
w.P.i\:o.216o'c2/uzoos.' _ A
w_.Aeh:§e§e32 me A
iaeryiieeliilt, "
AM/:5.-.\.'ib*ht{thig'ud§:i-aMines Pvt. i_td.,
A Corrujany i"-eg--ist>ered
Underthe Companies Act,
'V Having itsvoffice at
'No.60/3"5*5§.f3=\, Hospet Road,
" AIiip;:ifa, Bei|ary~583 104,
'Repres'ented by its Generai Manager
_ =_Sri_. Dix'/. Mahesh Kumar,
.___"'Age:=,d about 37 Years. .. APPELLANT
Sri. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay -- Adv. for Applt.
AND
1"'.
V1' Negw Deihi 5 '1..;o 001.
_'_;~,.r>iav"in9'
' W.i?.No.21608/2005.
M/s. MSPL Limited,
N.C. Colony, Hospet,
Bellary District,
Rep. by its Executive Director,
Sri. Rahul N. Baldota,
Aged about 39 years.
. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Mines, s
SS1 & Textiles,
Department of Commerce & Industri_es,_
M.S. Building,
Bangalore~--S6O 001.
. The Director of Mines & Geoi~ogy',A',"';
Department of Mines and-Geoi'ogy', _ A
Khanija Bhava_n,=._ 1
Race Course_R_oad;}" _. V .
Bangaiore~560VQ_O1'~.v"I'__
. The Un"i.on"of Ind ital," -~ . A
Rep. byits L'-_'~ecret,ary._.f. V'
Government ofvindia, I " ,
Ministry of Coal an.d.'--Mines,'"
Department of ivlines,
Siv1astri;_-Bhavvan, '
.. RESPONDENTS
('By 'Sri.,lAKrVis§<%na:i"'V.e'nugopaI - Senior Advocate,
. with Sri.'-V'lj~'§.|\,/.2'. Swamy -- Adv. for R.1
Sri. Arvind'..*Kumar - Asst. Solicitor General -- for R.4
Sri . Udaya Hoiia - Advocate General with
Sri.'B._ Veerappa - Addi. Govt. Adv. for R.2 and R.3)
'This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act
to set aside the order dated 7.8.2008 passed in
W.A.NQ.S050[2008
BETWEEN:
M/s. Kalyani Steeis Limited, -
Hospet Road, Ginigera 583 228,
Koppai Taluk and District,
Rep. by its Managing Director. ,.
(By Sri. S.R. Anuradha -- Adv. for Apspit)
AND: .
1. The Sandur Manganese &1m-.-. Ores ,E:.td,Vf_ '
No.217, Sadashivanagar, Be'iiaryvRo[ad,--"~. ' V
Bangaiore-560 080, . * Q I
Represented by 'its_Cjomp_an\; S»ecr'etary',' V. ._
Shri Abdul S,aieem§i' ~ ' .-
2. The State of--vKa'rn§2,taka, " A
Rep. bvyitts S.e'cj;reta'r%,g','-- " ,
Department o'fvMin,es,, 2
SS1 &T.extiies, ' M "
Department' of Minesand' "G_e'c1o'gy,
M.S. Buildin_g, _ '_ 1
Bangalore-550_001,;
V' Theifiommissioner 'o'fi"---"Eines and Geology,
V 'D_epart'ment"of Mines and Geoiogy,
.=Khanija, Bharvara---,. Race Course Road,
I . B.angavI~o:re,jV5SQ-.001.
4. Union of~En_d,i'a,i
Rep. by" its Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministrx/'iof Coai and Mines,
Department of Mines,
R "'.Sh'a'stri Bhavan,
New Delhi. .. RESPONDENTS
Sri. D. Leeiakrishnan -- Adv. for C/R.1
* Sri. Udaya Hoiia -- Advocate Generai with
Sri. B. Veerappa -~ Addl. Govt. Adv. for R.2 and R.3
Sri. Aravincl Kumar -~ Asst. Solicitor General for R.4)
This Writ Appeai is filed under Section 4 of the HighV"C_oiu.rt Act
praying to set aside the order dated 7.8.20Q8_'~,passedA. in
W.P.NO.8971/2007. V' -1-
W.A.No.5051[2008
BETWEEN:
M/s. }indaI Vijayanagar Steeis Ltd,
P.O. Toranagaliu, SandurTa|uk, ' '
Beliary District, Karnataka,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory _ '
Sri. P. Krishna Gowda, Genera! Manager. '.".-A m°PEI.LAHT
(By Sri. D.i_.N. Rao -~ seniof'Ad_vo¢a_té:*»i¢;-itii'5] _
Miss. S.R. Anuraciha --- Ady.'for A_ppuIt.)='x,v ._
1. The Sandur_M'an_ganese 84,
Iron Ories 'i_im§ted',.fi_ A . *
i\io.217,'Sadashivanagar,'*~..,_
Beiiary Ro'ad_,VBang'a_|or.e," ,
Rep. by its Company Secretary,
Shrij, MD. Abdui Saieem.
State o;f"ii<ar"ri'a.taka,
. .R.ep.. gb'y._it's Secretary
De'partrn:'e-rat of'M-ines,
'S.Si=& TextiV'ijes,.1'
Dept. of~CQrifimerce & Industries,
M.s'. Biiiiding,
BangaIcire--56O O01.
Theéifiommissioner of Mines and Geology,
'._Dept} of Mines & Geology,
Khanija Bhavan,
it = .---Race Course Road,
Bangaiore-560 O01.
4. Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Government of India,
Dept. of Coal and Mines,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
5. M/s. Kaiyani Steels Limited,
Hospet Road,
Ginigera --~ 583 228,
Koppal Taluk & District, ' V
Rep. by its Managing Director. 'R.ESPC3.i\lDENTS
(By Sri. D. Leelakrishna - Adv. for.iR'.'1=,
Sri. Udaya I-ital? - Advocate General with' " M
Sri. B. Veerappa -- Addl. Govt} Adv.._f?1r.vR.2'iarid, I-{,3
Sri. Arvind Kumar -- Asst. Solicitor G_enerai'~~.--~ fo_r*R--.~4
R.5 - Served) 2 ' I ..
This Writ Appeal-.'_is~vfiledi-und.er:S.e'ctio'nV;4 of the High Court Act
praying to €set_."=asid'e. ,th.e--._"ordAerztiated 7.8.2008 passed in
w.P.No.897:/20,05.:;__ - «.
w.A.No;,5o5;[ "2b:--n8,_
BETWEEN; * A A
1. M/s. .1.S.W.a"Steeis.Limited,"it
A Company incoirporatecl under the
Ce.m°pa_nies»..Act, 19'5'6"'l"iaving its
«i?,egistered_Ol'fjce at '3indal Mansion',
2 :5--"A, _D'epLity"~R,egistrar. G. Deshmukh Marg,
lVi.urnbai-5400 0'26"and works at
A Vidyanagar - 583 275,
"PO"'Jidyarié.9a,f, Toranagallu - 583 275,
District_ .BGllé.i"y,
Rep. by its GPA Holder
Authoifised Signatory Sri. P.K. Vishwanath.
. M/S.";Vl' nagar Minerals Private Limited
"._A"Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its registered
.--Office at 3SW --- Township,
District Bellary,
10
Rep. by its GPA Hoider and
Authorised Signatory Sri. Anil Sood.
. South West Mining Limited,
A Company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956, ~--
having its registered Office at 3
Estate 121, III" Floor, Dickenson Road",
Bangalore-560 O42, ,
Rep. by its GPA Hoider/ "
Authorised Signatory Sri. Anif Soo.d:E. .'
(By Smt. Nalini Chidambaranj -- Senior Advocate with"
Miss S.R. Anuradhav-~.._A:r!v. for .A.ppi'ts_'.»)_
AND
1.
M/s. MSPL Limtéied,' _ 2.
N.C. Coion_v., riosfie_t,'. B*ei£ary- .Dist_rictj,. ,
Rep. by its ExeTcuti'Ve"--D,Erector,' '
Sri. Rahui Nv.VBaE(.i;_o,ta. --
. :f'he State ofiikarnataika,
Rep. by its Secretary, _ _
Department' of Néines-Q v "--
51 &Textii'e.s,A _ ' , " .
Department of_Min.es and Geoiogy,
M.S_.i Buiiding, '
Bafl§'aEore~5f§0 001." ****
. The' D_ireotor"of'I~1.ines & Geology,
" 'Department of'M~i'nes and Geoiogy,
Khanija Brua.\f.fa.r'i,
Race Coo rse,=Road,
BangaEore~560 001.
. 'Uiiion of' India,
Repfby its Secretary,
7Government of India,
Ministry of Coai and Mines,
* »-Department of Mines,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Deihi. RESPONDENTS
.':WFj
11
(By Sri. Krishnan Venugopal -- Senior Advocate with
Sri. M.M. Swamy ~ Adv. for R.1.
Sri. Udaya Holla -- Advocate General with * .V
Sri. B. Veerappa -- Addl. Govt. Adv. for R.2 and R3 " "
Sri. Arvind Kumar ~ Asst. Solicitor General -- for Rfi).
This Writ Appeal is fiied under Sectic--n 4 if ~:'I-Iigli Cc>,uri..A§;ts« E'
praying to set aside the 'orderdated'j;7'..8.'2,008',p..g'ssedf in}
W.P.N0.21608/2005.
W.A.NO.5053[2008
BETWEEN:
M/s. Vir Sponge & Power Limi:red,'_
No.25/604, Oshiwara Lini<way,_7' '
Opp: VSNL Quarters, V
Oshiwara MHADA, Anclheri (W), =
Mumbai -- 400 053, _
Rep. by Proje_ct---~injcl9:laVr_ge'v __ .
Sri. Tanay Ag;arwai".__ . .. APPELLANT
(By Sri. L.iv:,__cn,;aali.ahaax,rv_a~.5"Adv. for Applt.)
AND __ .
V. M/i.S:.'<'Mif5PL 'l-Jfniteidi """ " it
, ':*l.C. C_oiony,'Hospet,
*District--:_ Bella ry,
.Re_pr,esen"l:.ed b.iy-i'ts Executive
'Director Sri..'j_R.ahul N. Baidota,
Aged aV__b'ou.t38 years, Beliary.
The of Karnataka,
, "Represented by its Secretary,
-- _ Dep"artrnent of Commerce and
7.Ind'ustries (SSI, Mines & Textiles),
é./ikasa Soudha, Bangalore.
3. The Director of Mines and
Geology, Department of Mines and
12
Geology, Khanija Bhavan,
Race Course Road,
Bangaiore-560 001.
. Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary, -
Government of India, 1
Ministry of Coal & Mines,
Department of Mines,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
. M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Lim'ited,.,V_
. M/s. Kaiyani Ste'cis:,,'Limited;.
. Sri. M. SriniVVasLiiu,V"«.
P.O. Toranagaliu, SandurzTaiuk.,*"" -A
Bellary District, V --_ --. '
Karnataka, represented by its '
Managing Director. " .
E-Iospet Road,'--.('3ir€i;jgv_e.ra-583 228, T . D
Koppai Taiuk and' Di.i;*:ri,ct",..,'j'--.,_ " »
Represented V 'a'=;t;sn Managirig Director.
S/o. L'ate"Sri.' Veiikatasvyamy', _
Aged about 56 yea'rs,'--
R/o. No.1'6..8/C, 18?" Ward,
3'" Cross, Gan_dhina'gar',
Bei_iary;'. ' '-
' i\ib'atA;ieer'r;A.._i§/iinerals,
. L Ncmi 19.._ Ground. Fioor,
. é."" 'B'"C,ro,ss,..'-_--='
'.20*" Main',1"rjaF",,'eIock,
Kora m_ariga,ia,
Bang.a|"o,re-560 095.
M/.s. \/ibhuthigudda Mines Private i_td.,
'- _ A Company registered under the Companies
Act', having its Office at No.50/356--A,
ii-Iospet Road, Aiiipura, Bellary-04,
--Represented by its Genera: Manager
Sri. D.V. Mahesh Kumar, I
13
Aged: 36 years. .. REsP0§.io_EiyT~s
(By Sri. Krishnan Venugopa|~Senior Advocate -- _\@\iitn--« " :_.
Sri. M.M. Swamy -- Adv. for R.1. "
Sri. Udaya Hoiia ~-- Advocate General ---- ._
Sri. B. Veerappa ~-- Addl. Govt. .Aa»v....for R.2 and j,R.3';
Sri. Arvind Kumar ~ Asst. Solicitor Gen-erei --'-'for R.5$)_ A'
This Writ Appeal is filed under séctic}h._4 of tI'11eHvig"hvCyoLirtVAct
praying to set aside the order dated 7.8'._20Q8..._ypa.ssed --.in
W.P.N0.21608/2005.
W.A.No.5064[ 2008
BETWEEN:
Smt. P. Sarasa Bai_.* V . "
W/o.Sri. R. chand'i'-a..;\ja:k,=:_ __ V
House No.58/6.1,'-.Yoti;th._Vi-iostel P.oad_,» fa V
Cantonment, 3eEIa'r"/rw"--V. ' i.
APPKLLANT
(By Sri. CAni'dva_nayndayy'a:¥..Adv. for Applt.)
. , -, '. V:
1. M/s. MSPL 1_imit'ec2,V
N.C.;_ Coiony, Hospet,
Di-str'ict_:.._ Beiiary, ----------
V Represen'te_d"b.y its Executive
:Di'rector4 Sri_.-Rahul N. Baidota,
.AgediAabo'uVt -years, Beilary.
2. The_ State oiffxiarnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Depaitrnent of Commerce and Industries
(551, Mines & Textiles),
Vikasa Soudha,
'._Bang'a|ore.
3.-T:'f"he Director of Mines and
Geoiogy, Department of Mines and
Geology, Khanija Bhavan,
15
Sri. M.M. Swamy - Adv. for R.1.
Sri. Udaya Hoiia -- Advocate General -- with V
Sri. B. Veerappa -- Addl. Govt. Adv. for R2 and
Sri. Arvind Kumar -- Asst. Solicitor Generai -- for RA").
Miss S.R. Anuradha --- Adv. for R5, R.6 and " .;.
Sri. K.N. Phanindra --- Adv. for Rf)', R.9 --- served) A'
This Writ Appeal is filed under S_ec.t.io__n 4 ofV't'he--:i%iig;i'h'i C_oi.irt_Act.4
praying to set aside the order dated' ,.7"._8.2'OD._E_3'--_Vpassed 3 in
W.P.No.21608/2005.
W.A. No.5065[2008
BETWEEN: V
M/s. Dinesh Mining Compan:y"~Pvt.
No.2, Opp: Devappa Garden; * '
1" Main, Ngasettihalli, -~
Bar19a|ore--56O 095,-. A
Represented by its'i3.i_Vr'e_:ctoii. I 'V :
Sri. M. Pooba|an.7__ _ A .. APPELLANT
(By Sri. mi. (:i+iii'ciA;=;i;riai;'c'i;~a.yy:--i;¥~'Adv. for Applt.)
1. M/s._ MSPL isi'rni_tec',.
N.C.2_ Colony, Hospet,
Diistriict:-.._Beiiary, """
V Re_pr'esented'by its Executive
Dire-ctor. SrE_. "Rahui N. Baidota,
.Ag'edy aibo'ts.t_38A'V'ye'ars, Bellary.
A 2.Th'e__Stat'e' 0iA'}Karnata1<a,
Represented by its Secretary,
Departrnent of Commerce and
"Ir«id.L_istries (SS1, Mines & Textiies),
_ \../i>i<a"sja Soudha, Bangaiore.
V;i1'1e Director of Mines and
Geologvi Department of Mines and
Geoiogy, Khanija Bhavan,
Race Course Road, Banga|ore~56O 001.
A 'V ----Geo!o
17
Sri. B. Veerappa -- Addl. Govt. Adv. for R.2 and
Sri. Arvind Kumar - Asst. Solicitor General -- foHr__R.4'n_2. V
Miss Anuradha -- Adv. for R5, R.6 and R.8 ' " 1- "
Sri. Phanindra -- Adv. for R7.
R.9 -- served)
This Writ Appeal is filed under Eiectioinici of theHigh'v..CoVLggrti'.Act'~..
the order '*.dat%ed'~' 7.8~..2CQ8 gpa'ssed.,. in
praying to set aside
W.P.No.21608/2005.
W.A. N .5066 2008
BETWEEN:
M/s. Deepshika Mining Cornpany .
No.2, Opp: Devappa Garder3_V_:t5'.Mavin, 1, --'
Nagasettihalii, _ _ " ' V. -
Banga|ore--S60 A '
Represented by. its D'ijre_:;tovr4« _ _ .-- " .
Sri. M. Poobalian._("v '
(By Sri. L;M';"Ctiidanantiayyaif-Adv«."for Applt.)
1. M/s. MsP'L._Li"miteci,_ "
N.C.. Colony; ijlospet,
Dis_trict§;. Bei!ary,_ V
R-e_pl:'esé[Anted by itsfixecutive
V ȴ)_irer:torSri."'Rahu| N. Baldota,
.»Agec_i 'a.bo'lu_t'=3,8' years, Beilary.
2. T.h.e=State rnataka,
Re-p_res_ented.l=by its Secretary,
Department of Commerce and
Industrlwes (SS1, Mines & Textiles),
"'.'§:<asa Soudha, Bangalore.
.The"Director of Mines and
Geology, Department of Mines and
Khanija Bhavan,
Race rse Road,
Bangalore-560 O01.
APPELLANT
20
(By Sri. Udaya Holla -- Advocate General with _
Sri. B. Veerappa -- Addl. Govt. Adv. for R.1 aD_C5' R.2._'-. V
Sri. Arvind Kumar - Asst. Solicitor Generai_.+__ for
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 Court'Act"'R_
praying to set aside the order .-dated' 18.2008', pasj;.ed, in; '
W.P.No.21608/2005.
W.A. N0..5077[ 2008
BETWEEN:
M/s. Umiya Holdings Pvt. i..td.,
10756, 10"' Main, 5*" Cross--,._
HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, ' '
Banga|ore»56O 008,
Karnataka State. _ .
Now represented*"oy~G_F'A Hioider A '
Premanana Kama.th,5;j ' ., ,
Aged about 4:4. years'. S .. APPELLANT
(By Sri. K."Shastiikirain?-;She't~ty"*--~ Ad'\}'."ior:App|t.)
1. M/s. MSPiIL_in1ited, _ A
N.C. Colony, "E-iospet',
Dist_irict:< Bellary;
Represse-nterd by its'E'xecutive
'Di_rector Sri. Rahul N. Baidota,
E .Aged_a'b,out,,438gyears.
2. 'Th.e*State l<arnataka,
Re--p__resevnted.'.»'by its Secretary,
Department of Mines, SSI and Textiies,
Department of Commerce and Industries,
"MI.S'. Building,
!3anga£ore--S6O 001.
the Director of Mines and
Geology, Department of Mines and
Geoiogy, Khanija Bhavan, _
Race Course Road,
21
Banga!ore--560 001.
. Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of Coal & Mines,
Department of Mines, Shastri
Bhavan, New Delhi.
. M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steeis Limited,
P.O. Toranagaiiu, SandurTaiuk, _
Bellary District, '
Karnataka, represented by its
Managing Director.
. M/s. Kaiyani Steeis Limvitedig
Hospet Road, Ginigera-583
Koppal Taluk andyDistrict_,... V ._
Represented by its Managing' D;ii'e'CtQ;i'~..V_
. Sri. M. Sriniv.asuEiLi;.
S/o. Late"S--ri. 'wen kazaswamsy,
Aged iabout 56v'yeaVrs,.y " . _'
R/0. N'o.1E=8/C, 18F"=War§3,'rr..__ " _
3"' Cros's,VVG'andhi.nagar,
Beilary. " M '_ I "
. IVE/ysi. 'E\iadeem M.n,¢k:;s,
Nee.-4'19f,-r Ground F|ooi"',"'
6.'? 'B' Cro::s,"2_O"' Main,
. :5"'i3io'c«k,"Koramangala,
yBangaEore:S60V'9~95.
. Vit2h'Lrtit§.igodda Mines Private Ltd.,
A Company registered under the Companies
Act, having its Office at No.60/356--A,
"H¥os_pet Road, Aliipura, BeiIary--04,
-- _ Represented by its General Manager
'I.Sr'i."D.V. Mahesh Kumar,
Aged: 36 years. .. RESPONDENTS
" V(By Sri. Krishnan Venugopal -- Senior Advocate -- with
.4:
22
Sri. M.M. Swamy -- Adv. for R1.
Sri. Udaya Holla -- Advocate General - with
Sri. B. Veerappa ~-- Addl. Govt. Adv. for R.2 and R.3. _ _ .V
Sri. Arvind Kumar -- Asst._ Solicitor General ~-- for R.4*)---- . S ,_ '
Miss S.R. Anuradha -- Adv. for R.5, R6 and R.8
Sri. K.N. Phanindra ~-- Adv. for 131.7)
This Writ Appeai is fifed under s'éEtidn«4 or t.heG:Hiig_h,VC'ourt".Act7, A
'.__dated.,--i'7.'8.2008 "p,a.<_;_sed_r in "
praying to set aside the order
W.P.No.21608/2005.
W.A.No.5145[ 2008
BETWEEN:
Sri. G. Maifikarjuna Babu, ~
S/0. Sri. G. Sanjeevalu,
Aged about 40 years,
R/0. N.M.D.C. Colony,"-_ _,
J.P. Nagar, Hospiet-5f33_,20V1',,
Beiiary District;
(By Sri. }(.N._ Pna'rii.nd.ra:'~: A<1:v';'-f_or.A'pp!t.)
1. M/S, . MSPL l_"imEted.,5
N, Colony, Hospet,
B-el|'ary---iDisvtrict,
, 'Rep. by.,itsE';<_ecutive Director,
=Sri'.i rzahu: N. Baldota,
. Aged 'ab:'os,;t 3%,.-'ea rs.
A 2. State of Karnataka,
Rep. "by. its Secretary,
. Mines,__S*SI & Textiles,
" Department of Commerce & industries,
v.Vik'asa Soudha,
D'r."Ambedkar Veedhi,
;Banga!ore-560 001.
3. The Director of Mines 8: Geoiogy,
Department of Mines and Geology,
APPELLANT
23
Khanija Bhavan,
5"' Floor, Race Course Road,
Bangaiore--560 001.
4. Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary, -
Ministry of Coal and Mines, 1
Shastri Bhavan, " _ , ~
New Delhi - 110 001. _ .. RE;SPONDEiN"i"S
(By Sri. Krishnan Venugopalfizsenior Ad~-v,ocate'.=
with Sri. M. M Swamy - Advifor R.1 ' _
Sri. Udaya Holla wzifidvocaté'Genera|_with '
Sri. B. Veerappa '~--.,A'ddi. -Go\;t.,A':i_v'.,,,fcr R2 and R3
Sri. Arvind Kumar -' 'Asst; Sr3*|i;;:itors-(3enerai -- for R.4)
This Writ Appeal is filed' *a;jde'ri..sect:¢n._gi,"=5i the High Court Act
praying to set"'sa.s_i.de "the: ~o'rd'erA'-da.te_c,ij 7.8.2008 passed in
w.P.No.215os/.2ao5;;jV__.; ~
W.A.No.5146*,f;t2GE'§_
BETWEEN: _ _A A
M/s. Tata Mines, 8: i\'!.ineifa!.s,"'
(A Regd. Parmership Firm.)," ,
No.1235/1, "Lai<s_hmi.Niiay.a",'"
J.P. Ne.gar,»Hospet,
'D V' "Bella-ry':'Di:,5trict. A """ " 'V
Rep. by its .Pa.rtr.a_er APPELLANT
(BySr_i. K_.N. Pb'anindra -- Adv. for Appit.)
- AND
M/s"."_~MSPL Limited,
..i\i;':-'<';A Coiony, Hospet,
i3e||ary District,
~~Rep. by its Executive Director,
Sri. Rahui N. Baiciota,
Aged about 37 years. " =' -
24
2.'"State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Mines, SSI & Textiles,
Department of Commerce & industries,
Vikasa Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-560 001.
3. The Director of Mines 8: Geoiogy,
Department of Mines and Geology,
Khanija Bhavan,
5"' Floor, Race Course Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
4. Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary, ,_ ;
Ministry of Coal and Minésii _ -
Shastri Bhavan, =
New Delhi ~-- 110.901. . - _ .. RESPONDENTS
(By"S'ri.- Kr?-shnaiii "'Jemig*opa! Senior Advocate
{with Sri'.'i~'€._..M"Swa.n'iy,;» Adv. for R1
Srifudaya 'i-.|,'o!!a =-.~_Ac.|__vocate General with
Sri. B. yVeerapp'a-- -- Add'!«."Govt. Adv. for R.2 and R.3
Sri."A_rvind Kumark: Asst. Soiicitor General -- for R.-4)
,,._%.T'hisi'.Writ Appeal is :'.'iied under Section 4 of the High Court Act
;_'A'xV"--prayiing* :_tr.) set asici'e'"the order dated 7.8.2008 passed in
W.'P.._No.216Q3/20,05.
A w._A!.: N91 .'.=:Q " 5 329.03
A BE'i'WEE!__!i':'
-« 'i<.R. Krishna Gowda,
' '*5/'o.' Range Gowda,
'Aged about 55 years,
_ K"a.da'b'aha||i,
Mandya District.
Nagamangala Taiuk,
APPELLANT
25
(By Sri. K. Shashkiran Shetty -- Adv. for Appit.)
AND
1.
" ox
. Union of India, .-it
The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Mines, SS1 and Textiicas,
Department of Commerce and IndUSt:lTieS;:'..( A. 3
MS. Buiiding,
Banga|ore~560 001.
. The Director of Mines and
Geology, Department of__MEnes and
Geology, Khanija Bhavan,'~~._ ' '
Race Course Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
Rep resented bw_,.f'--its"S'e3cretafrfy.
Governmentr..of"-India, " .'
Ministry' of Cyoa-I & Mfi§:'ies','--.,
Department oi'7Min,es«, Si'1aSt.Ifi _ '
Bhavan, New 'DeEi1.i,v..,' M V'
. M/s. }inda"isVija,yanag4ar Steels Ltd.,
P.O, .Toranagai_iLz,w Sandor Taluk,
Beétiary District, Karnatalza,
Represented, by its' iViar1'agEng Director.
. M'/"s Steeis Ltd.,
Hcspet fRoad,'G5~nigera 583 228,
" §<o'ppa| Ta-iL:1<,& District,
Re_presentei:i by its Managing Director
. Sri. |Vi._,NSrinivasaiu,
" S/.0. Late Sri Venkataswamy,
.Agé_d about 56 years,
R'/'o'. No.168/C, 18"' Ward,
3"" Cross, Gandhinagar,
BeIIary--4.
M/s. Nadeem Minerals,
27
AND
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Mines, SSI and Textiiesp - y .
Department of Commerce and Indus::ries,_ ' "
Vikas Soudha,
Bangaiore--560 001.
2. The Commissioner of Mines 8: Ge'o,io'gy,
Department of Mines 8: Geology,
Khanija Bhavan, _
Race Course Road, '
B.g._,ngaiore--560 001.
3. Union of India, _ _ , V'
Represented by its Secreta ry, ~
Govt. of India,-. if ~. W _V _ .
Ministry of'Co¢:i=&'Ii?i'ines,'---.).,,,, A
Department..of»~M:ines, «-
Shastri' Bhavar-5"}, A R'
New ;'._)eihi._ '
4. M/s. Kaiyani Steeis i._imi't*e.c_:,"~.
Hospet Roayd} _ A . I
Ginigera -- 583 228., .
Koppal Taluq 8: District,
Re__prese,nted by its" iiiii
pM_ariag'ii1g Director.
A irli/sdvindaviivV'ija.y:anagar Steels Ltd.,
"To'i*anga|iL",jP.G., Sandur Taluq,
i3e|__|a ry . Dfistfiict,
Represented by its
Managing Director. .. RESPONDENTS
"(By Sri. Udaya Hoiia - Adv.General with
' Sri. B. Veerappa - Addi. Govt. Adv. - for Respts. 1 and 2
Sri. Arvind Kumar -- Asst. Soiicitor Generai - for R.3
Miss S.R. Anuradha - Adv. for R.4 and R.5)
"x
28
This Writ Appeai is filed under Section 4 of the High ___Court Act
praying for issue of mandamus, order or direction to "the 15'
respondent to grant mining lease to the appeilant company; and'-ietc.
W.A.NQ.5085( 2008
BETWEEN:
M/s, Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., 1
By its Managing Director,
Behinhalli Village,
P.O. Hitnal-583 234, ' _ . -V
Koppal Taluk and District. .. ._ "=A_F'-PELLANT
(By Sri. Jagdish Patil --~ Adv; for Ap.p'it.)A
AND
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Secretairi/, 2: A '
Departmentofv.Mines-;_ SS1' 8: T_exti_i'e£-I. v
Department of_.Comrn'erce'=8g'-.Industrie,s,'=
M.S. Building,Bara;gga|oi'e4'56C G91.
2. The Direi."to'r of Mi.nes.fand"Geol'ogy,
Departmem; of Mines and Geology,
Khan.i_ia Bhavan, Race Course Road,
Bangaioire-S60 'G{i_1. V
3'. Llynso.-i c$f.i1.zdi'a.,_
Rep. _b'y._it's Seycreta ry,
Csovern-nflent ofalridia,
'Ministry of-Coal and Mines,
De-partmentyof Mines,
Shastrivfihavan,
New oeihi. .. RESPONDENTS
('By Miss S.R. Anuradha -- Adv. for R.6.
" Sri. Udaya Hoila -- Adv. General with
Sri. B. Veerappa ---- Addl. Govt. Adv. - for R.1 and 12.2
Sri. Arvind Kumar - Asst. Solicitor Genera! - for R.3
Sri. Krishnan Venugopai --~ Senior Advocate with
Sri. M.M. Swamy -- Adv. for R.4)
29
This Writ Appeai is filed under Section 4 of Act
praying to set aside directions contained in the order§'dateci~~?.E-3;;2._0{)_8
passed in W.P.No.21608/2005; and etc. " " A. V
W.A.Ng.888[2009 -
BETWEEN:
M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons,
A Registered Partnership Firm,
"Prashanti Nivas', Krishnanagar, _
Sandur -- 583 119, Beiiary District,«"' v
Rep. by its Partner Mr. Visiiwéiks Lad. , APPELLANT
(By Sri. K.N.Phanindra - Ady_.f;'or.,AppVit.») h' A A
AND
1. M/S. MSPLiLim.it'ed, , "
N.R. Coionyv,.,H0s1p_.et,
Beiiari/"i3"istriéi;. 'ii:
Rep. by its E'x'ei:utiv'e.yDireCtQr,_ _'
Sri. Rahui N. 'Baiticit-a, "
Aged about 37 yea'rs,.<
2. State of Kar'natak'a,.'--
Reps. byits Secretary,
" _ Mines, .551 »& Textii'e'S,"" "
1 'Department bf Commerce 8: Industries,
vvikas Spyudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
A .Es~ajrigaiore:,56oV-9-01.
A 3. Dir_ect0r}oAf Mines & Geoiogy,
Department of Mines and Geoiogy,
Khani}aV__Bhavan, 5"' Floor,
"Race Course Road,
i!3_arigaiore----56O 001.
The Union of India,
~7Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Coai and Mines,
Shastri Bhavan,
30
New Deihi -- 110 001. .. REsPo{saoVf.«:i;|4*i's
(By Sri. Udaya Holla -- Advocate General with_.fW"*» in 3
Sri. B. Veerappa - Addl. Govt. Adv. for R.2 --and R3
Sri. Arvind Kumar - Asst. Solicitor Genera!»,--_T'o,r R..4)._
Tnis Writ Appeai is filed under Section 4 of the i.¥_.':|i'g--ij1v..VVCfoiJhrtV'Vi°\ct
praying to set aside the order 'vdatie'd'~'i7.8._200.8 «p»a"ssedf: in
W.P.NO.2l608/2005. . V' '
W.A.No.6087[2009
BETWEEN:
Sri. Iqbal Baig,
S/o. Sri. Usman Baig,
Aged about 34 years, .
R/0. No.71?'/2, 1;9'"\A[ard,
Mehboob Nagar, '-Hos'pet;_, ~
Bellary District. 4'
APPELLANT
(By Sri. K.'N'.Pha:rfi,ndraf1-1+"Adv,.&"for Ap"pit.')
1. M/s. MsPi...§.inn.ited,_ "
N.R.. Colony', Ijiospet,
Bei_§!'aryi'District," , V
_ Rap; izgy, its. Executiv'e"'Director,
, 'Sari. Ranui .N}zBaEdota,
Aged 'a.:;ciat"ir3,7 years.
2. State of Kat-_"Iataka,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Mines,"SSI & Textiles,
Department of Commerce & Industries,
" 'a'i3~;as Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
xE_5an_ga|ore-560 001.
A "fhe Director of Mines & Geoiogy,
Department of Mines and Geology,
Khanija Bhavan, 5"' Floor, -
Race Course Road,
31
Bangaiore-560 001.
4. Union of India,
W.A.No.6086 200;
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Coai and Mines,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Deihi -- 110 001.
(By Sri. Udaya Hoila -- Advocate Generai witinfi '
Sri. B. Veerappa -- Addi."C_§o-wt. Adv.» for RS2 ,and.'R..3,,
Sri. Arvind Kumar -- Asst. Soliicitor General. fo'r.»R.4)
This Writ Appeal Esvfiied under Section 4 oftrie Hiigh Court Act
praying to set aside the] order, cfated"._7.8.2008 passed in
W.P.N0.21608/2005. * V
BETWEEN:
Sri. E-LG. Ranga'ng:ou1§..,,y
S/o. i_ate~'H.'R.*-Gyaiyiappfin
Aged about 65. yea.rs,.,V
Nehru Court Officer-op"e..rat.iye=Co':ony,
Hospet, Beiiary District.--.. < "
(By Sri..-K. Shashi_kiranFSh'etty"E? Adv. for Applt.)
V. "A.ND~->,,.,\'~ A. H ..... .. V
=54'/sw. _ Mvs:§L.:;ir;"1ited,
. i\.'5'._C. Colony, .IF1c.~s'pet,
" ~"Vikas Soudha,
Beiiiary District, Rep. by its Executive Director,
Sri. Rahu!.N~; Baldota,
Aged. about 38 years.
E V' A'Thce_.State of Ka rnataka,
* _ Rep.}by its Secretary,
'¥.Dep'artment of Commerce & Industries,
ESSI, Mines & Textiles)
Bangaiore.
gijwl 'j§;';..,
0 . APPSLIJLRT
32
.The Director of Mines 8: Geology,
Department of Mines and Geology,
Khanija Bhavan,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore--S6O O01.
. Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of Coal and Mines,
Department of Mines,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi ---- 3.10 001.
P.O. Toranagaliu_,'VSandu,r'Ta'iuk, '
Bellary District,'i{arrn'ataLt_a,g '
Representedby Ma nag?ng~ _Directer G
. M/s. Kalyani'V.Steeis i_irr:i'tedx,"~VG.' .. it
Hospet 'P;oa:.--d, 'Ginige;ra--S'83"--228,'
Koppail Taluk 'and ,DistrEct, _'
Represvented i::y_itsjrMarieargVi'ng Director.
. Sri. M. Srimyawlu", _
S/o.' Late Srli'. \[enka'tas'wan'i.y,
Aged about 56 ye-_ars, V
R;!io."'No---468/C, 18""'i:'u'a'rd, 3"' Cross,
'Gandhinagar,,.l3eiiary.
A .V|\'i,/'s. .Min'erals,
No."43.9, Gro'un'tl Floor,
6"'-QB' (r_.'.ros_s,§2'20"' Main,
6"' Biock, Koramangala,
Bangal.o__re~S60 095.
M_/sfvibhutigudda Mines Private Ltd.,
T.A"Company registered under the
Companies Act, having its Office at
V»-No.60/3S6~A, Hospet Road,
Aliipura, BeEiary--O4, represented
by its General Manager Sri. D.V.
. M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar SteeGis._rLirn_itۤd,
33
Mahesh Kumar, Aged: 36 years. .. REsPoN.oei,i_Ts_
(By Sri. Udaya Hoila ---- Advocate Generai «_
Sri. B. Veerappa «-- Addl. Govt. Adv. for R2 and FL3 " .
Sri. Arvind Kumar -- Asst. Solicitor Genera.!..:--__'r'or P..,v4)._ "
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 {if the ,l_-uIi'g.|:]v,VV(v:'i,r_V)'i_V1Vr|;V'V,'!\g_-1;
praying to set aside the order "'=date'dr~'C7.8._20O.8 'p.a'"ss.ed]: in
W.P.No.21608/2005. . " '
W.A.No.6012[ 2009
Kundil Ispat Limited, _
A Pubiic Limited Company,
Registered under the Indian ' '
Companies Act, 1956,
Represented by its _Dir,ector"
S.C. Baruah, ' 2:
Having its Regi.stereci;jQ{_fice'at 2
Gogolvoril moi? Kh,andep'a.r,, ,
Opp. Hindustara..Fo-51:11.5, Usga--on',T ~
Ponda--Go'a "i3'ir=.. .CEjede-4i1340'Z?,
Having its Plant Office at: " . _'
Londa Belgaum.' ' l .. APPELLANT
(By Sri. 1..M."ciqida}ne}.de'y.ya Qpidv. for Applt.)
AND" it
M/_?:§. Mséi. Limited,
rN C"o.l,ony','iiljiospet,
.oistri'ct-: f~e,eiiaj'ry.,~'
P.epresentad_ by its Executive
Di';-'ecto_r~Sriv Rahul N. Baldota,
Aged about 38 years, Beliary.
. 'The, State of Karnataka,
_ Represented by its Secretary,
''.Department of Commerce &
iindustries (SSI;?~M§_es &
A -Textiles), Vikasa Soudha,
Bangaiore.
34
. The Director of Mines and Geoiogy,
Department of Mines and Geology,
Khanija Bhavan,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore.
. Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Government of India, _, _
Ministry of Coal & Mines, 7
Department of Mines,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
. M/s. Sindai Vijayanagar
Steels Limited, _
P.O. Toranagaliu, Sa%ndur.Taiuk,,,.------ _ "
Bellary District, v _ 'V
Karnataka, Represented by
its Managing Director. D
. M/s. Kaiyani'isteeiié,,Limited,A"'Vi-A ~- it
Hospetvm:sad,,t;inig'éi;-a----5'e3228, "
KoppaiiTa|u_i< and p . _'
District, re'presentedi.by'-its'-.__ " _
Managin'guD'irect'or. ' '
. Sri. M.,,sranivas_uIu,..'.'--
S/o._%_ Late Sri. Venkataswamy,
Aged'ai3outi»i.56 years, ""
R,/_o. No. 1,68/c,.. 18"' Ward,
V 3"' Cross,'G,a'ndh-E.nagar,
.Beii_aFY'A'v
. MA/'s..__ Nad>ee.rr§~i'ii/iinerais,
No.419," Ground Fioor,
6"' 'B"'Cross, 20"' Main,
6'i"i.BIock, Koramangala,
Bangaiore~S60 095.
. 'M/s. Vibhutigudcia Mines
Private i.td., A company registered
under the Companies Act, having its
Office at No.60/3S6-A,
35
Hospet Road, Allipura,
Bellary ---- O4, represented
By its General Manager
Sri. D.V. Mahesh Kumar,
Aged: 36 years. .. RESP(jNi1§E.N*§S
(By Sri. Basavaraj Kareddy ~-- Govt. Adv. for R.2 and R3) C '
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 o'f"t'he--:'if::g'h' cour:_A'c't_
praying to set aside the order dated' . 7'«._8.2'O-0.__8'-ggpyassed Y in;__
W.P.N0.21608/2005.
These writ appeals having-..__been7._heard a.and'v:rveser:§ved .for
judgment, coming on for pronouncement vofVj,udgrn'ent""this day,
Hon'ble the Chief Justice pronouncedithe followinggéi "
TheAao:we_::"oatc.h""of writ appeals are directed against
the order 'dated made in writ petition |\fo.21608
of 2005," raising 'the"fo|lo'wing core issues for our consideration:
.o(i)--v._VWheth_er it is proper for this Court to exercise
it plovyer ofjudicial review under Article 226 of
v_ - ~t:h4eAConstitution of India to adjudicate on the
policy decision with respect to substantial
C development of the State and quash the
notification made under Rule 59(1) of the
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'MC
g V
36
Rules') notifying the area available for
iron ore?
(ii) Whether the applicationkfor
lease for an area, without a'_:dnoti'fi_cat'io»ri J
Rule 59(1) of the MC Rultesfiéso notifyivng
said area as avai|_a'e.l.e for V:ni§.nin;3:; Be i
considered for grantikoif mining ._Vt|ea:seV';under
Section 11(2)~,_offthe{iii-1iV'nie_s anld" Minerals
(Development 1957, (for
short .'--MMDl?;"'Act') V"as»,_ :'.va'oplication is
aha 'tieventertained as per
P;uVIe:,.E.u"'o'f5the"--!$§-C"'R.:,iv'les;f_1960 :2 and
(iii) iiii lease in consideration
of Rules falls outside the
pauVr\/_i'ew.of t'he"rriatters specified under Section
Llx'-11(3) of"t'hevMMDR Act?
_ A K!) s P F TH s
'.""2.1";fiT'ri'e factual matrix of the case which led the first
'«V"flVrVespondeVnt herein (writ petitioner) to file Writ Petition No.21608
is as hereunder:
37
2.2. The first respondent herein (writ petitioner), is a
public limited company, registered under the
1956. It has industries in mining, power generation
conventional energy sources and,"i"nd'ustri'a| gases. ,"--:1=t alsoi'. it
proposes to set up an iron and steei.ple_nAt'. it
application on 24*" May, Direictor ahci
Geology for grant of miriing le,aseV:..o;f-- ore'o'v=er-'an extent of
298.5 hectares, in Eddinpada', as Kumaraswamy
Ra nge Fo rest, Sand ur
sa:if'd"e$<*teiit o'f"'ia'n'd viz., 298.5 hectares was
previously held' lease by M/s. Sandur Manganese
and Eron (V)xre,%LtdV'[here:iriia'Fter referred to as 'SMIORE'] since
._.'l95Qg_'é.nd__fthereafter,stirrendered to the State.
-V2.4..."AsV*per--.Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules, no area, which was
previously' h'e--ld,',1=or which is being held under a reconnaissance
[permit .,o'"r',aV prospecting licence or a mining lease, shall be
A {ax/aiil'a.;l;>|e for grant, unless-
38
(i) an entry to that effect is made in the Register
under Rule 7D(2), 21(2) and 40(2) of tjhefi/.iC,,,'
Rules, and "
(ii) the availability of th_e..,,a_rea _--'f'¢5r".:ig:fa'i1tV".is 2"
notified in the officiail gazetéte, asl'-pr'oVvid_ec.i,e.'
under Rule 59(1) ofthe MC._Ru--i.es. 2 2 " M
2.5. However, Rule e.n":powers S Central
Government to relax the" pxrovisi'o'nsVe_:cfxRu_|e 5§}(1') for reasons to
be recorded in writing, in
2.6. The,Sta«te'iGovernrhen't.,é:'th_ere_foTre, by its letter dated
30"' Aug'ust,"2.:(.}iT€)»1'..;;,(:2fi feceipt request made by the first
respondent ..hereiVn':"":(W2I*il:.4.:lV22'i'3l§t~itioneF) dated 24"' May 2001,
requested the~VCe:itral G-Qvernment to relax the conditions set out
«in .':E9.:(1). of the 'Rules in favour of the first respondent herein
"peti-tionéeri,"exercising the powers under Rule 59(2) of the
R'ule5«.A l * 2
2;"/v"'.":. When the said recommendation was under
":2_cons2i"deration of the Central Government, one Zia Ulla Shariff,
was also an applicant for grant of mining lease over a part
ulélxof the same area, he. 298.5 hectares, in Kid
a raswa my Range
39
Forest in Sandur Taiuk, filed W.P. I\£o.3S91S of 2001. ibiefoite this
Court, seeking for a declaration that he is enti_t.!-aid"for.j',:'g..ra:1.t'of
mining lease in his favour. In the said writ Petition ,i§io.3591s'oi=,""*--..
2001, Zia Ulla Shariff impleaded the-.firs_trespicniderit 'h'ejre_ine-writ
petitioner) as well as the UnionV0f.._VIndia'~as' respo:n'd.ein.tVsV.V V
2.8. However, the Centrvatg"(3overnrnent,--V-ibyfletter dated
21*" December 2001, ret:u~.;rned_«"Va'l'l. progposalsiiipevnding before
it, including the application'i~tE_led"l5v the"iiiji_*st'_'..respondent herein
(writ petitioner;',to_,ti--1e fitate-iCoV'e:rnnw»e.llfftor resubmitting them
after undertiaékirr-gv_,,aV.'i€1e.g'io.f,ia'l"'Enviironinent Impact Assessment
based on the2ca'rrying.:ca.p'a--cEty of the region and the likely
impact of par.ticL.ilar mVi'n_ing:."i'ease on the area.
On 13A'tV""i'r-*i--a--\,i,' 2002, SMIORE filed a revision petition
.V,be~fVo"re _ti'1¢'~C,ein:t'r'al Government under Rule 54 of the MC Rules
cha.llénging'.v'ther:'proposal of the State Government dated 303'
_ ',August,.
it '~ Whiie the said revision petition was pending, SMIORE
filed writ petition No.22767 of 2002 before this court
idseeking a mandamus to the Central Government to consider its
40
revision petition. But the Central Government rejei:.te':l the
revision petition filed by SMIORE on 29"' J_t:-!3v,"'i2Vf1'§i3',*',._ai1d
therefore, the writ petition No.2276_7,,o_f 2oo2ii*ri--ieje,b«; s,M:_oRiE
was also dismissecgon 4"' February, ?,OOg4'a.s' inifructifiious;-sc.,,.
2.3.1. In the meanwhile,_:the issued
notification on 15"' March, 2Q9§,g'vwh.igeh .i's"'im,pu.gned in the
present writ petition,"notify_iitg Riareas available for
grant of miningieaseiofl'ironV_:oi§e_Vti.n.derV"'itu|e 59(1) of the
MC Rules, the Vtolalbove viz., an extent of
298.5 hecta_re~sE"irt:;,,:A_Edd_ijno:a'da,_,::,l(urnaraswamy Range Forest,
Sandur i'i7alul<;, ''
2_.3.2.'l"Th'e_fi-rst*--._lrespondent herein (writ petitioner),
"'~t_here_i'ore,_:appliedxfovr----mining lease of the said area, viz. 298.5
,'Ed:di~npada, Kumaraswamy Range Forest, Sandur
Taitii§','i«Be.l|.arv..i)i§trict, of course, registering its objection for
'w.i'nciud'iri.gt'the said area in the Notification dated 15"' March,
A the State Government had already recommended to
"ithle Central Govegfrnment to relax the procedure contemplated
41
under Rule 59(1), by exercising the power under of
the MC Rules.
2.13. Rule 26 of the MC___R.u_|_es 11reg0i}es"i'0th'e,V state"-
Government to give an opportunityiof hieardjllanldwitog record
the reasons in writing andV'V_cornmu'n.icate' tlfieAVv{sa..me:'3
refusing to grant or renew whole or
part of the area applied"'<-iéti'r,A Director of Mines
and Geology, by,proceed--in.gsa 2003, gave an
opportunity Qf'__.'l1e:ard:i_t_oV théelfilrlsvti"respondent herein (writ
petitioner) MC Rules. The first
responde,nt*herein'lftvjrita.vpe.t_iti'oner) appeared before the Director
of Mines ahagCeeiegy.,_on.:f15'=*' August, 2003 and also made a
.,.,.Adetailed'vvrepresentation'. dated 16*" August, 2003 staking its
":_claimV. 2 A'
Ijnlthe said representation dated 16"' August,
12003," '.ch'e,fi.rst respondent herein (writ petitioner) represented
V' V'
(i) it has forty years of experience in exploration of
mining and marketing of minerals, viz. iron ore;
42
(ii) it is interested in banking, industrial gases,
power generation, industrial financing, etc,
is successfully running these businesses'*with"p_
vast investible resources;
(iii) it contributes more than__Rs,3OO _-i'ak'h*ip_e.rV"ye'ar
to the State Exchequer by waiygoff Rox/a,l't'y;"
(iv) it earned foreign e>rcha.ngeV"to_ the V)
35 million in the year'V'2Q(Ci»3; V S V'
(V) it has safe practices; and
is the winner of numerous the State
Goverriirnent and'Cehtra'l.:'G.overn.n9ient;
(vai) it _ernp'loyees and advisors in
ex_ploratior:.airidimining operation; and
(vii) it requires the irhpugned mine for their captive
1 .__,(V'c9nsu'Erup?.:£o;vz for the steel plant which it
iisproposes to set up.
the first respondent herein (writ petitioner)
igsatisties thaehrhatters specified under Section 11(3) of the MMDR
"(Actiiv_iz.,Nspecia| knowledge, financial resources, technically
-.l,'_-qu-allifiled staff etc., and Section 11(5) empowers the State
Gox/errimerit, for any special reasons to be recorded, to grant
43
reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as
the case may be, to an applicant whose application wasfreceived
later in preference to an applicant whose appi'4i'caVtio'n"'«-iyas
received earlier, of course, with the prior approvallofjgtohe Centrai.
Government, in respect of the mines"speycifiedgiiri the
Schedule, the first respondent hereiri2(w'ifiVt pet»itvi_one.r)'. r'eAe'u.eVsteVd
the State Government to exercise-igthey.power under
Section 11(5) of the MMD3 Acti"to=Sgi-aVn't_the "l'l'il'i'iil'igV: lease in its
favour for the reasons stated, al5e.v7e,"
State Govern'ment't_'he Director to hear the applicants
as requiredxistnderfl of the MC Rules; and thus the
.-v.."Directt3_rvV'of 'lViinesV.a__nd, Geology, by proceedings dated 18"'
A"x_VNov'er_ni:e'_r,«.,2.ti(3v3_, required the first respondent herein (writ
p'etixtioneVr)'%.i;j0. "ahpspear and represent in person regarding its
--Vapplicatidnfforffmining lease of the area applied for.
"-11.16. While 50, the writ petition filed by Zia Ulla Shariff,
\
No.35915 of 2001, in which the first respondent herein
/..
z;'::i?:_'-i f.
\
t{,_...,,_
44
(writ petitioner) was also a party respondent, was disvposed of by
order dated 29"' March, 2004 as hereunder:
"9. In View of the subsequent notification. issuéed
by State Government dated 15.3.2003'not.ifying=.tha.t' f
'area is available for grant', the Si';a_te'-Governmerit is htqizy "
éfi; expected not only to consider, the A'applicationsQpendlhg
before it and also the applications that ('may be filed
pursuant to the aforesaid no'tltic_ai;'on"notwithstanding the
earlier recommendation' made th'e;'se:cu--nd respondent."
2.17. Pursuant_ to tih'é"se}id 'o.-ije_r_ dat.-,§d,,'--29'" March, 2004 in
writ petition,.N'o';v3_S§:I_S of:,:2__C.)i0.,1, t'he',»first"respondent herein (writ
petitione'r)Ww'asiifagait};'(directed t'o"apVpear before the Director on
315' Mai/,'.,2'0.04 and:..t~h,e'vfirs-tjibrespondent herein (writ petitioner)
thus appeared on.,3,15E=,i\bila~*/bib 2004 before the Director and filed
«.aAnothjt--:~r re:presentati'o--n--«dated 315' May, 2004, similar to the one
bl'-:da.teTci" v16'i,,'Azig[§st,., 2003.
it there were more than one applications for the
T"-.l.._'s,ame a're_a~, an opportunity was given to all the applicants to
'repres'ent before the Hon'b|e Chief Minister on 12"' October,
45
2.18.2. The first reppondent herein (writ petitioner)
appeared before the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 12"' O_c;to_:be'r~,._2004
and made a representation dated 12"' October,
to the reasons stated in the earlierreprese--i"1tavt.i'o*ns"clated__li6"l'
August, 2003 and 31" May, 2004 :;;_tal<_iAng3itscltailrn'over =2,f}3.5"n~--
hectares in Eddinpada, Kum.3'ra.swan4§=,r,_'RangeV":M'F,ore'st,Sand:u;r
Taluk, Bellary District applied forlvmining pf iron ore,
claiming that--- A . it i
(E) it is willing Ito»final<*e,g;r§ore,,."'i'n'vestments in
Ka rri'ata§,:a'V S.t:ate?vdesp'ite fa"v'--ourab|e conditions
lTa:fnil,Vn:a.du,.;.Mavha_rash'tra, Orfssa and Andhra
_(_ii__) it hm; developed" the best iron ore mine in the
State b"y«d._e.p!oying the best practice;
V * "{i,ii")~v.,_'th,e=pre-sources available in the existing area
V'<«:'"oul'AC-Vlnot support its future investment plan in
'tE~':e' State;
it * it proposes to invest Rs.1000 Crore in a one
million MT spe"'cia|ty steel plant in the State;
(v) it also proposes to invest a five million MT
integrated steel plant in the State over a span
..........
46
of five years for Rs.10,000 Crore and th'e.,Vsaid.,_ project could be undertaken only if assured by granting of mining lease -- it
(vi) it proposes to invest "':CroreVf--o,r conventional energ'y'«-..genera.tion ii*f¥jtvhe..,_,,ne.Xt three yea rs;
(vii) it proposes --i_Vnves,t Crore for generating of 160 power in the next_si.>:<A' m_ont;_hs;yi '
(viii) ore from the mining 'a.p°p,li'ed"'--for'the"'~p--roposed steel plant as captive'foon$uri1pt'ion, which would result in " value 'addIti,on:_'in__':ti:é State; and _§;i><),.,its case,' therefore would be considered under "vsections "1"1'(3) and 11(5) of the MMDR Act the mining lease for the special '' ' iufeasonis mentioned above.
'Vin continuation of the said hearings and in "..jcorn'ip-!.i.anc'e of Rule 26(1) of the MC Rules, the Government, by '-«i.'-'proceedings dated 6" December,2004, impugned herein, after "'«.:eVx"amining the merits oifiall the applicants in accordance with .-/ 47 Section 11 of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC _R'U.IE«S_.'~found two appiicants, viz. the appeiiants herein in the writ petition) i.e. M/s. Jindai;,Vij_ayanag'a"r.::Ste'e!s"Lim:ited:"'~ (JSVL) and M/s. Kalyani Steeis Linwvittedgftoi'iéliif-i--fO'D.rfi:s'te for grant of mining iease oveVrV_'a-n_are'a-of 2Q0'."7'3.j._'he.cHta'res 179.70 hectares respectiveiy years and requested the approval Voftfae under Section 5(1) of the MMDR.Act. i 2 V' V 3.2. The §c.a:Vrde&;::fr'i't."ate'tJ 6::Fh.:V:DQ#F§:¥'Ti'b'émm20O4 reads hereunder: " v .5 _ It7'§.'fVGo:VE}§rJMEzii*r'oF KARNA TAKA No."C.'I/1.11/MMM,'.20.04 Karnataka Government Secretariat V. i ' ' M.S. Building Bangalore, dt.6. 12.2004 .. _ A ' V. ., isecretarif-to Government T " { Mines,.. SS1 'Sf Textiles) ._ Co'mn:=erce_'a-2nd Industries Department A V 'Banga'iore.# 560 001
-«-r-
rot' A' ' ._The Secretary to Government of India . _ Ministry of Coal and Mines ' 'Departments of Mines Shastri Bha van New Defhi Sir, 48 Sub: Mining lease applications filed by M/s. 0 0 Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Limited and _ '~ M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited in Kumaraj' » swamy range of Sandur Taluk of .
Bellary District.
With reference to the abot-'e"'sub_1'ect, I am'-directed to state that in Notification No;.CI 1.60 h.=MM f'2,oa3'--.-med... f 15.3.2003, certain "held/surrené!ered"" areas '(in wh_ich_ sufflcient ore reserves are _availa'blej~ werenotitied i'or'< information of mining-interested public that th_e~--.sarne were available for grant of mining lease under: Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules,"-196.0. In response to this notification, 11.1 applicationsa-.were received in respect of Si. No.1 ofiiihe 'said .notification. All the ap'plications..f--were, "examined in accordance with Se-c;11 of-7 Mines & Minerals (Development_ 8: Regulatio-n)f,Act,,1957, and Rule 35 of Mineral-Concessions R:I,les,'=,1960. All other aspects of scrutiny 'i'fi<e_.arrears of royalty, _ietc., if any, limitation of areab'tiiat,'c;an b7i:<'lea'sed- to ariapplicant were also looked into. _ The..'vHon«?ble..,nCh__ief Minister, who is also in charge Minister '-for, Mines heard the applicants under 'Rule»._2é3('1)"-of*Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 "cni2,5.1o.2~004._.and 4.11.2004. A copy of the entire proceedings 'of the hearing taken by the , ..il-lon~'ble Chief Minister is enclosed for reference. if Based on the above hearing and after examination ~ "of"o.the.l'*provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and .R*e,gu.la'tion) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, "'1960,'thj_e.lollowing two applications are found to be most __approp.ri3te: -
" ._(__t) M/s. Jindal Vijiayanagar Steels Limited --- for grant of mining lease over an area of 200.73 hectares of iron ore; and (2) M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited -- over an area of 179. 70 hectares.
49 (*Application for mining lease is filed in thevna'me~._ of M/s. Kalyani Ferrous Industries Limited. In tlleir letter " dated 28.5.2004, they have intimated that_.§_the Court, Mumbai, vide order dated 15.1.2004,~-_has« permitted Kalyani Ferrous Industries Limited merge V 0 with M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited----.witn effect frorin 5.2.2004. Hence, mining lease recom_mended"in'favourgof, M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited. A "copy or' the High Court_ order is also enclosed) Both these compan'ies'=have their own steel plants and at the time of'-setting up._their% steel plants, the Government haiimadea-a commitment of giving mining leasesfto ;meet their "requirements of raw material i.e. iron_7ore,_7' ,Copies"of"the orders are also enclosed for readygreference. * " * . The! application fee' and ' p"re.lirninary charges of Rs.3,50_0--.V00 (l?s._l,00,0_+* Rs. .2500) have been credited to Governrnen.t"a,ccoun.t both,the=_applicants. The applied area for mining falls under 'forest area. The' -i:3ppiica'nt"'-companies have to submit Mining, Plan ~dzily~,,approved by Indian Bureau of Mines, Conse.nt'»of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, clearan_cev..._ from Karnataka Forest Department' ia'nd'- Environmental Certificate from ..«Ministry ofmfinvironment and Forests, Government
-- of India, 0'*»,_l'The..,_following documents are enclosed for sanction of niining lease in favour of two applications as above. ' ( 0 Mining lease applications dated 16.4.2003 . (ii) Income tax clearance certificate " (iii) Sketch showing the area recommended. In view of the above, it is requested to obtain and communicate the approval of Government of India as per Sec.5(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 for the grant of mining leases in favour of M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Limited for over an area of < I 50
200. 73 hectares and M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited' (M/s. Kalyani Ferrous Industries Limited) for over an area of 179.70 hectares in Kumaraswanjryflange _.__ of Sandur Taluk of Bellary District for a period.pf'20 _ " years each respectively as per the sketch_e'n.close~cl. Yours faithl'u.lly"._ -I' (K:l\i.' ..rishna_ lirlurthygl 0 0' 2 _. Addl. Secretaryto Governm--ent_.( Mines) Department of Commerce al.*d_ln'dustri'es" 3.3. The details ofzV:."cor§.sid;erat'ioniilangd evaluation of the inter se merits of the appiicatior1'sirna*de.' the first respondent herein (writ peti.riori-er) herein(respon'dents No.4 and 5 ;:e_ti_ti0.n),-._<'uhjderSlection 11 of the MMRD Act and Ruie 3V57.o'f_the' .VECxiF!.lL1!.e:s;l-- asfwleighed in the proceedings dated 655 Deciernber, hereunder:
"No.'CJ_. 1 11 . ' ' The 'Sandur "Manganese and Iron Ore Limited, fCC~'.andurevg held "avumining lease over an extent of 29.20 _ ""Sq.'Miles for Manganese and Iron ore for a period of 20 _ ..yea.rs~f'mVmv 01.01.1954. At the time of renewal in the yea.r"«._19721,V_,.~the lease was renewed for only 18.20
-- '-sq.m'iles--,._ "the balance of area being mostly Iron ore was A delevtedifor reservation for Public sector mining in terms "of Government of India letter No.7(57):73.M. VI dated 19.311973. Out of 18.20 Sq.Miles, an area of 770.00 . hectares was left with M/s. the Sandur Manganese and V "Iron Ore Limited and the balance of area was taken over
-by the Government. Some individuals and Companies were applying for grant of mining lease in the surrendered area. The State Government also sent recommendations to Government of India for grant of Mining lease by relaxation of Rule 59(1) of MCR, 1960 as /" \§ 52 Minister of Karnataka on 12"' October, 2004 at 4.00 pim. to make presentation for sanction of mining lease in. tr'a.eir_V favour. Due to unavoidable circumstances the hea.'*ing could not be held on that day and was adjourned*to,V'~1 ;_ October 2004. Again on 16"', the proposed hearing.co'ul'o' _ " not be held due to unforeseen circumstances.'-.fThe applicants were again issued notice. to appear: 'before' the Hon 'bie Chief Minister on 25*" October,' 2004 at 4,00. p_.m.' Again a hearing notice was issuedor; 29.10._2004"ito"'i(_' such of those applicants who1__did not attend the; ' hearing on 25"' October,'i20__O4 toattend hthhegh-earin%g on 4.11.2004 at 11.30 '.--a_.i.'n. The Honvfblev Chief Minister heard the applicants_ who" attendegl the hearing in person.
On 12.10.2004, the h--eai?in.g was adjourned. Out of 111 applicants, 85 applicants' atten.dedj~the hearing and 75 applicants gave,tiieirfwritten representations. On 16.10.2004,'a_tiie hearing wasjagaine' adjourned, 72 applicants attended, '9 ap_olicants'"submitted their written' representations... The hearing was held on 25.10.2004, 76 ' applicants attended and 27 applicants sdbm-itted'«their---written representations.
A 1 Out ' applications, 55 are companies/firms a'nd_;3O are individuals. out of 1 11 applications, _ 5-11'. have given more than one _,application-- in the name of their sister V-€on2_panies/parhmer firms etc. All applications were examined under Section 11(5) of MM(D&R) Act, " =19547*y_vith ---a View to provide an opportunity to all the. applicants who have filed their applications on . "'subse:§juei:t days, i.e. after 16.4.2003. The specified =._in Section 11( 3) for grant of mining lease are:-- "(a)i- any special knowledge of, or experience in reconnaissance operations, prospecting operations, mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant;
(b) The financial resources of the applicant; 53 (C) the nature and quality of the technicalvstaff'-V. employed or to be employed by the applicant.' . V '2.
(d) the investment which the applicant proposed V' make in the mines and in the industry.Vbas'ed onthe minerals. f i ' . =
(e) such other matters as may be prescvribied. The Particulars/details of the applicants :is"furnishe§d below: .
Name ofthe «. L --
Sl.No individuals/~._ E _ . " ~ "~,Details COmpanl'eS/Fl'fll'1s_~ ' V " "
:Individuals: * _ .
Si'-?rl7Smt."' - ,5 .. xxx xxx xxx 1 -18 xx'x3'5jxMx__>gxx; .. "
19 .... 'Zla"Uil.3__5hariff:V"
~ I local supply.
._ Thefapplicant does not have a
-, mining lease in Karnataka. The ' .applicant proposed to invest R's;1~.'.'r.00 lakhs. The applicant desires to export the ore for 20*. y to 30. yr xxx xxx xxx. 4' xxx xxx xxx
8. trout the 30 individuals who have for mining lease only 3 applicants hold 3 "minjn'g_"'iwlease in the state. The remaining 27 Vh'i.--..applic_ant.~:;"do not hold any mining lease. The '-~.._det_ails_Afurnished by the applicants in their written submission and oral submissions have been V " considered. Some of the individuals are local " people and have past experience in mining. some of them are qualified engineers. They requested for consideration of their application for grant of mining lease. Most applicants have» indicated that 54 they would be exporting are or would be supplying it to the local market. None of them have iirdicatedi _.__ is any proposals for the value addition to.'__theA..ore; L Even applicants who are already holding"lea.'seV'haVVe also indicated that they would be_exportin_g'--the f or would be supplying the ore:to"--the local mairket.' these Therefore, applicants do. j n.otVr..._'v«-merit consideration for grant of mining lease-.i ' "L
9. A total--.._n}:mher.V- of " 'companies/firms have applied for mining lease. _.The."i?5ér%uiars/details E _ west mining of the company,./__firms:- " ' V.
M/s.'"South-
Limited .i'-M/s. Euro Ikons Iron and Steels (P) Ltd.
M/s. Vijaya-
nagar Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
N _ Si.No Vin'divid:ial.s/"v.' .. A " Details """ -- ..Cs9mpa;f;j.g=s)'Firms "
69 V 29.-x_»xx.x>x;xx ._ xxx xxx xxx 70' TV ' M/s.Jinda--.' They do not hold any mining Vijayanagar'Steel leases in Karnataka. They 'Limited'.' ' have established a steel plant in Toranagallu and have invested about Rs. 7000 crores already. The Company has requested mining lease for its captive consumption. The JVSL has filed in all four applications for this area. Three of the applications were filed prior to the issue of notification and one application after the issue of the notification. A separate application in the name of M/s. Euro Ikons Iron and Steels (P) Ltd. has been filed for this area. M/s. Vijayanagar Minerals Pvt. Ltd. is a joint 55 venture company with Ni/.S§'».7VSL and M/s. MML. The MiViL._holds a lease over an extenty' »of"-8117,50 hectares.
compan y is mining ._thisfareat ' 71 M/S. MSPL Ltd.
: " hectares
-.recommended to Government of ._ ' Kumaraswamy
- Company has earned foreign The" company .;h_olds imining lease cover an, "extent gel' 722.34 '--hectares_ in its" mma and in._the name- of Ramgghadh ' , .,l|iFines and M.inera'ls"Pvt". Ltd} which is its Vhsister, concern.
,M/_s.__L'.=R_, Industriesfis also a sister concern of M/s. MSPL Ltd.
3 They company has been awarded . 'ISO 90_0i.andt'w_:I4001 certificates 'for; scievntii'ic' 'mining done by them--..._ Ville Government letter No.._CI.1's.~~ww'* MMM.04 dated '-"..'»3.,2004 an area of 218.20 has been India in favour of M/s. MSPL in Range.
exchange of more than USD 70 million during 2003-04. The company has been awarded 'State award for excellence in exports' by the Government of Karnataka and 'Indira Priyadarshini Vrikshamitra award' for exemplary work in the field of afforestation and waste land development by the Government of India in September 2004. The compan y gr"-gggsgs to establish 1 million MT speciality steel plant immediately in the state with an investment of Rs.1000 The = ijoint ffseC£'or , 56 The compan_y'«._.»aiso Cl''Oi''€'. ' V i>_r922§eg in vestm'en'i*- '01' five years in a'F5' million MT Government M is ~.i'ett'e.r No. CI. 5'9,AMii_%lM; " .2801». '~.__da.,t,e0" 30.8."-[;?0(}_1 " an "area off2«98;--5 hectares in Swanéimaiai range,"
"wasl.recomm_ended in favour of M/s.. MSPL l_td.._in relaxation of .i'Rule.j'59'(z_) of MCR 1960 and a ; pr;opo'sa'i was sent to >Governrr;en.t " -. of India ._ =.i§ccordingly;~..j --.
Rs. 10000 crores. {in 'the-.. next' integrated steeipiairt. «. Videv.
72. M/s.. : Kalyani Rérrogis 'Industries' This--.Compa'ny do not have a mining lease in Karnataka.
They propose to invest Rs.5'_75 crores. The application A A * .subnriitted for grant of mining lease is in the name of M/s.
-- Kaiyani Ferrous Industries Ltd.
_ The company has subsequently merged with M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited. The company is already having a steel plant in Glnigera, Koppal Taluk and District. The Company has already invested about Rs.600 crores and put up a 3.5 iakh tones steel plant at Ginigera. The company proposes to commission and MW power plant at Ginigera with investment of Rs. 35 crores. The company proposes to commission a Coke Oven Plant which is under construction at Dharwad with an investment of Rs.-45 crores. The company proposes to increase the l 'T Sandur '0-Taluk, '.Bel'lar'y....l3istrict'». 58 lease. But these applicants have not yet established their units for value addition. Some of the compariieys have already established their units in the State have requested for sanction of mining lease forjusfngthef ;__ ore for captive purpose for value addition to the__orej.f.'l'he " interest of such companies; »~wh4o ha've"se..alrea,d'y established their units linked =_to theselanchorunitsx:T f and are in need of raw materialu.fo'r_their u_sé,=needsp b' to be considered. also helps' T;ne..;""§tate Government to earn more Krevenyue there is} value addition to the oré.'~.._'The"emp--loyn1ent opportunities will be increased knot' - V byte employment offered by ,_the companies, also" by way of indirect "employment.i~': "fa'"ciiities:f' caused by establishing pkpaucuan un_its'.'V ' who are willing to invest huge 'amountin 'inAir:.ing.cVindustry have also indicated that they require the mines for export and for supplying it to local market;..._.Some of the companies have already A bestalalishtedv their units in Karnataka by investing huge if - Vamount. %VfA.t}~present they are depending upon local '"market'j_fdr their raw materials i.e. iron-ore. They behave reouested that since they have invested huge amount and established their units in the state, "they be given preference over others for allotment lb of mining leases. Since the request of such of the companies is for captive consumption and for value addition, they deserve consideration over others.
12. 59 In Karnataka, the following industries established steel plantsh (1) (2) they 'last four' years.
'v...installed capacity of the plant, about 2.8 XXX XXX XXX M/s. Jindal Vijayanapar*Steels They have estab'l_ish:ed.. an » . _ integra 1; ' steel plant at Torafl_a§§llu 3t_"-Tcost 'of; ' about Rs.70.5)6..O0 crores anda .p_ow_er and oxygengplant at --.a cost of Rs.2000.00 crores. It is a -public limited company in wh.ich. the Government of Karnatalta holds Rs.50,00 crores as equity. While apgprovingi the project of M/s. JVS'L,'- Governme_n't-have committed to allot""iro*n "ore mines within the . "reserves of_yaboutv1'~Q0 million tones per a;nnum.X The ptlanti isunder production For the toiitlmillion tone-svof iron ore per annum " required. _ --
halve also commissioned the beneficiation plant to treat low grade high alumina iron ore fines. In view of ' this the larger quantum of ore is required for the sustainable working of the plant for another 50 years. They are
-planning to invest around Rs.100.00 °'-.f:'rores for systematic and scientific '>mmmg M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Limited has entered into a joint venture with Mysore Minerals Limited, a Government of Karnataka undertaking. The joint venture company M/s. Vijayanagar Minerals Limited is mining over an area of 87.50 hectares. ..
(3) ' producing' 'pig_ iron.
60 Ferrous Kalyani Kalyani M/s.
M/s.
Limited:-
M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited.
iron and special» steel manufacturing unit at Ginigera, Koppel Dist." _ They'are,__ T The 'insltailetl -.
capacity of the plant is'0.4 million tones? manufacturing pig g iron."
per annum 'ancl._have' plans to enhanlce this to abou"t«_'G..5 million» tones per annum. They'-ha---s;_e invested Eabout Rs.55(!-29.0 crores ._for"'the plant and the annual ----.. turn '_ over " about Rs. 700. 00 crores. The plant _ was 'commissioned during H_1_9'98 qand ""atV'~~;jresent, it is ~ for the captive cpnsumptiori, they'-need» about 1 million teenne"of_iron oare_jper,annum. They have _.-"plans .toCinvest about Rs.10.00 crores for system'atic__andgscientific mining. ~ Atlpreseiat, they do not have any ' HoweveR;._ "M/s.
miningv lease in the State for iron ore. Kalyani Ferrous l _ Industries' Limited has been given a raising contract by M/s Mysore Minerals 'Limiter! (a Government of Karnataka Undertaking) over an extent of 80 ha for a period of 20 years commencing from 21999 in Subbarayanahalli area for the fvrinining of iron ore.
M/s. Euro Ikons and Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd:~ This company is a sister-concern of M/s. Jindal The company has already commissioned a blast Vij'ayanagar- Steel Limited.
furnace at Torangailu with a capacity of 9 iakh tones per annum. They have already in vested about Rs.230 Crores in the plant. Indus.t_ries~._ emf!-=rr0='S ..
Industries Limited has merged"~wj;'--th x-._'l'l:e --
company has established anintegrated _ é
13. | i Hi 61 At present, they do not mining lease in the State for iron ore.'*-- . .. _._ (5) Rule XXX XXX XXX 35 of Mineral Cc«'ncess'ion provides for preferential ri'_t;.lo7ts1'_l°or':certairi _person's...7i.A The Rule states as folioyys:-- V "Where two or*;_nore persons have applied for. reconnaissance permit or a prospecting" licence .or<..a.n1ining lease in respect of Jsamje la'no}.V "the State Government "shall, .=?or«"'thel..'._l3urposes of subsection "{2}: of $e.ction..1I£, consider, besides "the «matters V. Vnientioned in ...c'lau'ses (3) to (d) of sub section 3 of V section--w._11;--.itfthé' .end7--use of the mineral by the applicant. o"" ' desirableuto allot the mining areas to A 'applicants. vvhoi'<-have already established their uplantsii' State by investing huge 1 amounts; The Ore requirement for production steel is about 1.6 tones of iron ore.
of the provisions of Rule 35 of the it -lffinleral Concession Rules, .1960, and taking ' into consideration all the documentary evidence submitted by the applicants, their representations during the oral hearing, their existing investments and their proposed investments, mining lease under "Section 62 11(5) of the MM (D&R) Act, 1957, in raven.-Qr-.§r~V_v the following applicants is recommenegiecifj. __ is ' (1) Part A of Sketch measuring .
of 200. 73 hectares infaikour pi: .; _ « ' ' ,-.1i.H.§!.«?£.!£fi€!K€££!§9§.li;§t§€29£.!=.t£€-,'V511 " ' (2) Part B of Sketeh..n1easurlh£'r_Ven':extent of 179.70, lieptaresiiln ra«-my of " ' ,.I...t¢.=.'-
" _ "-(N».._l§.1HARAM SINGH)
' V . Chief Minister
-------- it {emphasis supplied}
.I;.;I;;£.1.;1§HALii;;ieN§r iesairui 'THE _w_RI1' PETITION _4._Aggri'e\ied..byhi:he"':notification dated 15"' March, 2903 'Si'and"theLipro-eeedings""'dated 6"' December, 2004 referred to respondent herein (writ petitioner) fiied W.P. No'.'2_;tV€308V.0ii:_0{::)5 seeking:
1. (i)* ii a writ of certiorari to quash the communication No.C.I/111/MMM/2094 dated 6"' December, 2004 issued by the State Government in so far as it recommends the grant of)/flqjining lease to
(ii) 63 appeliants herein (Respondents No.4 and 5 in the writ petition);
Issue a Writ, Order or Direction.§'_:"toC.'_'the. Respondent No.1 to grant mining_lVea_"se. forthe T' area mentioned in :Se'ria-cl. l\io.1.f'of' th Notification No.CI.16 M'MM1'_"2t003',._ dated 15"' March, .20-O__3 to'th_e" first ,i'*e'suponcie_nt " herein (writ petition'e'tr):."'t.o theV'*e_>:<tentr hectares as ,.-soughti-'--*b§/',_'*--tlie__ first' 'respondent herein (writ?Vpetitiori_er)u'kin No.99"/f AML 2AQQv3;.,ancl ' ,:"its application in,..tir1,,e €§ilite._i*native.,._:Vdirect Vtlraeiliiespondent Union _of1it'iridi.a7.to'«..:co,nsider and dispose of the petitionerfs._repreSe'ntations dated 16"' August, 2003' and A3_1s"=...'i?lay, 2004 before passing any i l' orde'r-on Vtheiproposai of the State of Karnataka . contained in its communication No.CI/111/ ""v.,,:"i~ti'»1is_/i/;é,004 dated 6th December, 2004. M Hgkgm [W311 P§T1TIQN§R) A' According to the first respondent herein (writ petitioner)- the area applied for by the first respondent herein (writ petitioner) in application No.96/2001 ought not to have been included in ,--~.;"---., _ lfxlgestl lVliif;irng"--.l:?.'--..Ltd ._l_td,., Eu-fro Ikon Iron and Steel (P) 64 the notification dated 15"' March, 2003 State Government itself had recommen'd'ed,'_~the. said area to the Central Governrnentitoirevvlafr T' the procedure contempiat'ed----und'er by exercising their power u:;Tcle--r Re.Lie'~ the MC Rules;
the impugned procee.cl_i.ngs." 6"' December, is_'co'ntr'a:,r_y.v..t'o.the directions of this Court in4'W_.;P. dated 29"' March' 2004," -- :":whe,reun.derT' the State <3o:+ljefi~;a;:r;.§;:~::l1»«;a;:, efxplecteldl ltowconsider only the .a*'ppa_e$;a,£i'¢5iis, Zia -tuna Shariff, South "'--~Vi*'ayanagar Minerals (P) ., -~~._;
_L"td_., ' 'pr:ese"r*.«t"' petitioner and any other a"pplicati(-->ns'--._filed pursuant to the Notification V datet:l"'15l'__'f'___March 2003, but not that of the first respondent herein (writ petitioner) who applied issuance of the notification dated 15"' fvariééerféh, 2003;
as per Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act, where the State Government has not notified the area for grant, and two or more persons have the whose applied for grant, applicant application was received earlier, shall have the /,...u V
vi) 66 such applications have been received on fine same day, in the light of the matters under Section 11(3) of the MMDR-7l\Qct;"'V«'ti'ae applications filed prior to .ofl»V"' notification under Section 1'('~l)y_ read' Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules o;(£ght.'_An'oVt considered, as they'4-are premature"a..rid.__shall d not be entertained as,_per_ RuVle..€'{(}--of MC the State Governr_ne'ntl'lto~,appreciate the meryitsrdof the _:resp.oride;nt herein (writ p.e2ti'tionfer)_ »vv«hi'teV c_onjsideri'nc] the matters ss»r§ie.'<?i'hf'ié1&i1ri,;\in'd.ér._"séc't~ion511(3) of the MMDR "cl_adusexV'(d.')4V'.of éection 11(3) of the MMDR Act enab!e_s"to take into account the investment ' which theappiicant proposes to make and not "v..:"iinvest_ment already made by the applicant; "éV"_a--nd~,.th.erefore the State Government ought not ' ' to?' have taken into consideration the investment already made$ by the appellants herein (respondents 4 and 5 in the writ the recommendation dated 6"' December, 2004; petition) while making impugned
vii) 67 the matters referred to under Section MMDR Act for evaluating preferential consideration would .p_rev;aiiif_iov'erf' -- Rule 35 of MC Rules anci"'th-e.refo4re,_,.th'e',_State. Government erred in app|yi:n'gA.'Ru'ie_ of :l"2--C"<1" Rules for giving pr'ef,erenc'e_to the=ap.pelAlani;s"'l herein (respondent's*vm«t,V:Vé'<il. and "writ petition) as 3.-gainst,,t--he,.'first»..respo'nde(nt.V'herein (writ petition'e.r:)', _ Awthiluaag' passearjgl the impugned proceedings date'd..,6'h__VDecemhbelr, .2004 ; as_sé,l.*ni:;1i1rmg'_,thwe;t Ruble "of"l'~'lC Rules is also appl_lca,b.|Ve",'---- th'e'TjgS"tat,e '(Government failed to rapply itsigmin-dig that 'thennining of iron ore and
-_exportingV'the'-.sa~me to gain foreign exchange, '' .__b4eing' a_'sta'nd%-a_l'on'e industry by itself, satisfies the ("ends-.us'e_' tlieory contemplated under Rule 35 of"-lV.lC_____Ru|es and therefore, the impugned .A_p,r"oceedings dated 6"' December, 2004 suffers or ,:,:"'*«..,bfi'orn,:n~on~application of mind; ' ' similarly, assuming that the application filed by the first respondent herein (writ petitioner) prior to the notification issued under Rule 59(1) of MC Rules could also be considered, the State Government ought to have given preference to the first respondent herein (writ and is « 68 petitioner) in View of the merits submitte~d_(:'by'~._Vv the first respondent herein (writ peti_t;i'onerj}.'._ir1' 16"' ' _' 315* May, 2004 and 12'?-tfictobeifi 2oy0'é;'(\.&h:t¢h1 '' satisfy the requirements, ccg'ntter'mAplated' Section 11(3) of the.4_MME5R._l'°ict, and7preferré;d."'1 V its representations dated the first Respondent,'Therein '(wr'i1t_"'pet'itioner) under Section. 11(Sp).--of"the--.MME§R' -Act the said merits Vasu:'sp'e'cia?.j_>'reas't;.a1:s~,l__and failure to prefer' the herein (writ petitioner.) viitiatesithye"'~:iin_pug'heVd proceedings begr, ;
and '--._recommending the appellants ._h-ereinc*1-(Resp'ond--.ents 4 and 5 in the Writ _petition_)A' Central Government for 'g'"ran'ting}_mi-nifigff lease, by proceedings dated V 6"' De-cevmbyer, 2004 is in gross violation of ;"".f:.S_'i'ctvion 11(3) of the MMDR Act as the first VV"1-.._y%.rtespor.adent herein (writ petitioner) possess 'sipeéial knowledge of, experience in mining operation and financial resources and also if employed fully qualified technical staff and propose to invest in the industry based on ..',,z ,,,,, "V_W\ .2 tr .... . .. .
minerals.
UV) (V) 70 the appellants recommended (respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petiftio'n-.)V'_~f:or7 grant of mining lease, by proceedingHs"'-ziated. V6" 0' December, 2004.
the State Government hasiiérightiv con's:}.;.jer.ed appiication fiied first" appe3f'ifa_nt;._;'herein (respondent No.4 in petition), afipplied prior to the A:n.otififiat'i_on:__dated 15th "xMarch, 2003; and G' the pr'ocj_e:e-dines €d'atedi..A'6;"i_'-.December, 2004 is only fa..__pAro:i_osa{_V--.an-doltlirnately, the decision of __t_he"e.,uC:en'tra| either to accept or V1, cm 93 T.§NT1'OVhAl§u"QVF"7ffi" QENIRAL §gv§Ri_gM§N1' LN .
reje'ctIjt_.,he recommendation is final. WE rr ggurlgu _i§'3iccvor(:ff§n"g«t.Q...t|'ie Centrai Government, it has examined ":__theV"p.roposais_Sof__the State Government on merits and found th'at\;~--.; "
the State Government has selected the appiicants, in terms of Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Ruie 35 of the MC )/ /m\= ~.
Rules;
71
(ii) the State Government has righ:tlv:'f«..f_f'~~--V considered all the applications rec'eivedV---.1: prior to the date of notification_d_at'e.d i March,2003 issued u:nd"er»Rul~'e the MC Rules; and i F'
(iii) the Central Government has_ prior approval to tjhe-,:pro,posa|'received in favour fi'rst_ 'a_p.pe-!.|.ant Hffheyrein (respondent l'sj'o.«--='ii~--if1 ::the':writLV'petition) on 27f"'J_une,"'2U'G?S:: of second (_rés_pon'de'nt No.5 in the vie"-'it,«ziiétitio'h§.'jvveo"n'--.Sthdone, 2006 and the """ . of t'hVe'=f:efnt'ra!»-Government has not V .EV>Ve"'e.n=-ichallengeci' by the first respondent " he rein =j(Av.r rit---..petiti one r). vu. lfcrgtsitgnitxgi N§ QF mg APP§LLANT§_ RE NDENT"$""4'AND 5 IN 1':-cg wan 9E11'r1gN) V "-.fFi:e"iva:'ppe||ants herein (respondents No.4 and 5 in the writ 'jcoeihtended that:
ti.) the writ petition is not maintainable in view of if efficacious alternate remedy of filing revision petition under Section 30 of the MMDR Act read with Rule 54 of the MC Rules;
74
(ix) viewed from any angle, the appellants (respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petifci'o'n.),,'_~a._fe7 more deserving, meritorious than""-t:hef_t~fiVrsl%' respondent herein (writpetitiognerél impugned mining lease.
VIII. Issues Dg ALT BY Tu, EARNED ,§it1_li_\l;gg;:.la=,.;1;gu§i'gs.io 9.1. In the light of the ,a__l_3uove'wrival..claimAs;,.ithe learned single Judge framed '-.,fo,l'lovvinvg::"questions for his consideration: V V i
(i) Whethe.'f,__ can consider an applicat:ion_,,Vg wlhiic-h"éia.s:'"notfiled in response to the Ivnotifiloa'ti*on,_'i'ssu'ed""u_nde_I' Rule 59 of the M C Rules, inVrespe'ct"o'fV~.l_an--d:"n.oVtified as available for grant of minding vlease?AI_ it ' iwheither th'e""State Government acted legally and :"fid_e while considering the applications for "gra_nt 'ofivmpugned mining lease?
The learned Single Judge, by his order dated 7"' Atlegust, 2008 held the first question in negative, in favour of the Lllfirst respondent herein (writ petitioner) and against the 75 appellants herein (respondents No.4 and 5), and with .,re:fe.rence to the second question, it is held that the Gove_rn.m'e:nVt.1',:faliledto act legally and bona fide in considering the a_-p'p'|'ica,tio'ns for gra'r'it_V' of impugned mining lease and "~:,acco1-ding»!y,'~ llquash-ed'ii.c_:theit impugned proceedings dated 65 "fie-cem'b.e'r, 20t3'§l', 9.3. That apart, the |earned:'Sln'g--»!.e 3udg'e-.also§ framed yet another se|f--posed question,--vii,___§f} 4. it 9
(iii) Whet.h;e:r---.theftnot'i?icaVti~on.._dated 15"' March, 20903,, ifi:_ot.ifyin:g_'_.th.e a'r€5jas all/llailable for mining lle.g.3Vsé,V;§i,s opp«ose_d. interest, viz. the V wealth, protected by the V,provisionsjwo'f'--~Eor-est (Conservation) Act, 1980 'and Rules fi~'a:me'd thereunder?
The |earn'ed'VSing|e Judge, by order dated 7"' August ,.4an:sw..ering the said question related to the public interest referhred to above, held that the issuance of the ".notificativon, dated 15"' March, 2003 itself is contrary to the public ":i'rateVre's_t viz., the conservation of forest wealth. 9.5. The learned single Judge also held that the permission ,'for grant of mining lease by the Central Government under 76 Section 2 of the FC Act is definitely neither an answefnor a substitute for the requirement of the State protect and conserve the forest wealigh... 9.6. Accordingly, the |earned:".Sili*:gie in dated 7th August, 2008 issued theenifoinlowivng. d'irec'tioenseV:"' "(a) The State Gove"rnmentl'should always rnal<e'"a clear distinction between --foi--'esi:-. Va rea 'non-forest area while granting "?.in.ing«.lease-s; '
(b) The_ 3-.,VState (3eo.ver.nment=. should always show awareneesshto*--the'*éXisti.og~ forest whether declared as reseryed otherwise and if there is an existing 'ft§i*est»,in'i'.3nVy'---- area, the first and the foremost effort shouldv.be_etoconserve the forest;
c) Jf the'"area has already been declared as reserved l igforest areafiteshould normally be retained without n disturbed and only if the State Government is A fully vs;ait'isfied that there is inevitable need justifying ,.de¥reservation and to permit a non--forest activity, that should be examined keeping in view the nature of non--forest activity proposed to be carried out in the forest area, the impact and consequence of such non--forest activity in the forest area, the extent of actual forest being damaged or destroyed, as to the duration over which such forest has developed in the (0') ( e) 77 area, whether the forest is in a unique and endangered biosphere, whether there is an imminent. need to conserve such forest, if it is a unique t;/pe--of_ forest or an endangered type of biosphere_._= Mining activity being, undisputedly, veryhvdelfetenous activity for preserving and conse-rving forest,=. mining, f activity should be totally avoidedlin forest areas: Conserving forest canhhvalso» achieve object of conserving the,» _mineral" embedded iri-.the'§ earth beneath the forest,"growth;_ano"itnot as though the mineral is lost and'7therefore Government to bestow-.atte-:ntion'*:to.::this,__aspe3ct of conserving mineral a§lEs'o._. . ' The Sytatc-'=.Govelnment should make a very scientific and yco'nscio,us Vevaluation of the consequences of losing 'vprecioAu.s forest as to whether it is so very G V or .immin'en_tV and inevitable for exploiting the mineral for ;,,,''''being usedumin the production of the mineral for purpose and development and such related ,§sp__e'c:t_"s'V.should always be examined and only if it is that the benefits of exploiting mineral far "outweigh the losses due to the destruction of forest and there is imminent need for the mineral, then alone, the State Government should think of notifying even a forest area owned by the state Government as one available for lease to carry out mining operations in the area.
( 9) (17) 78 Mining operation being undisputedly capable_:"-of-._ causing immense pollution, ecological imbalan--ce;a_nd' _._ A' the .-State to even environmentally disastrous, Government should always .un,derta._l¢e" a" -iscientific study of ways and means to; avoid such possibiliwes.' ,_ T The mineral if can be obtained.by--non mining »activity~ " or can be obtained by ari~y other meansb..tha:t'vshQ:.i~ld be explored and not to resort to miri-ingioperagtion in forest areas.
As there is an imminent"n:eed._bto.x_'conserve existing forest, ,'_3tat_e Government-is-dire-cted* to put an hold on alifgmining activities in forestareas, undertake a scienti_fic, study4'"o'f.tAVeff,.:,Cts=._ and consequences of
--. contin,ued*3minin.g' in 'suchforest areas, the impact of mlning'v.'vga.gtivity'«.._on__ the entire forest, need for xficonserving» 'forest__bgrowth, need for protecting forest growth, and if theI."'forest growth comprises of any h ' _endan'gered flora or fauna or comprises of a rare 1,'-sbiotspherewithvkinds of flora and fauna found only 'the.._a'iv'e_a, the impact of mining on such flora and if only after such an evaluation and on being v.satiisfied that all precautions are followed, permit a .non~forest activity on the land.
All the mining leases granted during the pendency of the above writ petition before this Court and under the notification dated 15.3.2003 (Annexure--B to the writ petition) being leases granted during the / ""."/w:.-
.r ' ) n (J) 79 pendency of the writ petition and as it is dispute that the State Government has not _._ he awareness to the need or necessity tolheconserve -- ' forest in the notified areas,__, .par_ticula'rly" largfi tracts of forest coming under_«tjl7e'._ ca,tegoryv._gof reserved forest, these leases.__cannot be-,,sustained*--., and are quashed hereby." by issue. of, a{_wru.it.. or Certiorari.
In respect of Va-llfiotheir min.ing'».le'ases not covered under the notification but in forest areas, reservedforest or'«.no_n--reserved forest, the State 1: is be regeuired be t'o"follow the above directions and till"aj.scien:£iflc=_'evaluation is made and ..th.eA e"'~imnii:r;Aent --»._'ne_ed' =~.Fo,r_.5e carrying out mining operatio.ns,_in,the_efores_t area is established and only ex'-if it is eshtabiished_:e'that-~ it is inevitable for carrying on the._4 mining operations even at the cost of losing ' ' _forest,'= then alone, leases can be permitted to work, ;,.\---otherwise,' 'th'e"State Government is directed to take s'teps'fo_r cancellation of such leases by following the be "-fmr¢c¢au.+e envisaged under the Act and the Rules in terms of the conditions stipulated for resumption of the lease under the mining lease itself. The State Government should always bear in mind that the larger public interest will overweigh the smaller individual or personal interest or business interest of the lessees who would have taken mining '' <;:*~ '-
'- . .~' ' . ,5 Q; _ (U 80 leases of the areas for commercial production and from the business angle and the prospects""of existing lessees incurring losses or losing cannot come in the way of State Gofve'rnme.nt :_. pursuing rightful action for protecting v forest ' wealth, for conserving and ~re.t_ainirig endangered species of flora and fauna=.,_and.eiren, to, retain-sc,__a biosphere of unique nature".de'veloped,_"_~_in' "natu're"~_ a' developed in nature Vo.vér..v_millions of, years"vvhi'ch once interfered or destroyed will belost to mankind for ever.
The State Governm-e_nt'."is ibherebyf directed not to ernbark. on grangtingb any mining leases in forest areas as a. i*natter._of.rule1:and _only asan; exception, forest areas"bmayV"be '.-notified for grant of mining leases, vhf'-afterfully the imminent and inevitable nee_d"for e'/.ploiti'ng_"..the mineral and if it is found such ' ' _explol'ta,tion' isiin the national interest for making 2,;-savailable 'm'in'eral which otherwise cannot be o.bta_ined for the nation building activities including A de,fen:ce,~i"research or other scientific activities. 1 'rm "l'i7é7State and the Central Governments may also " _ consider the possibilities of nationalization of mining industry so that the private profit motive does not come in the way of protecting environment, conserving forests and to avoid ecological disasters, so that the Government once becomes aware that 81 the mining operations are deleterious to this cause, it can without any hassle, straightaway stop activities. "
9.7. The learned Single Judge, thus, by__ August, 2008:
(i) held that the State,.Go_vern'm_ent oug'htiV..not to.' have considered the a'v;5p.lications" are not filed in res@gné¢~~..,,to the dated 15"' March, 2003 issueci Rule of the MC Rulesfl,"
(iij'v..,qu'ashedl'the:'ln.otifi:c'a.tion dated 15"' March, 2003 as' well,» as of the State Government it dated tS*'"V--.lt)ecen1ber, 2004 on the ground that the _,':AGA.ov.ernrhent failed to act legally and bona fide. '' . H further held that mining activity should be tot_al|y Uavoided. forest land and directed the State Government to it "..fp=.iAt 'a'n._hold on all mining activities in the forest land. 9.9. The learned single Judge also held that all the mining Ldleases granted during the pendency of the writ petition, pursuant 9;' /V -- --
82 to the notification dated 15"' March, 2003 could not be sustained, and therefore directed the State Governm'e..nt-_to_V_take steps for cancellation of all other mining lease_s:Wno'ti_'V-~:::o\.'e_red under the notification dated 15"' March, 2003» the forest area -- (reserved or non-Freservevdjgloéyl 'foll'o'wai_ng,the '' procedure under the Act; and .not__ to elrnlpark ongranétilngifrniyriinigh. leases in the forest land as a of"ru|ei'and:'gonly as an exception, forest land be granting the mining lease. 'V dated 7"? State Government and Central Governmentxgto v.cor1s4ider~.:t'he possibility of nationalizing the ,_mining.,.industries,'"s0..Fhet, private profit motive would not come "rain the_,way'of«pr0tecting environment. 'i0.1. The order and directions of the learned single 3udge T --«'.,V"da'ted 7"' August, 2008, therefore, stirredwthe entire mining K"/M,--/7;N"\= I , 83 industry, as, not only the mining leases recommendeclin favour of the appellants herein (respondents 4 and 5 ~i_'r"'r«i:.the'*.V'writ petition) and all the mining leases granted notification dated 15"' March, 2003,;»bLI.t_alsii"the:niin'i'ng;|ea_se's1 granted in the forest land before":.«the_'iiissiitance"of :'ti_'i=..e'''?1.,i;:aid ' notification were all directed tcfbex canceiled._ ...t!*-re order of the learned Single Judge date_d__VVV":/'»"i'__Au_»gust} gave way for filing of above batch of w'ri'r:7a.ppeai;s.:v '4 10.2. i-lear::i:«"i~4..r. 'ieia.rne'di$enior Counsel for the appel|an.tsi*--here'ijn' S in the writ petition), Mr. Krishnan"-._Veno'gopa:'i'*,i.t<:iSe4n'ior"' counsel for the first respondent herein Udaya Holla, learned Advocate .-vi.'_Gener5al the.Stat.e__._3°.d Mr. Aravind Kumar, learned Assistant Soli'citor..Qene.rai for the Central Government. '.'--'\J'g_!ei1'Vaiso heard Mrs. Nalini Chidambararn, learned Usenior counsel and other learned counsel for the appellants in if '{_trhe'liot«her connected appeals supporting the contentions of o;L.N. Rao.
84 11.1. All the learned senior counsel appearivn.g:'-«._fo~rVv the appellants as well as the respondents argued reasons and findings of the learned Single Judge"'iii'_':qu'asi'iiVng. notification dated 15"' March, 2003 and iss.ui'rig"directions to the State Government to cance_I'a_ll the-.rniniVngflea.s*esVthat granted in the forest lands, whether pursuantltlo or before the issuance of the impugnednlotiAfi'cat;i_on "d-agjte;d*l1_5"' March, 2003. 11.2. According .thel"_fi_ndirigVV'Vand decision on the self~posed questi_oVn';- vv1Vi_V._"_z..l,
(iii) lViih~a:theArV5d3tl:rue.:jnatifitatidd dated 15"' March, 2003, nVo.tify.ing for mining lease, is opposed to" _p'uhlI'c:':'_'i.nterest, viz. the conservation of 'forest aw'ea_lth', protected by the provisions of Forest 1' 'C'(Conggi-vation")""'itAct, 1980 and Rules framed 1" --- _th.ere'_unAd'er?
is'o._p'poseVd doctrine of sustainable development. 11.113; It is also contended that --
it the learned Single Judge ought not to have quashed the mining leases in the forest land merely on the ground that the said mining area that --
85 available for lease is located in the forest land, as the same were not challenged by whomsoevver~;'_:'_'~.._
(ii) the learned single Judge erred in the policy decision of the..Sta.te nu respect to sustainable deyeilopmelntl mining leases in the"fVo:Vrest l i
(iii) the finding thlat the..l'p'er"rnis's~ison for"g.ranEting the mining lease .st'hes..Ce:ntr'arl:_'Government under Section.::2v.._of definitely neither an s.ub--stitute»Vfo'r the requirement of the State protect and conserve the foreVst.wea_|th,_ 'is,a'lso illogical as the FC Act and the _lA?Li|eS.Vl'l"<?.[T_l_¢_Clv thereunder empowers the Central Gov_éi*nment to decide such issues.
it * ssggns MAQE on BEHALF QF we . APEELLANT§:
12V.1l.'i Mr. D.L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel for appellants g""rV§_ereirif.-'(respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition) reiterating the it"'--'.l:su_bmissions made before the learned single Judge, contends
(i) 86 the applications applied for the grant of lease before the issuance of notificat-ion"ijliidjer ~ Rule 59(1) of the MC Ru,ies,_dated''''1''5ll''.';h!\'iVa:rc'h,V '4 2003, are entitled to be:V.cora'sidered_1in first proviso to Sectwio'r=._11(a2') of t as the same shall be-deeV.rned."to.have? been received puvrsiiant"--.to{_'thlefnotification under Rule 59(1) of.tl".-e..IjV:'fC'¥2d'les,"V_ * the t'o:.:_i.s_su.e 'notification, notifying the areas a'v§aVilab--|.e'---.for'mining lease and inviting same is traceable to VxS4e_ctionV'1_1V(?,)'ofthe MMDR Act, and therefore, V the ap"p!i,c_ati.ons made before issuance of such "~no_tific_ation, but not considered, are deemed to been made after the issuance of notification, and are entitled to be considered ' along with the applications received pursuant
iii) 87 specified under Section 11(3) of the Act ;
merely because the first"respondent'-.herein (writ petitioner) applied fort:ie.eA'i:mpu'g.Aned iease~.,Tf: and the State Goyerrrrnent .recomrn'enVdled"'thje same for reiaxzationl-oft.'Rullle-»c,_59('1/S)"of the MC Rules by Rule 59(2) of the Rulesgwby' a bar for the the same area asa_ajvailVabie for"-miniriglezase under Rule 59(1) of "invite the applications for llm..i_nlng ('lease Section 11(2) of the MMDR : Act; a ),),.__lrr;erei"yi because there was no notification under 59(1) of the MC Rules, the appellants herein (respondents 4 and S in the writ petition) are not barred to apply before the issuance of the notification; but the moment the notification was issued, notifying the area .' VA» .__ _)_s .
88 available for mining lease under Rule 59(1)-"of the MC Rules and the applications for the same under Section 11(2) of A it Act, even though applications the issuance of the s'ai_c:l"-notification«. premature and shalll'-n:ote»be entertained'~--;a's"per Rule 60 of the. MC..l'Rules,'u"a.re entit~led-dito be considered 'Carter of the noti_f,"It:;g*J:§iC:>_flr lithe matters p-réstribe-d:7_V__uln«dVer'section ;1(3) of the MMDR '";;~:e_;":tsonV" 1_1Vof MMDR Act and Rules 59 and ".lha_r"moniously and 60 the MC Rules are to be read therefore, there is no l'é--'i'n.consistency or conflict whatsoever between
vi) Section 11(2) of MMDR Act and Rules 59 and 60 of the MC Rules;
as per the order of this Court dated 29"' March, 2004 in Writ Petition No. 35915 of 2001, the /¢-<--__\
vii) 89 applications pending before the Government and also the applicat_ioins'4':fi--le'd.f pursuant to the notification...a_re ex'pe'cte'_cl .to*b'e. considered by the State Cvfiiové-rh:'z'iient.;l the finding of the single were the Government . haveVgg...._fno--t G'v.._consi"dered_.E the applications in"aiconi':pVrei.,e4n'sive;manner, is not correct," ,l_:)eca:Lise" to the first resplendent 'ne:re'in.(wr_i'tifpetitioner) they have .--'i"beeri,"'g'i'v'§e~n "s.ti'fficiée'rn'tv.~--o'pportunity of being i*:ear'dV,:V"afs-.1contemplated under Rule 26(1) of VtV'i':«:--.:-aiii~'.l,Cx'Ru4lesja.n.d the State Government have _"considerec_l___th-e rival claims of the appellants as consideration, the first respondent herein (writ 'iVp'etit'i:o'ner) as per Section 11(3) of the MMDR 'L.Act.Vand Rule 35 of the MC Rules and after due recommended to the Central Government to grant mining lease in favour of the appel|ants,viz.,M/s.Jindal \{i"j'ayanagar Steel /«(E » 2
xi) 91 ore for running their existing steel plants with an investment of Rs.7000 Crore and respectively;
the appellants herein having established _4_huge';_lstee| alfe" entitled for preferenceV.y:.iVn grant' o_f':m'iVhin'g§ lease as against first gr'e'spo.noe.nt herein (writ petitioner) asWper._se'tt:fen.--191(3)__'c.r the MMDR Act;'arid5l?{'u|e:=35§of"the~ and the State eG.overn'm:ent"policy isalso in favour of granting into consideration the end-
vofVv'the't.rnin:_u.e'ra|s by the applicants and its va|ue"avddgi_tio-in; and Rao also invited our attention to glgatraeindments brought in to Section 11 by the Amendment Act 38 of 1999 which came into effect from 18"' December, 1999 and the amendment brought to Rule 60 of the MC 'x 55-» Rules, with effect from 17*" January, 2000, 92 wherein the words«- "and the fee, if any, paid in respect of any such application shall refunded" alone were omitted from R_tj'ie- the MC Rules.
5;; suguxssxgus MADE QN 1,3 §!;l3-.'__A~E.;.E Q 1=t1.'fi gm' l$_1g;rg_ GOVERNMENT IN R1': Apia-gl_e._,@ . C 13.1. Mr Udaya, I-lolla,,....u:le.ar'n_ed .Adv,oAca_tfe General, appearing for the State G'oyern'me{-ni:,ur'é.itera--ti_ng the submissions made before the__ le,ar'ned:f': Sin_g|_e' supported the contentior'rs~ behalf of the appellants herein (responde:n'tsV"4l:%and'twSVV"I'n_.'the writ petition). _13.2. Tfhe-lear'ned:Advocate General submits that even .H""befot'--e:'th'e first prtM'so"to Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act was year 1999, the premature applications, viz., appl.Tcation.s'l'lfn'ade before publication of the notification under
99.".-«.__"~Rule 59¢: the MC Rules and before the expiry of the period "ls_pe_cifiA_ed in the notification, were considered under Rule 60 of the MC Rules as premature and they shall not be entertained. Therefore, the Legislature was conscious of Rule" 60 of the MC 5 "kw zftx I 5.-
lw"
93 Rules, but stiil introduced the first proviso to Secti.o*n.i:'f1.1'(_g) of the MMDR Act to enable the Government toiV--. applications that were applied, be_fo.re__the-"pu"bl:ication'_'.of«._th'e1 notification inviting the applications for for::"ithé<:a:rea notified as available for minir:gc'v'l-ease,"'-but not'i,:dAisiposed.:'3of,i are deemed to have been receivedp__fipurs_uant to't-hevinotification and shail be considered in ti':e:"|igl'Ai_t ._11(3) of the MMDR 13.3. Advocate General submits fire'cei--ved before publication of the notification were also considered under Section 11V(V"3«)aiof the Act and the State Government has .---.é_right»l3i.i.examined"'an.d___gconsidered the inter se relative merits of "'._:a!|;theV pi.ai"'(T5E$.:V'l"i'i terms of Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act as weil as--gx'R--s.:lex.V MC Ruies, and, by proceedings dated 'V 6"' Duecerribe'r'.V2004, recommended for grant of 200.73 hectares fiavuour' of M/s. Jindai Vijayanagar Steei Ltd., and 179.70
-.ii'.--h'e--ctares in favour of M/s. Kaiyani Ferrous Industries Ltd. / .. . ..
94 respectiveiy, for the approvai of the Central Governrneia..ti'~L;vnder Section 5 of the MMDR Act.
13.4. The learned Advocate "General _furth'er';vsubrnits--th'at_ apart from the fact that the mining3.ope'ra~tioni».is"~a:"'stiainidjalone' industry, the State is aiso comrnitted to'vencour'a.geV.ithveHutilizatiori of iron ore mined for use in th_e_ii:r':"ovvryuindustriies evéétabiished in the State and for vatue a't;ir...i:ii'tiori_ 13.5. Hen_ce,_ there"is- rfi'oVii!.e'g_a"Ei.ty orviriregutarity either in issuing the n_o.ti§'f.icatioi1 da:;ted~ notifying the area ieaselor in the proceedings dated 6"' Decerriher', 31:11; suaivsggggi N5 MADE QN BEHALF QF THE " V' A. . V ENT Kumar, learned Assistant Soiicitor Gerierai, aptievavring for the Centrai Government, reiterating the "submissivons made before the learned singie Judge, submits that- " the State Government has seiected the appiicants, in terms of Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC Rules;
E 95
(ii) the State Government has rightiy conside;"e_dfa_ii~~.Vv the applications received prior to notification dated 15"' March,2003Hissu.ed' Ruie 59(1) of the MC Rules';'' and V' M
(iii) the Centrai Government h'»asi1'conve»yg.;iA"its approvai to the proiposai received' 'of first appeiiant hereink(«respondeiieNo.4viin the writ petition)':o'n_ 27'"""ti_orie., andimi favour of second appei_i_ant=..(i'esponden't~;No.5 in the writ peti§.iDn):-o'n"SfiT "and the action of" has not been respondent herein (writ vvvv "pe'hVt:£6ri;e:E?fi';):. ~ V' f' i xrv. §VVV'&J5B'D1I_§$_ifi4§lS.:b_'?i.4tilE.QN g_gHAfiI= THE F;[R§T RE§PQNDENT-- H'EAR£_I;l§| IPETITIQNER IN THE WRIT Mr. i<ris'i1nan \/enugopai, learned senior counsel iearned counsei for first respondent herein (wirithiifpetitionerij, reiterating the contentions made before the 'rl_earnedj'si;.ng|e Judge chaiienging the proceedings dated 6"" A ":i:£'3ece'r1=2:ber, 2004, contends that:
(i) the applications made prior to notification dated 15"' March, 2003 are premature and the /' /I 2» \...u
(ii) 96 same shall not be entertained as per Rule 60 of the MC Rules. ' the State recommended for relaxation of of "
the MC Rules, exercising thepoliter4.,co.nferredw.;,1uE on it under Rule 59(2) of'the'MC to have preferred th'e..._V'first res'po_ndent7,herein (writ petitioner) as appellants herein (respo_nde_nts'__VV=§ the writ petitio'r},),: considering "the '-irVte.r.:se merits under "S:ectiVon:'i1j,: MMDR Act;
lVi";:. Krishnan Velnugopal, inviting our attention ' to theV"rep~re'sentations, 16"' August, 2003, 31" 2004 and 12"' October, 2004, claims that .i.thj_e.i'irst respondent herein(Writ Petitioner):
(a) has forty years of experience in exploration of mining and marketing of minerals, viz. iron ore;
Government having __
(b) (C) (C1) (9) _ 97 industrial is interested in banking, gases, power generation, industri--al financing, etc, and is success.'ui'i-yl'-.. running these businesses investibie resources;
contributes more _ year to the State lExc:ie.eg'uer"b.y way Royalty;
earned. foreigyn---e$§cha"n.ge tothe. tune of List) ssrnsiryicyn in th"efye:a'r__2003; has sa fe" an sc'ienetificV '.min'i ng practices; a"riidV'.is"*t.h'e wiri'i'.er°of numerous awards Government and Central <6 has experienced ' Gov.e'rnri1entj"
employees and advisers in exploration and mining
---operation; and
(h) requires the impugned mine for their captive consumption for the steel plant which it proposes to set up.
is willing to make more investments in Karnataka State despite favourable .«
(i) (;i) not 98 conditions in Tamilnadu, Maharas.htra«i,,;_i'~»._ Orissa and Andhra Pradesh;
has developed the pest iron 'o're-rniyne: in the State by ;fJeployy'Irjg"__ 1 practice;
proposes to in'v.e'st Rs.10£)VO'niCVrore_iVnVVa one mi.ilion MT*"s.o_ec'i'a»|;ty steei-..pl.alnt in the Sta'i:e.;" _ V V' A p'roposesV"to:1iniv-est' miilion MT ir§te_grated€,stee|;_4pJa'r:'t'i'n"the State over span for Rs.10,000 Crore sa"id~-;":project could be V""u'ndeirta'i<.eri--~..only if iron ore is assured _ y mining lease applied by proflposyes to invest Rs.15O Crore for ii'--.non~--conventional energy generation in "tithe next three years;
(0) proposes to invest Rs.750 Crore for generating of 160 MW of wind power in the next six months;
it proposes to use the iron ore from the mining iease applied for the proposed 5'. .
_ weightage .coLiid be given to the existing ~ industriesmand investments because Section into consideration the investment which the applicants propose to make in the mines (0) (P) 99 steei piant as captive consumptiomi'-~. which wouid result in vaiue ad_c;i'it'i'o--r.i~ 5 :_. the State;
that the resources existing area c'o.L__iid--_. not.'_-visu.ppo'rtS'--~it its future' iirivestdment. _ ...in the State; and _ the case Tor the i_f'irs't=respogndent herein (writ p'et_iVtioner_V),:b th'erefore--V" wouid be : <'corjiside_red .Tundierv".S.ectio'nis 11(3) and 'Mi'~'iDR_»ACt granting the 'iv--::i3:igning_ '--.ie'a.se;_Vfor fthe speciai reasons it ' * above.' per,«S-ecti_on_:':"1i(3) of the MMDR Act, no * 3i('3)i_.d) of the MMDR Act contempiates oniy to and in the industries based on minerais; and K """
Mi} .
100
(v) in any event, the State Government have preferred the first respondent petitioner) as they have--_
1) special knowledge;-._ _
ii) experience in.th4_e mining'-operation)'; ' 3
iii)sufficient financ.i,a"i'«lresource;'and M
iv) employed quaylifiedyv-technical"stv.aff._.:§ 1.6.1. We hav_e g::iv'en':our"ctareful«ficonsideration to the submissions of for all the parties.
'-- eohtentions made, the following substantial uissuets consideration: proper for this Court to exercise «At.it5A.v'po_wer ofjudicial review under Article 226 of A"_t»:fte'y'.Censtitution of India to adjudicate on the policy decision with respect to substantial development of. the State and quash the notification made under Rule 59(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 19'f,;';Q___'(for short 'MC 1 L A.,..-»-"
(ii) 101 Rules') notifying the area available for iron ore?
Whether the applicationffor'grant lease for an area, without__a"--notificat.io'n. Rule 59(1) of the .3196.0'~nVo'tiryiVvn§"the said area as...V.avai.!1a'ble_:':fo'r.p'minéing;~ can be considered ret'llgre"i;t§;»r under Section "and Minerals (bel%.2%ei<$--er§~;e'nt.je%e:§ i '1~Re't;i_ui:aition'lm Act, 1957, (for ;b":"Vl*'"v*.:«'\4.Di?£j'.V> such application is "p'remVat'§£reVla.n"d»sVh*a.ll "not be entertained as per ""e1;vIle.e6o' er Rules, 1960? and ' Whethérvvg.ranting mining lease in consideration we 35 of the MC Rules falls outside the A 'pejtgriiiew of the matters specified under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act?
Whether the proceedings dated 6"' December, 2004 suffers from --
102 i. irregularity, ii. illegality, iii. discrimination, iv. arbitrary and unreasonabI_e""e'><e'rciseof power, and ' ~ v. vioiates the principies inatuira-3.j'u.stice§*--.,»:V" (V) To what reiief the part~i.e:s~are entitied it XVI. N IDERA.'fIo_r_g_,__ Ai§ALV;s;I§A»:n'a¢INDING§:
17.1 IssuE(I): ._ "Wt_i'e4t"r§ei" it is piro'|':3er'"fo_r"thivs----.Court to exercise l"'c'its:'r::owie::r: of j'uid'icia$ire'v*ietn: under ArticEe 226 of India to adjudicate on the it ..._pio£icy respect to substantial dievevtotpn'-ien'vt of the State and quash the n_otificati.o..n_..'made under Rule 59(1) of the _ t_€V.l4i.nera| Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'MC notifying the area available for mining .'iror1:'ore?"
Article 39 of the Constitution of India y"'tantej:npIates that the State shall direct its policy towards securing that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and the means of 103 production to the common detriment. Articlelwéf-._4lofvv the Constitution refers to the duty of the Stat-site"'reise'».__tla.e level of nutrition and standard of »living'Vai:d'_v:ivmpzove the public health. As per Article._4S;Ahth'e.'C'o'n'stitui,ion, the State shall ensure to"<-protect VandV:"'Ai;rr:.g:Vro\xjeVt!:1V:e environment and they said of State Policy is meant to A"«-._R|i!'rot';ect_yv;lt'heI.:fu_ndamental rights conferred underV_Artic:§.¢a.~s.:._354 the Constitution, viz. Equaiity4_VI§.elore'__.'iavv. of life and personal liberty. duty conferred under isle?'-..,__filonlstitutiony, points out the obligatioryyélof the protect and improve the environment'. _ r _17.,A_3;.Art'i*cl__es 39, 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of' --I:n.d.ia a 's'y:=.foEiows:
V _ "39. Certain principles of policy to be followed At 'T by the State.-
' The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing»-
(a) to (b) ....... ..
E / gwg ,,,, M .
104
(b) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth means of production to the common detriment,' .,
(c) to (f)
47. Duty of the State to raise." ate»:/el of nutrition and the standard ofiglivingnandg to_'impr'o.ve:g f public health.- The State shall régard_ the raising of the '' level of nutrition and the standard of living its;'p'e.ople and the improvement of health ' 'among its primary duties and,..._A in :'particular,'._'the 'State shall endeavour to bring aébohut p.rohihitionp,V:iof:the consumption except for medlcinalgpuirposesgof lntoxieavtihg drinks and of drugs vvhic.h.,ai--'e injurious to«.h"ealth._ H ttrotection improvement of environmentfiend,'safeguarding of forests and wildlife. -* The aState.""*s.hall endeavour to protect and improve the 'en'vironmTent and to safeguard the forests 5a.nd___vvl.ldlife ol"'i'he..country. it*-_:'VS-51'~ll1."-'Fundamental duties.- It shall be the duty '-of Ci'tl2en of India-
_ ' (ail to (f)
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.
(h) to (k) .............. .."
105 17.4. Right to heaithy environment is the_.'le§4iti-ngjate expectation, an aspect protected under -offlie Constitution of India. Right tohealthy'"enS)iro'nn1en.t"i's:'- aiso a part of right to life protected j;:'is::;j§eri;l_\'rtijc§e"i?;"1..gof.nthe Constitution of India.
17.5. The "first gener_ation{'_» generally political rights such as .fo:ugndg'i:n'4i'nVterna,tiona| convention on Civil and Politicalgr-ig'hts;,"t'iiat:f'th'e._i?secon'd'.vgeneration" rights are social in the International Covenanton So"cia'--l Cultural Rights; and that the "third V§--en'e'ratiVonf"..g:righ'ts.;"i--n_' today's emerging jurisprudence, encompassVVV'ra_iig.roVnp_aof"co'ilective rights demanding rights to .-v..AhealVthiy VerwironVn1e»nt____a&n.cl giving rise to the principle of State's resp'oVnsi.h_iiity«.,:tov protect the environment and this responsibility isclearlvv eingunciyayted in the United National Conference on the .q Human. Evngvironment, Stockholm 1972 (Stockholm Convention) "vvbhi.chVV"India was a party (vide IN'!'ELLECTUALS FORUM v. .' s""tAr'E or A.P., [2{}06(3) sec 549)). 106 17.6. There is no doubt about the fact that'.vt.h:e.re.Vvis a responsibility bestowed upon the Governm:-int':to.[jprote¢,t and preserve the environment, _as»_undo'u'bte'dIv;» hygeni'c:"--.,/ environment is an integral facet»A:4of::'ti:.e jto'a:"ihe'e,i_thy life and it would be imposs:i_b5!.e to':-save wi~:ho.uti..aVVVh'3uman:e and healthy environment T..N..:i_fG'OvDAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. uurojii or%%1r;arAl'[s2;ao_2(1) scc 606]). 17.7. Vllhiiiiejv.to~w:'.i"_;leare..«V'"environment is a 9Ua¥'a**teedJ 14 and 21 of the Coln--stittitiVonA:':*fi;*3f right to development througig5figu&,.5'§V_!j§a»£id;i~~..éqiually claims priority under fundamenital.rights;'particulariy under Articies 14, 19 and ,_&21 Voij the CoVn'stity_t'iAon of India. Therefore, there is a neVcessit'y«for:a. sustainable deveiopment harmonizing both tihegneedsV".andi;;hstriking a golden balance between the right
-to cieve--§opment and right to clean environment ---- A Ki'"4"'V.ve¢onceptV"'of Sustainable Development, an integral part: of .i;_Ai-:;'i¢'Ie;%, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India (vide JAYAL Am. i if " v.'u~1oN or mom, [2004 (9) scc 362]). """ T; .V §:_':"~ f'5i:,"'i" .. ..
107 17.8.1 Before proceeding further, a sharp and::"«d_e~tailed reference on the concept of sustainable d_eveI4o'p§ifi1--ent_g"is inevitabie.
17.8.2. As observed if A.P.POLLUTION coNTRoL'f__V"BcoARD vsgfpu éq*.4v.1vahYuoU [1992(2) scc 718 J and in VELLOR5 cirzzefivsi WELFARE FORUM vs. UNION or 71:vi3;;t' ; [i--99s'¢'5 ) scc 547 J, the concept of Sustai-nabie.iiiévelopijtenttyis:e.>kp|ained as foliows: (€i)"T"he of 1972 refers to theintesrfgenVetatio'nal'- equ'i'ty"'f5rincip|es~1 and 2, as fol'iow':'-3: V i "Principle 1.:__' Man has the fundamental _ right Atofreeydorn, equality and adequate conditi'ons____of life, in an environment of quality that permits a life of dignity and
--~._V"~lw-ell"-being, and he hears a solemn .j'-«...respon~sibi|ity to protect and improve the ' --ejnv'ls:ronment for the present and future ~ ~ generations.
Princigie 2: The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, lands, flora and fauna and especialiy representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of the present and future generations through careful pianning or management, as appropriate.
108
(ii) Several international conventions and treai:i.es~.. have recognized the above principles and,;""i'ri'..',factV~, several imaginative proposals have been""s_ub»rjriiii:tedi' inciuding the locus standi of in:di»*v'»i.d,ua|s or'1'g'troLIpsi_tjo take out actions as representiatii/eés.,of" fut:i;:i.i:e"ti::,r_i generations, or appointing' an AorTibudsrn.a"ri...to"taii;§., care of the rights of the fut-ur"e,,against the_"pre's,e'n't.'
(iii) The inadec;uacies_«"i"of" r-i'scijen._ce result from identification of adverse effects o1*f3.hazard and then working baciawards-"to.iiiindithef Secondiy, ciinicai pe--rform'ed.,_"pairticulairly where toxins are inv'oive'd,:"on=._a,n'irri.ai'§. on humans, that is to,,.say._f"aire :tia,.s.ed'».jonifanimairstudies or short-term ceigl-testing';'.v-«..__::'aThirciiy,- I conclusions based on epidemioiogical':.ijVstudi,e'si.are flawed by the scientist's inability. to controi' or even accurateiy assess past ..«.ée><"posure of-..t:hve subjects. Moreover, these studies permit the scientist to isoiate the effects of V' of concern. It is the above "'uncertVé--1i;nt'y of science in environmentai context, that "has---V,|ed"int_ernationai conferences to formulate new _ iefgai' theories and rules of evidence. The "",_uncertainty" of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time has [ed to great changes in environmental concepts during the periodwbetween 109 the Stockholm Conference of 1972 and Conference of 1992.
(iv) The principle of precaution anticipation of environmentialiiiiiharmxp a,;nd_Ah"itaki'r1Ag measures to avoid it or ichoose'~. the environmentally harmful' a.ctivity._ It can 'A scientific uncertainty. Env,i:ronmental"rprotection should not only... ain1i-"'a--t'i_:'-pirotecting-A health, property and ecorion1_ic. also protect the environmen_t.,:'_=,fo.r 'its'":§j,vown sake. Precaution'ay_ry~ duties' only be triggered" .-the of » concrete danger but_also_fi.-y or risk potential.
The was recommended by"'A.ui~aoEP ¢oyerni.n§,:iCouncil (1989). However, sumrriin_g" tVJpVV'th4e.'._l'e.g';:_al status of the precautionary 'ori'nciple, one commentator characterized the 5:._parin'cipi'e..as stil'l"'""evolving", for though it is accepted international customary law, "the it"T.----.con'se'C;v»t1_en;ces of its application in any potential "'««Situ.'_&.*tior5;~" will be influenced by the circumstances of each'1~case".
.1"(«_\«) The traditional concept that development 'and ecology are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable. 'Sustainable Development' is the answer. In the international sphere, 110 'Sustainable Development' as a concept came_4to_j"b.4e'~._V known for the first time in the Stockholm De;ci'ar.atl.o_iri7 of 1972. Thereafter, in 1987 the concept "w_as{gi»ven * ' a definite shape by the Vvvorld. 'Co-mmvyilssionll' Environment and Development ir_i*it:'; report" c'al:l'ed "Our Common Future".__ The (Zommis-siogn 'was'* chaired by the then Prirr3'e:.V."'M,inter G.l-E. Brundtland and as syueh:y"the'-»report"i--s,.ypo.g:}ularly known as "Brundti'azIid .
(vi) In 1991 the worlds.cren§;erv'atiae_Union, United Nations En§*i:.ro'nmentg Worldwide Fund for out with a document calyledVgV"c*aVri'ng.;for is a strategy for su.stai_nalbl'e._--.living. -.;:'F-"'ir}_a!|_y,_* came the Earth Summit held. in. which saw the largest gathering v.ofV'world~.leaders ever in the history ---- _de'llb.eratin'gi.and chalking out a blueprint for the "l'o"sur»x]i~»/a'i.._of thmeiiplanet. Among the tangible S * "ach'ieverr1ents of the Rio Conference was the signing .*-of twlojconvventions, one on biological diversity and "=ano_ther~'on climate change. These conventions were sig.n__ed by 153 nations. The delegates also approved Vl"by consensus three non--binding documents namely, 'a Statement on Forestry Principles, a declaration of principles on environmental policy and developmental initiatives and Agenda 21, a . K \ 111 programme of action into the next century in_,vare-as-._ like poverty, population and pollution.
(vii) Earlier, the concept was basedflj'-..or§.A.l.::'the "assimilative capacity" rules" as i_r'eve;aled._fron3.~ Principle 6 of the Stockholm Us-cla_'ra'*tionl'of"the Conference on Human Enivir_onmer1_t," 3.9721" 'j§heHsa_id Vb principle assumed that sciuénce could' ~provi'de.':policy~ makers with the information a'n'd'n1eanstnecessjary to avoid enczroaching :iau--po--fi_ ff.'t.he"-Vf,':ica'pacity of the environmentto assi.rnil_ate' i.rin:.pa'ctrs' 'Lit presumed that relev~a'r'i'tg:.'technical would be available when predicted and there order to avoid such '_'Bujt_-.VinV Principle of the U.N. General Assembly World Charter for Nature, 1982,°the..emphe.sis.:shifted to the "precautionary __pr'inciple",.,__Vand this was reiterated in the Rio Coinfefence oVfmii992 in its Principie 15. 1S.~ In order to protect the V ' ."e--nv'i;ronment, the precautionary approach .sih.,a'l| be widely applied by States A according to their capabilities. Where 3 there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for proposing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." 1122
(viii) During the two decades from Stockholm to Rio "Sustainable Development" has come to be accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and im"p..ro--ve~_ the quality of human life while living carrying capacity of the supportingH__ecosysterns."*5 'Sustainable Development? 'és'-idefineciovbyi: the Brundtland Report means:A"!Zéeiveioip_n1e:nt'u tl1at*1.T meets the needs of,__.the"'._pi~eser:t*jgalvithogutvi compromising the a"i3.i:Vlity of._'the "'v,f&i:ure generations to meet thejiivown née'ds'f~.'E The 'Sustainable DeveJdop:rI1ejnt.',"'--sglthierefore, is a baiancing V concept' bet{gve~en2"i~:'..'ecology and development',-. has bieen a part of the custorn'aif§,;vi,' in:tfei'n:a't.l,o'nal though its salient features have"-*,r,et».t4o=.b'e' finalized by the international law jurists." "S:ome~--._ of the salient principles of ','S.ustainab,le'~Development", as culled out from v.':,_j;E3rLg_n,dt!.,and Re 'io--rt'and other international documents, are i~nter¥'G__enerational Equity, Use and Conservation "£\latura.l_'-Resources, Environmental Protection, the ',__,4'Preca.u_ti'Eonary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, Obligation to Assist and Cooperate, Eradication of O " =»,Poverty and Financial Assistance to the developing V' countries.
(ix) in VELLORE CITIZENS' WELFARE FORUM V. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1996 SC 2715), a three- / 113 Judge Bench of the Apex Court referred to.-=t_he 'Precautionary principle' in environmental Kuldip Singh, J. after referring to evolved in various international confer.ence:s to the concept of 'sustainableV-dev'elop4me'n:ti,',stated that the precautionary principle, ;tiare polI'ut:er¥'p,a-y;$?i.' principle and the spe'ci4a§ concept of proof have now emerged"'vaVnd governlthelalvtf our country too, as is clear from VA';*tic'i-eis 47l,"48.eA..a§nd 51- A(g) of our Const§tt,:tEon_ atrial fact, in the various envivronmen'tal' as the Water Act, 1974$,;end othe.r' -.s;te'tutes,'; including the Envérorirnent5,§.P;'rote_cti.on) Act, these concepts arellilalreatly These" principles have now become Thus, it was held that 'The Precautiiona:-y"' and 'The Polluter Pays :Pr.inAcil2l'l'e5,lAai<e' esseintial features of 'Sustainable i*)e,veiopmeVnt'~--. -------- -« * l " "_'_.Precautionary Principle'- In the context of "the mtih__icé'pal law --means:
(i) Environmental measures -- by the 'State Government and the statutory authorities -- must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
114
(ii) Where there are threats of serious»~,"'- it and irreversible damage, lack of scien_t;if'i*c«'..',V*.._1__l' » it certainly should not be used as a re'asonjV'r~e. % for postponing measu.res»._to .'_prevverlt' ' environmental degradation. ..
(iii) The "onus of*proof" is._o"r'.
or the developer/industrialist'~.to'es-hovxfi that his actionis envi'ron,_rne'ritally ber'l'ign'.V4
(xi) "The Polluteryp r=rirlejp_,I'e" has been held to Apex Court, in INDIAN |_=o__R §N5fvtR6¥'LEGAL ACTION v. uniowiseyr iwblirix, ,Z'1996i; (3) scc 212, The V' p the opinion that any "princ,iple_evol'ved in this behalf should be sirilple,v.v"practical and suited to the conditi--ons__ot:taining this country". ..'l'he_ Ap:e.>f"Court further observed: A "'T';_ ...5'once the activity carried on is hazardous ."or i'-nhefently dangerous, the person carrying on such _ activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on Q 115 his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on....." Consequently the polluting 'industr:iesV'r'.:a"i'e absolutely liable to compensat.e~for4the*_'harnrifcauseci by them to villagers in the aflfectede e§.'ree., n and to the undergroundyywater'and-hence;.L aife"~ bound to take all necessailryiymeasugresgto Premlove sludge and other;__polluta_n.ts"v.ly'i'ng "the affected areas. The 'Pollu'teii"Pa'ys gfirliri-c'i»pl'ei'_}as interpreted by this Court means liability for harm to_ not only to compensate ..pofllLJtionWbut also the cost of " i're'st.oring': xiii envir'o'n me ntal degradation. Remediatiiovn'of.,g:tlhie:'lda'maged environment is part of the process 'of 'SA'us:i:a.iiinabie Development' and as $*.i_6h the ..i30ll»u'ter"-isvliable to pay the cost to the flilndiiviidual sui'fe--rers as well as the cost of reversing the: vda-ma-ged ecology. The Precautionary Principle . '«.i'__aynci.':'t-hf: Po!-i'uter Pays Principle have been accepted W._as partyioll' the law of the land; Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection of life it * :.__and"personal liberty."
(5:11) Apart from these constitutional mandates under Articles 14, 21 of the fundamental rights, 47, 48A of the directive principles of State Policy and S1A(g) of :"""..-'~'"?':":«,g 13.6 the Fundamental Duty, to protect and improve the environment there are plenty of post--independence legislations on the subject but more relevant enactments for our purpose are: the _4W,aft.elr~.,_ (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, Water Act), the Air (Prevention and H Pollution) Act, 1981 (the ,Air_nAc:t)"lvV"'aricl Environment (Protection) finvéronment Act). The_Water'Ac't. provnideslnfor t|*ije."rt A constitution of the Central'--Po'l!ution Cont.ro_'l_, by the Central Government a_n.d:'the.,constltution_of the State Pollution Conltrol --'_VlBqard's.__'»l;,iy.,various State Governments in the function under' golfigroi the 'Clovernments concerned. The._Wante'r Actproehilvbitsthe use of streams and wells for disposal of p"oVl'lutni"ng 'matters. It also provides for restrictionshotnvl' outlets and discharge of effluents otJxta'in--i--ng consent from the Board. .,Prosecutio'n__and penalties have been provided which sen'tence of imprisonment. The Air Act A »..,4_prov~idels..--that the Central Pollution Control Board and thv.eState Pollution Control Boards constituted under " mtnhefllwater Act shall also perform the powers and V' functions under the Air Act. The main function of the Boards, under the Air Act, is to improve the quality of the air and to prevent, control anfldfiabate air 2'/+/iv \, 117 poiiution in the country. The Environm§er_i_t~._v (Protection) Act, 1986 was also ena;ited'u'_~..for environmentai protection, regulation of di'sc:harg»eVl'o--lf= environmental pollutants andv.h'a'nd.ling-Iotlha.-iardoiJi5 substances, speedy response :i'r1e..:'the._' accidents threatening eenvironrnent and7-i.de'te"rrei;1t"* punishment to those ersdarigaet environment, safety. and 17.9. The question of economy or protection a sustainable developmeajat' _ if' i conlcept,misvustainable development' differs '8evelopment' is not synonymous"vvith.VGrowtl1'. 'Growth' implies expansion or "Vi"-quant'i'tativezchang"e'"but the 'development' includes the »co.n1"ponent along with quantity. That is why 'Sustaina_bIe'?..V_ bevelopment' is preferred to economic '<growth.,'i{)f course, economic growth also contributes to ":iin.prove the quality of life; but the true development ..._1"sl1V'«,::u!d aim to provide quality well-being of the people and inhuman dignity, unaffected by globalization, which plays a " »»»»»»» 118 major role in globai economy, transferring goodsrainyd raw materials from one place to another for industi-.ia'li.saVtion, unconcerned with local economy of 'Sustainable development', the:-i"etore,,_ n1e;aris"«.su_stain'i.ng7_ it human deveiopment worldwide.
economic growth is the the.' 'aim lot sustainable development is the 'need of quality iife for not only today's for the future generation.
globalifiatiohhV'uWi1i:|'e»..Vétlhe"-eiconomic growth aims at the quantitywbasedy _ iéicohslumerism, the sustainable _._deve!o:pm~ent aims_ ____ at the quality-based consumerism. '=_Wh'§!.e excessive consumption leads to environmental d'eg'rada'tiron.__arid" enabies only the rich to have a quality V life, iimeipooir are unable to meet the basic needs, the it it Sustainable Development and consumption ensures equity the people.
&"V--.,cl'evfe.l,o'pment; and 17.12.
quality lifestyle of the human being also requires irnprovjement; otherwise, there will be set---back in the quality_.i'_iiFes*tyie human being. Until recently, the economig:~"gv--roojtnrti1twasgiltheék---. only measu growth inte the economicedevelopment r.e,ed':ofV'fthe present without compromising the}-abi-lvAity,V--.Aot'«..t_he"«future generations to meet their own needs; a,nd,:"suchV.,economicjyvdevelopment, which ta kes ca re 119 re to decide the qua|ity=..,of,_li.fe§' Vetcoeorhic"'-- nds only the needs' of the"present."geVneratio;nlVlbut, of ihéA,:1i,fL1tu.té,Q¢n'era'tion"'"is-called as sustainable developmentca-rry_iVn.g th,ree__ components viz. U) A V"-{iii,'«..': ' V"conc.ern .for.t'he:_"..environment while framing the economic policies;
uriderstanding the true meaning of the commitment to equity viz. reducing the gap * between the have's and have not's, not oniy the equity among the people living contemporarily in various parts of the world; but also the equity among generations with reference to the use of natural resources, Like maintenance of environmental protection, the 120 which has to be achieved by strict liabi|_it~y_:"for-..v pollution control, applying 'preca'utior'la__l:y7 principle', 'polluter-pays' theory arid, '_l;'>_tlb'li:fi' -- trust doctrine'. ' V' l 17.13 Traditionally, the econom1i'c..growthi, only pr;o'mot'es consumerism, whereas sustainatiie deve.lo'pn"§ent,VVas coined by World Commission onilinvironnment 'land Devel'opment, which is also known as 'Brundtiancl1Co'in'mis.s.io*nf,.eiiisures to preserve the natural resou'rc_e's also. While economic of environment are considevréd A"_"'n'a'ture, the sustainable developl"nen_t together for the benefit of the_manki.nd -vg_:ia'st,"piresent and future, reminding the ..f_act._':,_"'<'.t¢;J(V!a3,/_ is "'yes..t-c-rday's tomorrow and tomorrow's V."yesferda.y'; i"'_' ' ----.
1?T'§14..«:"" Sustainable development, therefore, aims at human well-being along with the protection of .'e'a_vii--'onment. Sustainable development would meet social, economic and political challenges, such as: 121
(i) lack of environmental ethics, lack of basic services like sanitation, drinking water, healithé. care, etc. as social challenges; "
(ii) unequal consumption of r,e:source.s,i * environmental hazards caused by____4indu»strial sectors, displacement of.traditiorial and local economy by the global ones;as'7'econQmi'c',__ ' challenges; and "
(iii) the policies of the'«_,§ove'rvnrne,ntfliinvterstgate relationship and "'=internatio'nal-s business competition as politicagl__chal|e.n_ges.' ~ 5 17.15. The sustaina-hi'e.,development"and the sustainable consumption would vensu.r'e"rfai'r d~istribution".va'mong the present and futiire°'g'enerati'on's pre_ve'nt excessive exploitation of natural re-,sources.V'«The"~conCe-pt of sustainable development/ sustainable iconsu.m'pti'c~.n,"~~--"emphasizes the views of natural «reso=.-ic_i':€:~es,--;._cl)e..,_at eciuavl-------rate which can be substituted or replaced. V'=.Sustainab.le'development means not only economic growth, but alsoglcoversaa broad spectrum of peoplesf education, health, 'gnutrition,'gorganization of discipline and honest labour. w.i3evel'opment through science and technology, that "covmmensurate with environmental resources, is an ideal goal for 'Kalli societies. Of course, the transformation of the natural 122 resources would bring the benefits of the economic development and enhance the quality of life, but if the _.$.aJI)jé-.":ca'u«ses incalculable harm to the natural environment, be harmful to human life. Therefore,mecono.mi.c 7. it and environmental protection co{r,..§§AI'eme'ri,;£'~..yyith each other. Such sustain--al5»!e deveio.bjine'nt""can be achieved by industry' arid i,n'd'us_:triua"l,.i.;;ztion'"through eco- friendly science and 'lEheV"eco.ffriendiy science and technoIo:gy'::,lS-.oyizoosetl dollar-friendiy approach.
17:16; 4' Sustaj'iy'n,aibleh"development, thus, in the course of economic dVVev,e%|o,pme_nVti._thiro.ugh industrialization by eco~friend|y 'science; and techn"o-!og__y,,takes environment also intoaccount and V'v__yn*iir1im_izes'ti1e_en_vironmenta| damage. Sustainable development in\;=oxlve'sH' methods not only in production and ~Vconsurn.pt*ion"'to suit the sustainability of the environment, but §"xca,|so*c,_hange in the attitude and value system. It balances the
-.l,'_-economic growth and environmental ethics, viz. shouldering ffgreater responsibility to safeguard the natural resources and
-4...
§ 'A '\:
/ 123 prospects of the future generation. Sustainable development can be achieved only when equilibrium is .,!Tiaiia~ta.lVned, with the economic, social and environmenta'l__"ne:eds§" the uninterrupted and unfetter,e'd"'developnieintldespite'? overlapping economic, social and "e,nv~§_ronm'en.ta.I 17.17. A State, therefore,~:V.:iVs eocpelcteud 'to cautious of these socio-economi§~..:;,o|if}cja,lvl'c«havl'Ie.n'gesv'while framing policies for Sustainable development political and administrative dynamic and flexible policies7-to' meetthe of world-wide economic activities, lN.IfllC.h Vi's._oth'er:_wise called as 'Globalization'. As ; statlcw'ill orxrigiid____policy would hamper the development ":_Vor;'damagsav.the_ environment, the State should have a dynamic'V'p_o.li't;lc'al or administrative will and flexible
-Vpolicles for'afbroad--based sustainable development. A_l"i7.18. Now, turning to the other side of the coin of V.___"""Su:5l:ainabEe Development', we must never overlook the ,M,e--'=2--M."
1.! ,2" '\ a £5".
:;' ;
23$, 124 basic aim of our country, viz., to make India._:"in_to a powerful model industrial country.
17.19. The industrialization, which is.-i'nten:d~ed'~.:fo--rV izfass, production of goods, changes the ofbusiness"end'::thevvery l' lifestyle. While globalization tai<e.s_ overithe vlocali'a:n:d_tra'clitViionai. economy slowly disappears.
17.20. The socio¥'politic.a| %.i_,rea4s'o:ris:'contribute much for economic policies reVlatin:g"'to-.industr_iaEization'land globalization. In the process.4oftechnological! development and economic growth,.V'iVhotVhAi't.he arivcllllllthe developing nations are exploiting'vthe-- nati_iVrav!A._:resources and damaging the environment. While _the und'er_deVve'lop'ed""and developing countries propose to 'xi'meet...;t'he;---..Abai.sic neetisyof the people, the developed nations better living and standard of their people. In eithe,r"icase,"theire is depletion of non--renewab!e resources and . 'd_estruct~ion':. of environment. it 17.21. 'Industrialization' means conversion of raw v."l--msrnafiterials into finished products for domestic consumption as fwell as a source of foreign exchange. It provides for local 125 employment and increases the connectivity and imp.ro.vEes the standard of lifestyle. Such improvement has to only for contemporary generation, but ._futLire generation; and the environmental na,tujr;e"._a'is_o'--._has.,_to,_iJe' protected as a stock of physical and'p_so::ial reusourcie 'f;or*th'e' future human need.
17.22. The main 1-_econ_oirriic_*development is to improve the level of living... are measured by the availabéiplity'éoF:foovd'--,, sheiliter, :educa--ti'on, health, sanitation and social services», etc.' ,'l4i~ao_w_e'ver, "thie link between economy and ecology'also"it-a_nnot'--.__b'e ignored, because of economic development.._th:oug_h'aImdustrialization and globalization. The ,.v..environme'ntal resource also constitutes a natural capital. It is A"¢_tru:e',-.eco_nom-icpi"development may tempt to persuade short--term policiies for Vprofit.'maximization. But, such short--term policies, in 'E the ev'ent'---Vof"igjnoring environmental ethics, would only result in "Vd,isasters.V"' To assess the economic status of the country, .'_j;_tlrieV erivironmentaf management has also to be taken into fconsideration. The economic aspects of environmental 126 management, therefore, require successful and responsible enterprise by adopting sustainable policies. 17.23. Industrialization alone can gei'1erate:'the4.Aweal*tVha7-. required for taking care of the people, as}; the"- Directive Principles of our Con.s'ti-t_ution'.A.,_Nobody'V'can_disp;ute the need for protecting the environment, as everyone is entitled to pure air and water. Greue-ner--y 5;-houl.d»,,Ab'e,protected to ensure pure air. Trees and forests have i.to"'be"p.'r,ot'ected for ensuring regular rainfall{fanap...-;§Vre.v:enti;_n'g soil._'erosEen. Wild life has to be protected for, [mainltaining_:ecolog*i<:a.l balance. 17.2{l.'-- aiwEn'v.iVror_iVmlent:ai3»«ethics is undoubtedly the basis for environmentai _:man.ageme'nt, because all individuals have a '*funciarne.,nVtai~~l.[§lghtto'"'i'i'v'e and of well-being. Even though money °'and,urnaiteriall'«become important issues, and the industrial revo_l'ution.'h'a_s: brought tremendous growth of economy and 'V..promotedA':the profit and share prices, one should not forget that "'-environmental ethics forms a basic scale for human activity -- wtfiaether economic, social or political. Environmental ethics, therefore, mean relative responsibility not only towards fellow 127 human being but also to the natural world that contributes flora, fauna and physical elements such as air, water, minera'ls_,_ etc. and to prevent environmental degradation. 17.25. . But, there shouid*" not itiiigi-§_o.f-'wa'r.. between industrialization and Industrialization should certain--l_y"'~~.ensuAre :__a V Thus, without compromising to"'-the environment, industrialization should we would not be in a position to meet the :eVco'riotmi.c«cih_ail.enges'particularly in the context o-f--gv!0'l5a.lli'zation. it
17.'2E}.'--The .envVirori~mient'al degradation, many a times, is not included i'n_the..eco'nor'nic accounting system, as it does not 'xmiprovlide "method" "" of attaching monetary value to the °*en'viro'nm'e,nta'ii._co,mponents. In other words, the policies a?'.é'i:'3i.ntended for economic development should *.provid'e_Afor cost incurred in terms of environmental "'lide,g:r'ag_dation which is called 'green-accounting'. The conventional accounting should thus be replaced by 'green-accounting' and the assessment of economic "
\ as 128 growth by such green-accounting wilt be'~._,:rea~!Vistic sustainable deveiopment.
17.27.). In this connection, it:-'is"releva'_nt m-.ind;« that in the Seventh Scheduie of entry 54 provides for regdlat'l'o_n of "rninerais development to the extent sdch'vv..reg}ulation and development under the"4'L'o_n~tro_|_Vfol' :.«L:J.ni_on is declared by Partiament by pnblic interest. On aCC0Unt Of l-t_Slefilamyeilmimperatlve to have a separate"le~gisVlAatl'on'1iiviz. l4~/E'l'~lt:DR"§Act, in order to provide for regulation of minerals. The mines and mlneraV'ls.,_Vvests cvvith" State Government and the forest .--v~.,_beloV_r:'c~_i;g, to_"the Sta"te,,_G_o,vernment, and the Central Government, '".__eit,her,un,d'er'th'e MMDR Act or under the FC Act, do not have any ownership over the minerats or forest. But, 'V still yyoperatllon of the MMDR Act and FC Act there is a need to 'ijge'tvipreiorfllapproval of the Central Government, as both the Acts "enacted by the Parliament by exercising legislative "competency under entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. 129 3.7.27.2. Section 2 of the MMDR Act is a deciarat:ion'~w.as to the expediency of Union controi and the san1e--.f_~r.e:a'd;s'was hereunder: it up L' T 9 "2. Declaration as to .:the..expediency of._f_ Union control.- It is hereby declared fhaf-._lf--glZS{ expedient in the public interest that:__the Union sho«uigs~..,,. " take under its control theregulation of minesigand the; " development of minerals to-the extent i:ereinafter--* Provided."
17.27.3. That apart, '4fl'ot'*thie§ MMDR Act, no person shaii undertabiécel prospecting or mining operatio.n.s::Qiri_anjiHarea} and in accordance with the permit/licence or as the case may be,~o'f~ this Act and the rules made Section 5 of the MMDR Act contempiatuessthatV'n.oVi11ir'iing lease can be granted by the State .---.é_Gover5nrne'ntVv v\i'ithou__t___é.>the prior approvai of the Central GoVernm,_e'nt;«._°v 'A'y::.S'ection 18 deals with the deveiopment of V _ mineraisi-_and. the same reads as hereunder: "18, 3Mineral Deve-lopment.~-- (1) it shall be the duty of * : ._the"Central Government to take all such steps as may be "necessary for the conservation and systematic ' "development of minerals in India and for the protection of environment by preventing or controlling any pollution which may be caused by prospecting or mining operations and for such purposes the Central 130 Government may, by notification in the Official G3vze'tt_<e,'-. make such rules as it thinks fit.
(2) In particular, and without prejudiciegv the generality of the foregoing power such «l'§.il35 provide for all or any of the following matters,'_A_Ana'mebiy.:;. '. A _ ' '
(a) the opening of new .m'ine5 anoftheg regulation "of mining operations in ai*iy_ai'ea; ' 2
(b) the regulatiohpf th'e""e'x'ca*/ai:'Qn or 'cfollection of minerals from"an'y_m'i_ne_g_~. * < (C) the measures to_be,tal_<eh t¥y=owrijers of mines for the purpose of berieficiartion of ores, including the provisi'o;n,,- ' of "-_sustainable 'icontrlvances for such " ' ( d 1' the .dev'elopn1eiat of mineral? resources in any area;
e) the hfztilficationrvjof. all new borings and shaft sinkings "and the,"'ipre.ser=v__at'ion of borehole records, and " ugspecimensjof c'o.r_e"s of all new bore-holes,- . _(f) the regul-Etioi': ofthe arrangements for the storage is of minerals and the stocks thereof that may be kept by ahy--«person;
the submission of samples of minerals from any the owner thereof and the manner in ' which and the authority to which such samples ~ sflabll be submitted; and the taking of samples of A any minerals from any mine by the State 3- Government or any other authority specified by it in that behalf,'
(h) the submission by the owners of mines of such special or periodical returns and reports as may be specified, and the form in which and the authority to which such returns and reports shall be submitted,"
'-l K"
v v 132 be made, the fee to be paid and the docz_;m_en,4ts~. which should accompany such a,opiications,__ pi . - -. '2 (3) Ali rules made under this section shaii'..ibe on the Government." . ' ..
" *ieimcriasitstsuiéeliéd}is 17.275 In view of the -crystal;--c|'ear Section 2 of the MMDR Act and t'he..l.ivnteVntio1n~'tzheideveiopment of minerais as provided the |\ilMDR Act, an obligation is cast on they take steps for the systematicdeveldpmeat in India and, for such purpose,' no obligation cast upon the but the obligation is to ensure that takes piace in a systematic manner (vide V-!i(uARTA.li€. smog-i B!-IADANA v. HARI SINGH ll"i"v£A'f'li'iiA5i?'iAI'R__20O:t%§C 1556). It is to achieve this obligation, MC Rules provide wide opportunity to the appii-c__ant_s,~ sot.-that, no application for grant or renewal of mining 3"='««.__V'iease slhvaii be refused on the ground of incomplete details or gllwant materiai particuiars and such applicant shouid be re_é;uired to compiy with such omissions and material particuiars sand the State Government has to give an opportunity of being /'\ 133 heard and record the reasons in writing and communicate the same to the applicant, if it proposes to refuse to grantiorg renew the mining lease as per Rule 26 of the MC Rules. ....A.ejcer_u?'i'tiQM. a systematic method is provided for considering"evailltivayting dealing with the applications for gra§itAAor'iene.wai' L for mineral development.
3.7.27.5. Sections 2 and i"8...:'er the VlV'..M:DRV'Ac:t§ referred to above also emphasise th:e*r-authority" l(Z_)Vi°.:tnli£=,' CentralVGovernment in the matter of regulaticiog development of minerals» (ixggin .pu1il_ic it .
(ii) for"conservation'"'and systematic development of A 'minerals. in 1ndia;and A :(iii_)" iforgprvotection of environment by preventing or V"i«.conts:oi'ii,ng any pollution which may be caused « «b_y.pi'~ospecting or mining operations. When the statute thus provides for .cons_erva"tion and systematic development of minerals and "protection of environment by preventing or controlling it any poilution and empowers the Centrai Government to _f 134 regulate the mines and development of minerals systematically, it may not be proper for this".Coi_m.-t to unilaterally conciude that these provisi_o§Va1s":"'ai';3;j procedure followed and the power yexerc'is'ecllithereunder, would not protect the environment. in' 17.28. In this connection-,.y:."'ity is xrelevamjxtoqelxtract the salient features of slzudy" .;jepor1"ofeitl:eu"§\l.lEERihwitlrreference to the impugned mining operations-ancl in Kumaraswamy range hill region,w:h'§ch rigeaclsjas here-Li_nde'ire: I _V Environment Rich, bio--di'versity.Vofipiaynit species and birds has been recorded in Vltheéistudy area. The hilly region e.g. jmmarasyvarny' rande is mostly covered by good forest V-lifoujer. A.Larg;'ie""non7ber of medicinal plants has been ..recoidedpir'veii dispersed throughout the area. However, isf.-tiiébserved to be very poor. Rare and '' ,__''Vendanpeiod species recorded in the area are Leopard, 'Sloth Bear, Wolf, Indian Pangolin (in Sandur forest) and four 'species of birds (common Peafowi, Great Indian _ 'Bustard, spoonbiil, White Stork) and two species of ' "reptiles (Indian Python and Monitor Lizard). 135 The plant diversity over the entire study good, but local diversity is less at most of except in Kumaraswamy Range. The densitypf tre.es'is ' less in and around mining areas; . labounr colonies/townships, and at easily"g'ajccassib'le_ 4'areas, f showing the impact of biotic press'ur_e.1*-_V Some of the mine""'c4<.7:'Wners' "out plantations for the last 8--1y0.y'ears~.._on the -onverburdens and degraded fores.tland_ £}ell'£:';':y_'»n;Af'or'est division has allocated about 100 hafof 'forest 'area_':nea_r Somalpura- Sandur for conservation"ofVrnedici_nal plant's. ifn" o'rdér...to "mitigate 'theimpacts arising due to mining a.ctivi£'ies environment, large scale afrb'restat_i.:¢rg/pla$'nVtationjbothhgby mine owners and forest dep.artmentv'needs /undertaken on degraded forest land} Vain' 'aro'und,_ 'vi-llages, towns, labour colonies, on o_verburdens and 'ivfeju'venated abandoned mine areas. v_~}ReleAvant tecfinic_al_'c:'etails are given in the report. Apart fironzi th'is«,c__ propagation of medicinal plants needs to be V' at different places with suitable resources, "The dw'indi;i'ng wildlife can be protected by providing them Vsuitable"habitats in non-mineral area and by providing A I L" «measures. "
adequate protection and adopting conservation 136 17.29. It is only after taking into consicie~r_aiti_on.vv the clearance given by NEERI, the Government has available for granting mining lease. _ 17230.1 In this regard, it is apt "r'efer'-t_o' of the FC Act. The FC Act \Nyasg""enacted,__w§t{1lVea check further deforestation. H 17.3o.2 Section 2"'ot't--iie'-- ;§V¢§1i'Act';'.%leeV§:1s_as hereunder: "2. Restriction on the -.dAe~res_er'vation of forests or use of, = land faorf. noneforest purpose.- Noltwiti:sta;*:idinJ_¢f:.; anything containved in any other law for the time ,gb'i'n:"'force in a State, no State Goveijnnvent orioirheréatiltfiority shall make except with the prior approvvai i~.the~.-":Central Government, any order ,, ._rJirecting,- " V thatvany reserved forest ( within the meaning it t!;ej..expressian "reserved forest" in any law A 'forlylthe time being in force in that State) or i i any portion thereof, shall cease to be 3 reserved;
* iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose;
137
(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corpora'tipn,"",,A agency or any other organisation not'""oW.ne_d,5 ;_. managed or controlled by Government; '
(iv) that any forest land or 'po'r_tio'n~ may be cleared of trees' which haye. ,gro'u_rn._. naturally in that*la--nd or, }fo.r_tl_13e i purpose of using it forcyreafforestaticin. 1 (Explanation.- Fortythe this Section "non-forest purpose'? 'means _tiief'_»..bira.king up or clearing of any forest' 'landVor.'porti_oni" thereof for»...
(a) the'_céiltiv:ation.,o'f Coffee,' spices, rubber, palms, oilabeadng f¥plants;.._'vvi1o_rti=:ulture crops or medicinal "7PlantS;.V ' V
(b) any purp'oser.othei_j~ than reafforestation, but does ggnotliinclude any' work relating or ancillary to V conservation,"development and management of ,: forests__ and wild-life, namely, the establishment ' V 'oft check-posts, fore lines, wireless 'communications and construction of fencing, . 'tgbriclges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench . marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes."
{emphasis supplied} . _\ is :5"
<5-%.'> is , 251 ,2» 138 1730.3 Rule 3 of the Forest (Conservation) _.R~u;l:esl,'~..2003 (for short 'FC Rules') provides for composition:.:ot'"tVhie-- Advisory Committee. Rule 3A of_the__FCprovi'des.ifor:'-- constitution of the Regional Empowered 17.31. The 'user a'gVer:c.y' organization or cornpanypor thlehcgthtral or the State Government who for diversion or de- notification of the-forest"l'an-rlf:forfinyéhlholnsfolrest purposes and using forest accordance with the permissi,on---Vg.ra:nted:'1by.the'Centra!...G'overnment under the Act or the Rules. ' A A A A A =Rule._ 6'~ol'f'th'e FC Rules prescribes the procedure ~'"._to b._e"3'«foll_ov.'ed for"se.e.k«i'ng approval of the Central Government CV,urider.$ectiors-2'of the FC Act and a careful reading of the same makes' it'c'le__arP'VVthat the Forest Advisory Committee or the '.VRegio'na|""Empowered Committee, as the case may be, shall Cstrictliy scrutinize the application for the approval of the Central '«l«'-'(So-iverhnment either for using the forest land for non-forest purpose or for granting the lease of the forest land to any person 139 or authority not owned, managed or controli.e'd_::'-«._,by__ the Government.
17.33. A careful reading of...th_e FC framed thereunder, makes it clear thatzjno"State"Gov/er:nr'me?n_t or authority shall pass any order't_h'a.t..the--"forest poirtiotn thereof may be used for any no_n'--forest purpose, or any forest land or any portion thereof b_e3uassjivgyned by way of lease or otherwise to any privateperson or to 'ar:_y«'au'thority, corporation, agency or aynyy other ..organization'' not owned, managed or controlled by the prior approval of the Central VGov-e'rr1Vn1Venft;.,g:Vi _1.7.34.i"* Wit'-en'v. such a power is conferred on the
-'mauthoiriti-es'vi--to scrtfi:i'nVize, examine and consider applying
-5iefo_:,-e granting the approval as contemplated under Se_ctio:ni::2 of the FC Act, it may not be proper to hold i°w.,"Vthat the}. authorities so constituted for such specific for granting approval or permission for the use of forest land for the non-forest purpose and granting lease of the forest land, would not, by itseif, be an answer 140 or substitute for conservation of forest growthv~.or_y_iforest wealth.
17.35. The aim of the environmentai'infianaygemveint is, to minimize the environmentai d_feg.r'atiiation alo'n.g'i"w:ith the maximizing economic g':':o'wVth, adoptinga-.ppropriate economic poiicies that will __e'nh_ance thei_:ecovi'ogica£ and environmental maintenahce~,g ajnriec;-oAn'oymic efficiency and deveiopment through encoefrienfiiy"tech'n.o'logies. 17.36.; ore is a major raw material for the rainks fifth in terms of iron ore reservesVx'and- is a_ and exporter of iron ore in the world at-my A.ustraviia}"" Brazil and CIS Countries and the "V"«.sg<arr':iatak_a. State is't'h'e'Vchief exporter of iron ore amongst the Vfndian' huge resource base of Magnetite ore is avail__abie vatiifiyerstern Ghats in Karnataka State. ":7;-37." When the State Government thus came .with a poiicy decision to pave way for a s'usta'i'nabIe deveiopment through systematic development ofiminerals on one hand and protecting environment on 141 the other, by exercising its statutory powers conferred under MMDR Act and FC Act and the Ruieusr'.._:framed thereunder, in our considered opinion, it;""may--._.!:n7ts_t'be proper for this Court to exercise the review conferred under Article jthe of'--. India to quash the notificawteion 15""V.iMe.rcVh, the State Government even to that effect. It is a settled 'not beiprioper for this Court to exercise the review under Article 226 of the?"rceiaetatetierifef'Amtifie to interfere with the if "thehW(i5overnment (vide INDIA cHARGE'crLmoM£'iuNIoN or INDIA {(2006) 12 scc 331}.;~'~ _ Suiarnilariyl, in the case of FEDERATION OF A It-Apia iii//ii' 6EFICiEiii'"§ 'AssocIA TION V. UNION or INDIA, 4 SCC 289, the Apex Court reiterated the scoip-e ofv_.ti':ev3j:udicial review and examined the policy evoived by i."'*"~.__V'thneTGoverhment is limitedkand the Court shall not interfere "--T."with_f.--'such poiicy decision unless such poiicies are xi"'~.j_iné:onsistent with the constitution and the laws or arbitrary, irrationai and amounts to abuse of process. , '9.
/ 142 17.38. The Apex Court in the case of UNIOI_VV~Qir""*7_.l,ll'A-V'gDIA AND omens V. J.P. srueqi reported in rzogcijio5--SeC*::'_i:z, deprecated the practice to declare.oa__poli_cy"ta:ioeV"arbitrafy, in a case where there is no chaliengeto the=!egaiit3£ai:r_all. Further, in the case of uNIoN'_o.i= Ininxzi V. afiti'sA_1, reported in 2006 (5) scc 36, the Apex Cotl:ft.:a_t-para "7 held as} follows: "The Supreme that if there was no challenge to. appiicatiie regulations under which' petrtioherewas efol.Jhd_'to:f be unfit, the High Court :.co'u1fi:l._' etlpori» the legality of the I! 17.39. ~. 'In'tehe_ir1st'a'nt"case' also, the learned Single Judge despite the"'--fact that 'the.-:=.§:'>.;.~.. no challenge by whomsoever to the notificateioan dated March, 2003 made under Rule 59(1) of _v.i'3tti.lese','«...has interfered with the same and quashed the notifi.calti"on"'_as as the mining leases and further directed the 1 he _ State"---Go*xJernai;1ent to take appropriate steps to cancel the mining leases grahted without reference to the notification dated 15"' 2003 which are totally outside the scope of the Writ Petition and the same is contrary to the ratio laid down by the <7 "7" '?"-fi~':'x§«» \\A __ -'flu 143 Apex Court in M. PURANDARA v. MAHADESHA s,~~t[(2'_G~Q5) 6 SCC 791], that it is not proper for High Court-toei1V!a'rge._.ttae subject matter of adjudication.
17.40. The findings of the Ié'arn'éd''sinlglefJ~udge'H_th§tl-the ' very notification dated 15"' 2t503__ is.VVop_po:se'd"'to public interest, viz., forest growth ands,-forest'w.ea|th 'andthve permission granted under Section be an answer or substitute to the_:co_nsefyation 'growth and forest wealth are, and they are contrary to the wells, to economic sustainable developrnerstlg of in any event, we are of the consideredu"o.pi%rai,on' that learned Single Judge ought not to havewirgevndered V'su*cll.._f_l,n%;lings without a proper lis between the ,taparfieS.p'oMgK,s :The order of the learned single Ltudge quashing 'xthe not~ifi'cation as well as the mining leases granted pursuant to A {thAeVlln'otification without even affording an opportunity to the parties concerned is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex u'7..f:0urt in the case of SANJEEV COKEWWMANUFACTURING 144 COMPANY V. M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LTQ.., AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1983 s.c. 239, which reads. "11. We confess the case has left us perplexed,»1.,:'In C ~ the first place, no question regarding the ~::o.nstitution_al " validity of Section 4 of the Cc«nstitu'tio_n'-«,(Fortylseconti I' Amendment) Act, 1976 appears _arisenV consideration in that case..?The question wasabout thehvi nationalisation and take-ovei*ve«byi.the Centrailéovernment of a certain textile mill under provisiohsof the Sick Textile Undertakings_z}'Nationalisatio»n)"«Act, 1974. The validity of some of the that Act was impugned. Act'Aiihadiiébeenjhvcludedii in the Ninth Schedule' the" '_Co.h:stitu_tion _ as 'C0'nstitution (Thirty- ninth Ai§éei%;=:;tm,;ei}:) @9755 The validity of Article 31--3 which ifprovidesdmrnunity_.to the Acts and Regulations specified 'in the 'Cilintha"_,-Schedule from attack based on ir'iconsistency'with the "fundamental rights was challenged that question, therefore, directly arose for
-. _tconvsidera~tion. The question was, however, not decided in 'V the-,V4iviine.r?va.--:"Milis case. Section 39 of the Sick Textile 9' ,_."Undertakiriigs (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, had also 'declared that the Act was enacted for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles ,_ "specified in clause (b) of Article 39 of the Constitution. it 'Article 31--C of the Constitution which had been introduced into the Constitution by the Constitution (Twenty--fifth Amendment) Act, 1971 expressly provided
2. 145 that "notwithstanding anything contained in Article, law giving effect to the policy of the Statev""towa_r_o's securing the principles specified in clause (b) or_cla.u::.e"( . b of Article 39 shall be deemed to, b.e__void_7oVn'"t'h:e':vgrCund that it is inconsistent with, or taltes or_abridg'es'any..,__ of the rights conferred by Article :'1.4,:';4Vrticle or " 31 ". The Sick Textile Undertakings (i'lationaliisat'iovn ,1 Act, 1974 was passed, we mayvlbimnention 'her_Vé, ' before the Constitution (FortyesecondgsiArnendrnent) Act"'c'an*ie into force. In order, therefore, to provisions of the Sick Textile undertakings'.,V(iiiat;oneiieeribn) Act, 19?4 on the gro.ur=d of inc_onsistency'A'd;'..gbriclgement or taking away of rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 1,1V.9,ii__"it was trek the petitioners to chaliengefheVucLo'n.sti'tuVtional'Validity of the Constitution (Tbvwenty-fiffth'Arnendni:-en't,3 Act, 1971 by which Article 31-- C was first "into the Constitution. That, h_owever,. was not leper." to the petitioners because of the .. {decision of 'this Cour}: in Kesavananda Bharati case. It was "so conceded to by the learned counsel who appeared for C " "tbé'--p_etltio.ners in the Minerva Mills case. The counsel who '--.appe'ar_ed,"ghowever, chose to question the constitutional "-«.._validity,.of Section 4 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 by which the immunity afforded ' * Article 31 --C was extended by replacing the words "the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39" by the words "all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV". No question regarding the constitutional validity of Section 4 of the (Forty-second 1 46 Amendment) Act, 1976 arose for consideration in the case, firstly, because the immunity from attack givensto-,a law giving effect to the policy of the State securing the principles specified in clause (b) orihclausej of Article 39 was given by the Constitution"_(7':venty-fifth)' Amendment) Act, 1971 itself and"'second_ly béecausei the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation)h'Act.had' enacted before the Constitution FOrty¥second'viV Amendment) Act, 1976. --...,:Ye_t, counsel') '-success'fully persuaded the Court to go into"'th:e question. ofnthevfvalidity of Section 4 '~~.__the (Fortyx-second Amendment) Act. 'M 'raised before the Court by the. learnedAttorrieyjGeneral[.that the Court should not 'c::1n:cern*.itself=§n/ith Ahhypothetical or academic questions;The?-Iobjection was"'overruled on the ground that the Fortyf-'secano'.Arnendment was there for anyone to see and that the guestiofin raised was an important one dealing"witl: .nt;_t an "ordinary law, but, a constitutional ..«}amendment"which had been brought into operation and , yvhiich of its own force permitted the violations of certain 9 " "fte"edorns ..th'.*-jough laws passed for certain purposes. We "--..have'.serious reservations on the question whether '«.it is' open to a court to answer academic or hypothetical questions on such considerations, 9 ' particularly so when serious constitutional issues it '-- are involved. We (Judges) are not authorised to make disembodied pronouncements on serious and cloudy issues of constitutional policy without battle lines being properly dra wn. Judicial Inclia.._§" V 147 pronouncements cannot be immaculate conceptions. It is but right that no importamt.' A' of law should be decided without a pl-apart '-.i-:5» d' between parties properly ranged on e_5the"r a crossing of the swords. Weflthinkéfii is_inexpedient,__ T for the Supreme Court to deIvef_nt-opronlejnis. mrhich " do not arise and expresslopfinion Athereonfif ll lfetrnphavsiis supplied} 17.42. In the ivnlstxant .:'i:n=.pugned notification dated 15th March_,j2Qo3 fitsellfivvavs' i?:icVf5:'»"'<:'ontemplated under Section 11(g)...of.4_thé:'.!v;M4:i_R3i Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules, proper for this Court to interfere.V_Awiti*.ixsVu"cti'~-_:pcli>cyl_fid«ecision by exercising the power of judicial relvievvconlferred Article 226 of the Constitution of already observed, the State Government decided tcs 'iss_u.-élnotification under Section 11(2) of MMDR Act 'stand MC Rules, based on the clearance from the NEERI. V' 'CBu:t;ti=e learned Single Judge has completely overlooked the said report and not given any credence as to the awareness of the étate Government to the said report.
148 17.44.}. The learned Single Judge having a_dVr.nittedv the adequacy of the statutory provisions under Act and under Rule 6 of the FC Rule$..aS_ wellras'"5'éctioriV'5V of MMEDR Act and the report of the |§£EERi,..jerred rerjd.erin_g a finding that the State lacks av».*arleness"'as'toV tl;Ve"c.on.s_eIfv.ationof forest and environmental protectioh.._ 17.4-4.2. Once -l\.iEERI has given a clearance, it rri.,E|\.-'::,:¥"r€3_t to sit over the judgment on ensures the inter-
generati.on--av! It thvefitate Government to take appropriate' as to the need for industr£aIiV"zatio,n V'a.ncl._to..:_"provide for mining lease for iron .-v..'_ore_~5:fori" capvtive.....___99nsumption of the steel plants estabVlished«a'r:d_ proposed to be established and it may not this Court to apply the principle of
--V proh"i'bitiVo.n"of such policy decision as held by the Apex Court it the case of CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH .' socrérv V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (AIR 2000 sc '97lS) and the same reads as under:
149
7. It was held by the Supreme Court that reduc_fion' of the sanctuary area was correct owing to Kutc.'i**--b.ein,q_'' '' backward area and the need for industrialization,.'giihe H Court applied and accepted the_prlnciple_s"of"protection and principles of polluters--payl,, l<eeplng"'.,,in4_mind.;the,__Ti' concepts of sustainable development . generational equity. It wa>s_lie.ld that is proper to apply principles of Prohibitionviviin.such a cased" 17.443. When the..,sta:te_Gcveg?n.ment,"oh":y after the ciearance by the NEERI, _an"_VVe{)<p--ertvi~'.ji:o'dy, has taken a conscious policy.,,,y,I'decisions': notification under Section 11(.j2)_l:5f..'the .F:C:,'i'.Act'---- with Ruie 59 of the MC Rules to no-tify--"a--n_»"are'a_aava--i§ab¥e for mining lease, which of course,V..,could*-- only after prior approvai of V the Central tiiovernment and Section 2 of the FC Act and i'appvrova"l'i:und_er Section 5 of MMBR Act, it may not be ia;i_p.r_og1JriVaf'te_ four.-this Court to interfere with such decisions y of the fitate' Government, nor to quash the notification, Vihorcto direct that mining activity should be totaily avoided _ invltheiforest area. : i 150 1744.4. We are, therefore, of the considered-opivnion that the learned Single Judge completely conferred on the Central Governmen_t.f.o_r giv_i'ng"'cie_e.ra'nc'e, unvdferu Section 2 of the FC Act, which is reg-ouireds to ije_it'ai€'en"o'i:iy'after the decision is taken by the»*i'g-hate mining lease in favour' of a for the clearance, which is mandatory 2 of the FC Act, no mining operation can beicarrried words, even after the preliminaryi;d'e:cision::"of :State.'VVCg1o'vernment in favour of granting Government can refuse the forest clearajii-vcewiifherefogre,_' are unable to appreciate the findinggfthat tinder Section 2 of the FC Act isneither.Aasuhstitute nor a reason, as sufficient ."sta,t'u'tof~;i:*safeguardsfare provided under the FC Act and thereunder, and the same cannot be lightly dvi.sr1,=-.!§:affV:'ded by this Court. * .-.__17.i-'=15. We are also satisfied that the learned Single .',i,'_.3udge'ifhas failed to take into consideration the conditions to be .4"\ 25 II I.' t <1;
151 imposed while granting the mining lease in the forest land for non--forest purpose, viz.
(i) the lessee shall plant twice the numbe_r;'_"¢'f"*l§_'j-9: trees which they would be felling; in
(ii) the lessee shall pay a sui:)stantiaj.l Of 'Net Present Value' (NM/__)1'--p_er hectare = V' . based on the nature'of_V'the forest; and_
(iii) the lessee shall ensure- 'compensatory: afforestation aln-d'gpa"yg amount towards__ afforestation "l5'Ei~'~,f4_'jpv..hectare satisfyi'n'g:_'the co§nc.ept'sA""o.f< .Vp.revt:autiona ry pri'nlcip.l--e,«VV_pol|uter.f_pa_ys, green accounting 'Land VpuVblic~,_:trus*t.:',--doctrine, which are elss.elnt.ialV' fOrt._sul:§u?stantial development as it held byflllthe Apex Court (vide VELLORE ifCITI'ZEN§'"WELFARE FORUM v. UNION ."'-v.:_C:5F'.4"l'.i:'l~£l:')IA (AIR 1996 sc 2715) and OONSUVMER EDUCATION AND ..;'REeEARcH SOCIETY v. UNION OF 'fi_iNOIA AND ANOTHER (AIR 2900 sc
975).
17.46. Again the Apex Court in K.M. CHINNAPPA V. OF INDIA reported in AIR 2003 SC 724, emphasized 152 the need to strike a fine balance between projects of public utility and adverse effect on environment and held that a comparative balanced and the convenience;'alnd"be'nefitl:to_ a"-l«arg.er 1'. section of people to get primacyaovleritcompv_arative:"'le.sseVr hardship has to be preferred.";fl""--l, V V V l 17.47. The Apex. T'gco_u:tgj GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD V... UNIQNQF IMp1A"'repb}rltéd in 2002(1) scc 606 reiterated. balance between the developmiéntailfneeds'-and"_'p'r'otection of environment. 17.423, 4' , Wheniythe'§go1i.ntry is emerging as one of the majoajpower V-inVVti1e.'"global arena, the question is, is it V 3-'easisnaibiejytopobstvruct such sustainable development? It a balance between the environmental 9' protection the developmental activities could only be Z""'-__V'mainta.in_ed by strictly following the principles of :'s_t£sta:i--nab£e development. 'this is the development strategy that caters to the needs of present without _/ 2"" _ s of the application, pursuant to the negotiating the ability of upcoming generations tosatisfy 153 their needs.
17.49. In any event, in respectflof eco-r':ornicrn-letters, it may not be proper for this Cotart policy decision of the Governmerit-,_l5y under Article 226 of the iggide BALCO EMPLOYEES UNION (keep, Iiyo:A (2002) 2 scc 333, and M._P. 0114.35 STA TE or M.P (1997)7scc 171150;' th"e'ie'arned Single Judge, viz.
(i) to ypu"t..Va'n.?fholdr_:'o<n"'all mining activities in the fo::es*t aVrea;7-, ' ' all theV"'n1'ining leases granted during the :'éV"_not'i~lfi'c'ation dated 15"' March, 2003 could not ' ' be sustained, and are therefore, quashed; .. (iii)-0.
to take steps for cancellation of all other mining leases not covered under the notification dated 15.3.2003 but which are in 154 the forest lands -- (reserved or non--reserv*.ed.);'~.. by following the procedure under the
(iv) not to embark on grantingmrnining'i'easesgih»:the forest area as a matter 'of role and only exception, forest area sho_u:idV_.be notifired granting the mining .l_e'a.s_e; and V
(v) the State and Centra-l"G.over'nrnents 'to.co'nsider the possibility of'-.gnatioriatizintgg the mining industries so__t_h'at_ p~ri*va'te.':vV._p'rofit motive woL_ild"«.g.n:yZi3t com_e..'..'in=.t'he'~,vvaéy of protecting V"
are, in our"rco_ns;ideVre:d- o"pin'iony 'un~te'nable, iilogical and contrary to the w:el_lA clown by the Apex Court relating to SustainalbieuiDevelopinenfof the State. Forygall these reasons, Issue (1) is answered in the n.eVg.atViv*o:.::"»--.4§lc'co'rcl:i_ii1gly we hold that: '\"(i)r'--Vi.itflmay not be proper for this Court to ' " interfere with the policy decisions of the Government;
(ii) the quashing of the notification dated 15"' March, 2003 is illegal; and 155
(iii) the consequential directions (a) to (m) paragraph--150 of the order of the learned.:",:'-_:'"~., Singie Judge, dated 7"' August,__=:2OO8',fj{A*' impugned herein, are set aside.
xv- gssue Whether the appiication, fo'r..gTrant of"-m_in'in."g leasenfor an area, without as.notification=u"n.der R'uie--..5.9'§(1) of the MC Ruies, 1965,.,notifying"'-.',tvh,e'~ ._said area as avaiiabie for__mining._._ ..;on'sideregj.'.~{or grant of mining |ease«.g:,fl;i'nde}é_ Section..AA1'fi,.(-2,)of the Mines and Minerais{Qevie-1oprn«eVnt'&VR--eg:u'iation) Act, 1957, (for short"?4.MDRa'A:ct')"'assucAh""a'pi§iication is premature and shaii. notj':-he ..e'nt_ert.ained as per Ruie 60 of the MC Ruse-a,_. 1960"~?'a_nd..
F"orV_,deciding Issue (11), it is apt to refer to the fo|'iowingistatutory provisions:
Mines and Minerals (Deveiopment and '¢Reguiat.io'r:3) Act, 1957 is enacted to provide for the Development A Rveguiations of Mines and Minerals. reievant to be referred to:
19.2.3. The following provisions of the MMDR Act are 156 "Section 3: Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) to (f) xxx xxx xxx
(g) "prospecting licence" means a licencegranted for the purpose of undertaking "prospecting operations; '
(h) "prospecting operations":'n_jeans any _-opera.tions~ undertaken for the purpose of exploring, locating or proving mineral deposits,=.._ V' i V' (ha) "reconnaissance joperations.','. means any operations undertaken..for' preliminary prospecting of a mineral through:'regional, '.§eri'al,i" geophysical or geoc'hefnic--al surveys" and "geological mapping, but does"not»vln';lude=p.ii=ting, trenching, drilling (except H iiidrilling of'?oo."eh'oles onagrid specified from time to 'time by:Vj'the»,.Cen_t'ral' Government) or sub--surface excavation"; ,' :fhb)_ "reconnaissance permit" means a permit granted for the 'purpose of undertaking reconnaissance '«.operations i'"~.Sectioi:"3: Restrictions on the grant of prospecting licences or mining Ieases.- (1) A State Government 'shall not grant a reconnaissance permit, prospecting ' ' 'licence or mining lease to any person unless such person»
(a) is an Indian national, or company as defined in sub- section (1) of section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956),' and 157
(b) satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided that in respect of any mineral specifiedin the First Schedule, no reconnaissance pa-rmit,l'~». prospecting licence or mining lease shall be ;grante_d5 _.__ it except with the previous approval of the Cen.tr'al - l' Government. ._ Expianation.- For the purposes '-of :1tli.is:' sub?seVctiori,:"as..a 5,j person shall be deemed to bean InAdian'anation,a'i,g '
(a) in the case of a firmalor other~._a'ss--:5ciation of individuals, only if all the "members ofthe firm or members of th'e'~.associatioi'*:jéare-._citizens"'of India; and ~ -
(b) in the case of an in~dlvidual,:' only".?f.:'.*7e'_'is a citizen of India_ _ _ A' A. .. _ (2) No m;'n:::g:y1' lease shall be granted by the State Governm'el'nt ynlessyvjlt is satisfied that- (afgtherel is evindence tonsiiow that the area for which the lease is 'applied for has been prospected earlier or the .existen__ceIof 'mineral contents therein has been ' * _established' otherwise than by means of prospecting V _ such area;. ...é'F?d _(b)y is mining plan duly approved by the .v'*«.(.'ent.r:ai; Government, or by the State «G'o_ve.r'nment, in respect of such category of mines as may be specified by the Central ..__"G:.w'ernment, for the development of mineral deposits in the area concerned.
it ' '_$ection 6:- Maximum area for which a prospecting V' v licence or mining lease may be granted.- (1) No person shall acquire in respect of any mineral or prescribed group of associated mineralsin a State- ?
1, ~ 159 reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or min.-'n_g lease by a person as a member of a co--operative socie'ty,W. company or other corporation or a Hindu undivided famiiyj' A' V or a partner of a firm, shall be deducted froirfthetaarea H referred to in sub--section (1) so tha.tt_he s_;im'to-ta.'.ofthe area held by such person, undera reconnaissa'n_ce--.permit,A f prospecting licence or mining lea.se,'--_vwheth€_r as '.sL}c_h*.., V' member or partner, or individually, may not, 'in case, exceed the total area specified'in_ sub-sectionh ('1'), XX XX . . _ XX XX xx xx Section for prospecting licences or mining5'lea_s'es;'¥"'--V.. , 4' G' 'G K V ( An -- Vapjzllication'~.:Vfor_ - a reconnaissance permit, "pro'specting "licenceA"orV~mining lease in respect of any lancl, which".the.._uminerals vest in the Government G V shall be-rnavde to the State Government concerned in ?--.'the* prescribed form and shall be accompanied by the "v.,4pre:-scribed fee.
Vb-(2)VV" 'vl'f_iv:ere:;.V"Van application is received under sub- V__vs'ectivon(1), there shall be sent to the applicant an ~~ V acknowledgment of its receipt within the prescribed 'time and in the prescribed form.
V' (3) On receipt of an application under this section, the State Government may, having regard to the provisions of this Act and any rules made 160 thereunder, grant or refuse to grant the permit, licence or lease.
Section .11: Preferential right of certain persons}-c._V (1) Where a reconnaissance permit or prospectingiicencega. * has been granted in respect of any land, pernviitl holder or the licensee shall have a preferential 'right for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining ,leas$+.,é's" the case may be, in respect of that overany oti2'e'r,: person :
Provided that the State Govern'm_ent_ is satisfied that the. permit holder or theVlicensee,l'a's'the case may be, -"
(a) has undertaken "reconnais'sance.,V operations or prospecting ope_r_ations_, as 'the' 'cfa_se' may be, to establish 'min erai resources*«in-- such «land; ( b ,9; has conrmflted any breach of the terms and V'v--.condi'tions.:"Qfi reconnaissance permit or the 'pro'specting' l.icenC~e,' " 2 (c_)_ has';-not b,e'a::on1e'ineligible under the provisions of " ' this Act;.and Yd) i"RhasA~not to apply for grant of prospecting ~._iicen.ce'o'r mining lease, as the case may be, within ' .._three "months after the expiry of reconnaissance perrnitgxor prospecting licence, as the case may be, or within' such further period, as may be extended by th e' said Governmen t.
.. V' g_( 2 ) Sdbject to the provisions of sub-section(1), where the it u__State Government has not notified in the Official Gazette the area for grant of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, and two or more persons have applied for a I-1 ~. '\';
161 reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of any land in such area, the applicant whose application was received earlier,7.._ shall have the preferential right to be cons-ideredj' for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting -- is licence or mining lease, as themcase may * be, "over the applicant whose application was'recei§»¢d._late.g,- V A e_ e Provided that where an area'..is"available_; for grant. of reconnaissance permit, spre'sp_ecting licence-.:or..:n'iinin"g lease, as the case may be, antithe State (ioyernment has invited application;;l'""by:"jlpetifications the Official Gazette for'grant,gifiivsusciispennit, licence or lease, all the.applicatiensfV.receivecls"during" the period specified n_otification"san-d___tLhe applications whichihad5»l3eeiiessre_ceiyed to the publication of such notificationesinvérespect of the lands within such area anedihad'-no'tAbee'n._ disposed of, shall be deemed to .. have " been. Treceived on the same day for the liurposes of" assigning priority under this sub. ' V. 3 section .:e is ' ~._ further that where any such applications s' are _ re'ceiyed on the same day, the State (ion/ernhment, after taking into consideration the .. egmatter specified in sub-section (3), may grant the is reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the applicants as it may deem fit.
162 (3) The matters referred to in sub--section(2) ar_e».,thel~.._ following: --
(a) any special knowledge off, or expei-ience'~.in,'i reconnaissance operations, I pmsisecting operations or mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the'.applic.ant; _
(b) the financial resources of'«the._appiicanAt;v '
(c) the nature and qua_liiy_ of the ta-chnical"'staf:f employed or to be ernptloyed by the 'applicant; (cf) the investment which"'th'e'- aVppll'cant'proposes to make in the mines 5_antl. in ._th_e"«industry based on the minerals;'arid ' h A
(e) such other matters-'as' may be,prés.c;*ibed. (4) Subjectto provisions of sub-isec*tion(1), where the State the lofficial Gazette an area' ~ro;{"g_er}'£::::,or 'reconniaissancge permit, prospecting licence__ as [the case may be, all the applications the period as specified in such«--notifica_tio.n, 'which shall notibe less than thirty days, shall' considered simultaneously as if all such "~-applications hai/é"'been received on the same day and V' " -thevt3'o..yernment, after taking into consideration the "-l'._matt'er_s,__sbecified in sub-section (3), may grant the A»..,treco,rmaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease,._ as the case may be, to such one of the it , tuappiicants as it may deem fit.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub--sectlon (2), but subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the State Government may, for any special reasons to E , 163 be recorded, grant a reconnaissance permit, prosp_ectingl'~w. licence or mining lease, as the case may be,''''tofa_nVwI'. ' applicant whose application was receivedllater "i.,~p" . " preference to an applicant wipose application "was received earlier:
Provided that in respect of minerals speclfleAd' in the" First Schedule, prior approval.,t'o'f..the Centra:l_G'oye--rnment shall be obtained before passing_ any orc:'er_unde%r this sub--section.
Section 12: Registerspf licences and mining leases.» (1 The Sta-te"'~Goyernment shall cause to be maint-ainéjd in the pirescribeg.'.form'V%
(a) _ _app.llcations ..for_prospecting licences; ( b )._ a reoislter _ofA?pros_p'ecting licences,' (C) a register o'f'appli:catioiV.:.s for mining leases; ( d ) - a 'register .naini.n§'_.»leases; ((3).. a register of applications for reconnaissance permits; * and . V "'(f) "a register of reconnaissance permits, which shall be entered such particulars as may " . be prescribed.
(2) v.l'.'-"fiery such register shall be open to inspection by any " I person on payment of such fee as the State Government " may fix".
{emphasis supplied} 164 20.1. The State Government shall not grant reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining Vale-ase to any person, except with the prior approval Government and no mining iease shall be granted: by'_i'th'e'%S'tateV' Government unless it is satisfied t-hAat"th.e're plan 7 duly approved by the Central, Gove'r_nrn_ent, by Stai:e Government, in respect of suclfcategorv effmilniesllas may be specified by the" Cen'tra'l.j(§i5vernn1ént;V for the development of mineral depo'sits:"in__.,thearea concerned, as 20.12. of the MMDR Act, application for the reconnaui'ssan.Ceitpermit,.,._".prospecting licence or mining lease .-~,sha|l made to the.,_$_t.§te Government in the prescribed Form. A".Qn;Vreceipt'ofvstrch appiication the State Government can grant or'-refuse',to"-._g'r1ant the permit, licence or lease as per the
--provisions"-of the Act and any Rules made thereunder. Section 11(1) of the MMDR Act prescribes the V"'l-.._flrollowing qualifications for claiming their preferential right for'=' Lfobtaining the prospecting licence or mining iease, viz. 165
(i) the permit holder or the licencee has undertaken reconnaissance operations prospecting operations, as the case establish mineral resources in such land;
(ii) has not committed any "breach or'te*n5.l1;s tang conditions of the reconna=issaniCefiv pern1.it"*or*t'ne a prospective |icence;_. _ A " ii A ' '
(iii) has not become ineligibfle. under provisiioins of the Act; and. . i' 2
(iv) has not failediktoioapphlfnforz'pro.sVpecting licence or mining Ieavsev-woit~hiri--. gthVréé'v.njon'ths after the expiry of_recoi1_naiissan"c'e 'pe:'vmi.t; 20;._:4.1_. provides that where the State Government the area for the grant of reconnaissance' perrniit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as f'h--eg¢'a--_c;a'e ?-__r"1=-,ay%.be, anéiiitwo or more persons have applied for recon_rnai's.sVfanc'eVperrnit, prospecting licence or mining lease, the app!ic.a__tion,s~received earlier shall have preferential right over the 3"-'««___application_s* received later, i.e. preference shouid be given based thejc-ate of application.
166 20.4.2. But, the first proviso to Section 11(2) of'*th'e..i_M--iYiDR Act states that, where an area is available for_--recon'naisAsa-nce» permit, prospecting licence or mining lea_se""'anjc.vi.V'the.VState.u Government has invited applicationsfiby;'not'ification''for,g--ra'ii.t:of . such permit, licence or lease, all the app-l.icati,ons_recei.ved3durin.g" the period specified in such applications, which had been receivetl" pr'ior;.:_>to"the:'p;:blicatior: of such notification and,had of, shall be deemed to same day for the purposes of1a,ss:i.c3;nin§ p«ri'oi-'itvfi A 2oV."e;.3r; 'The'fie-colnd44'lpro'viso to Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act providesatéhat Where such applications are received _._on t.'«;§«,A:¢.=,-it isameV."'day,__,,.the State Government may grant "V_reco'n,nais,sa«nce%"permit, prospecting licence or mining lease to suchx'l.o,nel'"c.r_"_v»t_he,.'applicants as they deem fit after taking into A .consid"erat-io.n"the matters under Section 11(3)(a) to (e) of the H " " ' 4_Act."' '"2'(:).4.4. As per Section 11(4) of the MMDR Act, all the A --r,:a'p'plications received during the period as specified in the ~ I 'x
-, .?'/Wf; X5 'x 167 notification, which shall not be less than thirty daysv,».sha!l be considered simultaneously as if all such applicafiéfis received on the same day after taking into"coris_ivtleration matters referred to under Section 11(3) 20.4.5. Section 11(5) cirjthg MiViDRVActv.V_e'%n'pewers the State Government for any spe:C.i.al:'reasonsihto'he recorded, to grant reconnaissance pewriit, licence or mining lease, as the caseinahy befto -an application was received lateig- whose application was received' the prior approval of the Central minerals specified in the First Schedule. A V S 1 V A con'1'pavra_tig\..=e analysis of Sections 11(2) and 11(4) iof would make it clear that Section 11(2) is applicaciaielwt;'en"§tlhVe State Government has not notified the area availaijle 'i'Vor°the grant and in such case, applications received woiuld be preferred as against the applications received aa.
168 21.2. As per the first proviso to Section the MMDR Act, the appiications made prior to the yshyaiiy also be deemed to be received on the,,sa_rne day'"pu'rfsu'a»nt.to.c_thAe. notification notifying the area avaiia,b|e,"'fot Qcr.ant:'"and:''iinvi1i;i:ng . application for the same.
21.3. The second__.proviso._f:Vto:._theA provides that, where any such appl'icVations_ the same day, the State Géove-_rnment'»'-- reconnaissance permit/prospecti'--ng the case may be, to such one of__the.,a:pVp:l;i:caVr.t_s'; consideration the matters specifiediviuynder MMDR Act.
21.4. 11(4) of the MMDR Act an the ""~a,pp|iC:a'§tion_s ._receiv"ed- ..... during the period specified in the V.'-not.i.ficat,ionfshaiii"'be considered simultaneously as if they were received on'.th_e..,1'same day, after taking into consideration the ' 'matters specified under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act. . A harmonious reading of these provisions would make ciear that an the appiications, whether made prior to the ..,_n'notification or after the notification, or whether they are received ,/ />».'f_' 169 during the period specified in the notification which be less than thirty days, shall be deemed to have the same day pursuant to the Jnotification'"'eandV""»al'!., applications shail be considered simti»ltaneo.Li'sly,.after'ta§§i.ngi::irnto . consideration the matters speciffied in Sefction min other words, only if no notification is rxnade, as to the availability of area for grant, and when or m;_ore"~--p'e.rs'ons have applied, the applications received earlienshall' --ha,ve"'prefeir'ence over the later ones.
23.1. 'l'h.e 'G.o'v:ernn1ent,; exercise of the power conferred..,und'er. --the" MMDR Act, framed the Mineral Concession VRu._4|es., "
Rule éV6""pio'vides the procedure to be followed for "application for grant or renewal of the mining leaseand tnesame reads as hereunder: * _ ":."26. Refusal of application for grant and A' ' irenefirval of mining lease.-
v*-(;'&) The State Government may, after giving an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to / 170 the applicant, refuse to grant or renew a lease over the whole or part of the area appliecl.' " (2) An application for the grant or renewal o.l'_.a minlnhgl -- ' lease made under rule 22 orrule 24g4;"'as~1Er;e"'case may be, shall not be ljefused; by 'the: lstagtej Government only an the Althatlfiorm :I Form J, as the case ma_y"be, is not comple~tfle«--inHall material particulars, not accompanied by the documents' referreld"toc_:in s'ub--clauses* (cl), (e),
(f), (g) and (h) of elauseg (lg) ' of'4seb~.rule _22. (3) Where it appears:' Efhe""'app.licatian is not complete-jg *_-in all Zmaterlalf'paytlcelalrs or is not aC€9~+3P35l¢d .f~'!§'-' lfeflfllretllldocuments, the State -$:oyerninent:'~':fshjall;' 'notice, require the Vt.-gppllcantlt&:>';*sdpply the"ornission or, as the case may beghvdocuments, without delay and Ainuany case' not Vlater'«:'han thirty days from the date _ of hrecelptg of, the_sai:l notice by the applicant. V {emphasis supplied} » 35 of the MC Rules provides for preferential rEght'of'ce'rta'.in persons and the same reads as hereunder:
35._ Preferential rights of certain persons.- Where it ' wtyvoflh or more persons have applied for a V' "reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of the same land, the State Government shall, for the purpose of sub-section (2) of X, .......
171 section 11, consider besides the matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (3) of;*'sJecti_o__'ri5 _.__ it 11, the end use of the mineral by the applica'nt.j._ i ._ 23.4.1. Rule 59 of the Rufeskdeals wit!*§--'V--h.}':.*'ie éVa':i|a.'.b§lify's' of the area for re--grant to be ar{ci~.tiAi'e~V'sainEe reads as hereunder:
"Rule. 59. Availabilityof to be notified.- (v1,i.:lVc2_are..e- 1: v - '
(a) whiithé previously' field 5}? which is being hel9'T._Lrnder ' al'~:[reconnaissance permit or a prospectirgg iicenceVvor.a jrnining lease; or
(b) which' hasi:y'been:"i'eserved by the government organy local, authority for any purpose other it zthan imaging,' or "respect of which the order granting a ' permit_'_.or licence or lease has been revoked sub-rule(1) of rule 7A or sub-ruie(1) of rule 15 or sub-ruie(1) or rule 31, as the case " _ fmay be; or V' in respect of which a notification has been i A issued under subsection (2) or sub--section (4) of section 17; or w?
172
(e) which has been reserved by the _' Government or under section 17A of tI:'YE"A:(::1:r_: _._ it shall be available for grant unless -
(i) an entry to the effect that'Jthe'ar_e'a for grant is made in the registerlfeferred 'to_.in«sub-_°-T.' rule (2) of rule 7D or subjrule (2__) 'cf rul¢:»'2i'iuAor sub} V rule (2) of rule 40, as the"--.:a'se may be)
(ii) the availability the.ara.a'-for_grant'is notified in the Official Gazette'and%.jspecifvin'g~ ,3 date (being a date not earlier than'i'thirtyVdaysfrohj1the date of the publicatiariof the bfficial Gazette) from 4Hv\I§;'}icl?f:Ej$'§:L'l_L'ti~.ai=ea available for grant: Provided.Vtiiatlgnoitiiinfiiiii..this shall apply to the renevvai eoifla Vofithe original lessee or hisllegal -»notyv{/i'th_sianding the fact that the lease has already expired: _ V lfjrovided fu'rther"that where an area reserved under oiruleg'-58*o.r undefsection 17A of the Act is proposed to -they 'grah_ted to a Government Company, no "~i'_i:otifica,tioi_1*ponder cIause(ii) shall be required to be A issuevd: ' Provided also that where an area held under a 'reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence, as the "case may be, is granted in terms of sub--section (1) of section 11, no notification under clause (ii) shall be ~;-»~-:T:V \' required to be issued. '4 ;2>§§/4' . _ , 174
(a) an entry to the effect is made in the register referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 21 or sub-rule (2)**~o'fxru'leV.I' 40, as the case may be, in ink; and
(b) the date from which the area"sh'a'ii «be, at/a.ilabie,for«' grant is notified in the Officia'i'Gajz'ette atle:-2_s't ihii:-,5' days in advance.
59. Availability of certainvh4b"ai-eas ioi -- giant to be notified.- In the ca'se_Aof aln"v'i'andV'»"w.hich isiotherwise available for the graiithtofba V§'tpi'ospe:ctinglicence or a mining lease__ but Ain...:.respect:.,, vvh.ic!i' the State Government 'h'as'_'refused§ tciigrant'a_"pro_specting licence or a mining«"leasé!_on :that_ the land should be reserved fair. Vfanyx than prospecting or minlin_g"r'or.. the:S'tat'e_'"Government shall, as soon as such 'landbe'coniest'--again available for the grant of a prospecting '*iea'se, grant the licence or lease after following.the procedure laid down in rule 58. " 23;--S.¥;15.«,"iRuie_6O oftfie'VMC Rules reads thus: _ it ' V"i~5?:r_'emature applications.--- Applications for the graritj_ a reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or n"ii'n.ing": lease in respect of areas whose availability for A, , grant. required to be notified under rule 59 shall, if - A' (a) no notification has been issued, under that ' rule; or '\ 5/33/' 175
(b) where any such notification has been issued,@ the period specified in the notification has.n_o't V '2 expired, ' l ' shall be deemed to be premature and be entertained. "
23.5.2. As in the case of RuEe4su5:'8-._and 'A'amendrrie'n'ts were also brought to Ruie 60 by:V'amendn1e_nittr2=otification GSVR 146 dated 16"' fianuary,'1980ra'ndne.:I;;yuv"'a.{nendrnentVVnotification GSR 56(E) dated 17"' aanuebr-y,'V 2'Qeb:;i 23.5.3. i>.é'iek';::cteec th::osé;_ a.n1e'nclVrftxe'n'ts;: Ruie so of the MC Rufes read as fpiiiépwfis: '
60.:i..Premattirue 'appi'ication's.4 Applications for the grant of a prospectin_t;=.iicence "or_"rn'ining lease in respect of the areas in "which. 5 A V 3(3) no notification has been issued under ruie .4 58Vorrule 59; or V such notification has been issued the ' i period specified in the notification has not ' _ expired shé-iiV__A'3be deemed to be premature and shall not be if I "entertained and the fee, if any paid in respect of any it "'st'1ch application shall be refunde ." fl{MeMmphasis suppiied} 3% is 23.6.
(6)
(b) (C) 176 As per Rule 59 of the MC Rules, no area,_;~~.V_:"-«._y_i'~._ which was previously held or whichiis held under a reconnaissance per*mitf,..>'ovr 'la prospecting licence or a rninin'g'lea«se;'Ao.r_: " which has been rese.rved"b.y"'the Go'ver:nn.1en;t or any local authoritykor any---.puvrpi9se1»other than mining; ,or ° '' I in respect of which 'order g_ra-nftin"g--. a permit or licenceeor lease"'h--as b'e.en_ revoked under sub- rule{1):{>f'Vru.le7;A"or s'uib--i1Il'e--{'1) of rule 15 or siib-r:t1"lie.(i}-.o.f4rtlj'ieyu'31i,i~as"v.thei case may be; or in"i'réS_vpec't_icfywihich .a"" notification has been issued Vundciieyriist1'b.::s'ect.ion (2) or subsection (4) we of__4Slection ;
which ""-ha__$___y.»been reserved by the State 9' iciovernment or under Section 17A of the Act, ~. :"'si':Aa"'I'i7
1. (ii
(ii) available for grant unless-
"an entry to the effect that the area is available for grant is made in the register; and the availability of the area for grant is notified in the official gazette"4,yy i 177 However, these requirements are not necessary-
(i) to the renewal of a lease in favour of the original lessee or his legal heirs notwithstanding the..fa'ct'i~.,_ that the iease has already expired;
(ii) where an area reserved under ru|e_.5S..Ao:r,un.de<r section 17A of the Act is pr:op»os'ed._t'o_ be to a Government company;1"".V I
(iii) where an area held '-ujn'd,er a vreco.n_r;aissaVn'ce permit or a prospecting__.licAence., as the casgeiimay be, is granted ter-3_vms;_lo.f"~--su,b¥section (1) of Section 11; and _ '
(iv) ovthenvlil.Centrai Government relaxes the V"p_rov_isions~of..sub}ruie._.(1) in any special case for thereasoVns_ t'o.'.b'e:ar_ecorded in writing. vAsV.)per,R_u_,l.e 60 of the MC Rules, the applications "_for;graVnt..,ol'.,permit, licence or lease in respect of areas whose ava-ilarbilitvv'isrreggulyired to be notified under Rule 59(1) shall be
--deemed ..to.be' premature and shall not be entertained, if - no notification has been issued, under that rule viz., Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules; or 179 licence has been granted to the said permit holder or _pro's.pe.cting licencee, provided the State Government is satisfiedl..t'hait§g--«.: -I~
(i) permit holder and licence'e',"as the _.calse._ma-y'.» be, has undertaken reco'nna:'i'ss.ance_ ope;-at;i5--.i§r.rar or prospecting operatagn, asvthe case'3m.a4y beg, V to establish mineral reserves in"thVe"la.nd
(ii) has not comjérnitteutlf b'rea.ch.il"~--of anvil of the conditions of' .r_r'econV3naissanceV" =__permit or prospef:'ting licé'nce;: ' if " S
(iii) has 'notib-ecorng._in'e|Vig--ibiie' 'J_l_'!'del' the provisions aloof and '
(iv) has .no'.'ffailed"lto""ap'ply for prospecting licence S' or mining leas_e:~__ x,2j;j4§'3;. Accc">rdV_ing to: Mr Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior 1'-'i.g=-cvounsel, isninceisyection 11(2) is subject to Section 11(1), the ndtifitatlioit:°'inV_vit.ing' applications for the area referred to under the first proviso to Section 11(2) only refers to the area for reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence has already i.beeVn'»-granted to the permit holder or licencee under Section but shall not refer to the area previously held or being 180 held, which is specifically governed under Rule 59(1_.)'~.o:i"«..th~e MC Rules.
24.4. Mr. Krishnan Venugopalhcontends'---.:t'ha't"'~ti':e vefvirlstgé proviso to Section 11(2) of the MMIDR Ar.,:tti.s' nota.tj'aii"e;osp,iioeoie C for the grant of impugned miriiVn'g_V lease, as,theV:"iii.jp.n.i,g,nad ar'-ea was previously held and for required to be issued as area availablelot'm'irt_Ving_>eAieaseasper Rule 59(1)(a) of the MC Rules. It is, therefo.re_,::wco'nt-ended' per Rule 60 of the MC Rules, the impugned area which is 59(1) of the MC Rules is premature,'anclsh'a:l:|'n,o't--Ahe--entertained, if no such notification has been issued, C it it it Mrfifirishnan Venugopal, learned senior counsel, ">_al.so*invites..o--ur"~attention to Section 10(3) of the MMDR Act, as per. vii-h,i'ch',«'ia"ppl'ilca'tion shall be made to the State Government V for grant r'r.i'ning lease; and the State Government may grant refuse to grant permit, licence or lease to the applicant having '_'_,reg.ard"to the provisions of the MMDR Act and any rules made .:'_,:ti'ie'reunder. According to Mr. Krishnan Venuggopai, as per Rule .' 2 182 adopted by reading the statute as a whole and thecorrect I interpretation is one that harmonizes the liest with the object of the statute. "A right construction ime Act", said Lord Porter, "can oniyil$e"attayinedAiV:if_itstvholei7. V scope and object together with an.__ain.a.iysis'vof"its and the circumstances in it taken into consideration." (referredi'to:r.Pif?i$M._CHiiiN'i9 JAIN V. R.K. CHABBRA l(19s4)2 scc'%13oa]§i;Vf' to understand the true purpose' and spirit of every provisi'o1n««._ofv- statute, Court is constrained to combine both ai1.d'*§:iurposViVye approaches...." ".....'.All and Veyery'*---firovision of the statute must always' "be reVad.__a's aiwhole and harmoniously, and one Actshould be construed with reference to the'«other:"'«p'ro§ris'ions in the same Act so as to make a i cons'i-stent'ar;actment of the whole statute. It is a settled ""':i.".""--._Vi'awyysucitia harmonious construction has the merit of any inconsistency or repugnancy either within a .V%":'i..se.t.:l:ion or between a section and other parts of the
-4 «statute, as it is the duty of the Court to avoid "a head on 183 clash" between two Sections of the same Act, (refer to err v. HINDUSTAN suuc CARRIERS, [(2oo3)3ppscc._g57]) "whenever it is possible to do so, to constr1;'é"provie.:io'las which appear to conflict so that they har_meni:s,e"i.:(refer" KRISHNA KUMAR v. STATE or R4iJAsrHAN'[A1R»1.s§.:;ssc " 1789]. The provision of pa .statti'te""cannoutfie: uiiseuci to defeat the other provision unles_s' it is Vi'rn_o:'os'sil:':l§e to effect reconciliation between:_'tl<.Ierr_'i_'A.d" of the Larger Bench of seven Judges in of 2007 (GM~-- CPC) and connecteifijgfhattiersid'ispoSe.d':.ofvo.nfA13.3.2009). {emphasis supplied} 24.7'; is settle'dA'iai:/V-tlhalt Rules cannot controi the effect V of theéict and the has to iron out the crease and see that _of..the legislation is given effect to. upA-Q24.V'8't"'jw__he;n'lithe language of the first proviso to Section V . 11(2)""'of 'Mi\dDR Act is plain and unambiguous, the same can "~4"Vneithe;' be omitted nor be ignored nor be substituted. Section the MMDR Act was introduced in spite of existence of Rule it :}f'6'0"of the MC Rules.
iv-r~--,&<Qm . '73.' .. X 184 24.9. The Court has to see-
(a) what was the law before the amended;
(b) what was the mischief or ;je"f'ect«f_oi-1w.hieh'l«the"lawx"didl7. it not provide; V y % V 2 V
(c) what is the remedy thatthe Aiit" has ..ai'id %
(d) what is the reason of 24.10. The Court'--.KmLisAty ._construction which suppresses the mischief remedy (vide RAIPUR ANUPAN SAHKARI GRINA Nymiiigyiqit ;«5;g§i~iii"ifzilliiiiiisi:ij'orifelns [(2ooo)4 scc 357]. In seekirig .t'heW3udges should not only listen to the voiee.V_ofthe=.leo»islattire'Eiut also listen attentively to what the legislature.' does hot' say (vide GWALIOR RAYONS SILK :sif'Vy'm=el;i'fl'(i)iI:v¢..)_ co." iiiii "LTD. v. CUSTODIAN or VESTED uFoiRE_sTs;;j.i§fi{t;G:'EiAT AND ANOTHER [1990 (supra) scc 9 7s5ny§ .. If that be so, since Section 11 of the MMDR Act e.wa:s'»--in'troduced by Act 33 of 1999 with effect from 18"' "i%':"'vvD.eeember 1999 despite existence of" Rule 60 of the MC /3 \:
185 Rules, the intention of the legislature that 'eveon::'-thovugh applications are made for grant of lease for.-an"area..fpi:tior to the pubiication of notification"_reqts'i'red.1:"un'de'r_ Rule. 59(1) of the MC Rules to notify :'t_he:_j'area'eeahsaavaiila!)&le:;f?or . grant and once such notificatpioniiihais applications made prior to riiotification and had not been dii.s"posed the appiications received during the pe.ri,o_d. notification shall be deemiedé':.i;o'_'Vl1a:ve€been on the same day for the purposéioéli under Section 11(3) of the _beHHgiven due consideration. Otherwiseathe of the Parliament to remedy the defect would be defeated.
it 124112,.-3,V:"*~.Once the Parliament has introduced first proveo to""seotio'o 11(2) of the MMDR Act, it may not be V .proper fo:r'vthis Court to substitute the words of the 4'i""i.'Au"'staett:t4e ignoring the intention of the legislature which "be primarily gathered from the language used in ° Iilfirst proviso to Section 11(2) of the Mtqpa Act.
-*W*-;(c.%'} , '» 7 2 186 24.12.2. The Apex Court in RESERVE BANK.'0:F««_.:I'N_DIA v. PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INv.es'T'ti\t';~=:cEe'i'Ji-'vi:To.g LTD. AND OTHERS reported in pigm 1987"----.fsC""v:1023_:at paragraph 33 held as follows:
"Interpretation must'de_pend it on it the textA..¢:antdVV'th3e i context. They are the basesV"ioi'."interpretation} Ohe may well say if the text is the texture,. context is what: gives the colour. Neithervcari' be"._ignioreo'.--_'LBoth_V>are important. That interpretation is bestfwhici--r«..vivnlais<es--~ the textual interpretation:Vhmatchj'the A statute is best in terpretect ._.we why fit, by»-as"'enacted. With this knowledge, Vstat:ite:E7.iVnus't.isbe"read, first as a whole and secitio-ii, clause by clause, phi;-ase an_&~v.word by word. If a statute is laoitad at; in of its enactment, with the glassehsariof the A'.stattite-maker, provided by such context, its" scheme,' the sections, clauses, phrases and V-swords may takefolour and appear different than when thesis looked at without the glasses provided by _ 'coiztexfifewith these glasses we must look at the Act A ._as and discover what each section, each clause, V phrase and each word is meant and designed to say A. ,_as to into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a it r__statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place." {emphasis supplied} 3» *2 187 24.13.1. It is aiso settled iaw that a construction which reduces the statute to futiiity should be avoided. 24.132. The Apex Court in the case or INCOME TAX v. HINDUSTAN e;uLI(_hc.:xR.a1ei§$'repo'E1;¢d]in (2003) 3 sec 57 observed as >fo_!iows':..A "14. A construction which-feducesttiieistatute to a futility has to be ..or an}; enacting provision therein must be so 'as to make it effective and operative Vo.nfthe- princible':e§(p'tessed in the maxim ut §res««j:.r_nagis=.'vagieat quam.'"pe_rfeat i.e. a liberal construction upon written insitrunierrts. hasétcxiupholcliithem, if possible, and ' carly into effecth fhestintenhtion of the parties. [See Broomis Legal" Ma§{i:ns"'*...(10th Edn.), p. 361, Craies on S:-a.tutes 7th E.-"d.n,),."p. 95 and Maxwell on Statutes (11th .....
V statute is designed to be workable and the 'A-i"intei3:ifetati;on"thereof by a court should be to secure '' unless crucial omission or clear tiirjeetion makes that end unattainable. 4_ 16. The courts will have to reject that construction " --..mlhich will defeat the plain intention of the legislature even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used.
188
17. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manife.s_t purpose of the legislation, we should avoid a con's'tructioi-.45 i.__ if which would reduce the legislation to futility, should -- i rather accept the bolder construction, base'd"o'n--:th.eV"view that Parliament would legislate ionly__fio'r_; the ':purpos.e-._oof bringing about an effective result. Theiprinciples indicated" it in the said cases were reit'era'ted byithis Court in_"M0.lJesn Kumar Singhania v. Union of India. it it I '
18. The statute'~.rnust" whole and one provision of the Act shouid b'ec'oi9istrued. with reference to other provisions in the _ same =.Act°.so'" to make a consistent enact.rnent':__of whole (statute. 12:9. -ascer*ti.ai':1-- the intention of the leg.islature"'hb_v _directing'~.its attention not merely to the clauses' to be c'on's.truied'but.. to the entire statute; it must compare_ the cia_use. with other parts of the law and the setting in which' the clause to be interpreted occurs. Such ¢;onstruction"------has the merit of avoiding any ' = .. inconsistency or repugnancy either within a section it betaiveenftwo different sections or provisions of h A V the sanae statute. It is the duty of the court to avoid a head%--'on clash between two sections of the same to _Act.-... "
it 20. Whenever it is possible to do so, it must be done to construe the provisions which appear to conflict so that they harmonise. It should not be lightly assumed W"'\m-4_4,\N 3 _/,.a,_' ._ \ ' \} \ II 189 that Parliament had given with one hand took away with the other.
21. The provisions of one section oiftiret statulte 9' cannot be used to defeat those ..of another Linliess impossible to effect reconciliation.,_betwee'n 11"' construction that reduces one of": provisions to 'a.' "useless lumber" or "dead.,_letter".is .not..sharn§Von:'sed construction. To harmonise not to desiro)r." 1% A "~--.._'g*v.:l':"*{»e;mphasis supplied} 24.14. when of the MMDR Act is to prot--e'c.:tu_'d'eiiele:pm.en'i:llandnregulation of mines and and in tune of such legislatiye intention, Section 11 of the MMDR Act was Amendment Act of 38 of 1999, _ to 'con_;si'(ie.r all"th_e'applications applied during the period jajthe notification notifying the area available for_g-lr_ant*a"n,d inviting applications for grant as wel! as the applilcationsiiapplied prior to the publication of such if""A3?'notification, as, if both are received on the same day pu.rs'uai5nt to the notification for the purpose of assigning flvpriority under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act, for /M.7,.:;:;\,, 2 190 development and regulation of the mines and raj":-njerals, any other interpretation, which would defe,at4--:th4eVe.'very purpose, object and intention of the legislatio_n,.issiwiahbiefto be rejected.
26.15.}. In this regard, msreaevanre to refer,. niith htgheirisk. of repetition, Ruie 60 of the N|La.._xRu!_es,tab-otihitprior and after amendment, by notificatieinesah5§{('E)_rte-tepd :7"'"3enuary 2000, which read as hereunder» it it 9 h A] Prior...t---.7 arnendn7entsf,."Ru'ieVV-- 60 of the MC Rulesfl " ' ,-
60:'.--,_ Preniafairef'appiicafions.-- Applications for the grant _of_a ' prospect"in}j'«'iicence or mining /ease in respect of the areas in " which --
(3) no notifitation has been issued under ifuie, 58 or rule 59; or such notification has been issued ' p 'then' period specified in the notification has not expired, _ _shail---tbe deemed to be premature and shall not be V. _»_entertained and the fee, if any paid in respect of any such application shall be refunded." 191 B] After amendment Rule-60 of the MC Rules read thus:
"60. Premature appIications.- AppiicationsV....f_o'rVgtthief ~ grant of a reconnaissance permit, prospecting.A"i}':,*eni:Te'Tor A ' mining lease in respect of areas whose _a~vaiiai')iiity:for grant is required to be notified under ru'ie._5'9_siiaii,:_"if
(a) no notification has been issued, C' that rule; or " ' *
(b) where any such notificagtion hasibeen Cf: issued, the period. ,_spe"Cified in 'the- notification has5_no_t expired; « . % shall be deemed to be prematufre not be entertained. 4.: ' . . ' . ..
26.:fl_5.'2., As. by amendment notification dated 17"' January, :2vDO'C,i_,' my the following words "the fee, if ~'"~anyin__ reslpecipof any such application shall be V.'-rett.£'ncied{'i'were~-omitted from Rule 60 of the MC Rules. Therefore,' ti§e';_e}iiVsting provision of Rule 60 of the MC Rules viz., "RuleA--1S0--. Applications for the grant of a reconnaissance he fioerrnsit, prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of it "cl-'eas whose availability for grant is required to be notified under Rule 59 shall, if ----
192
(a) no notification has been issued, under that rule; or 7
(b) where any" such notification has issued, the period specified in*.. the"--._f----., notification has not expired, shalt be deemed to be premature' and 'ishallzbe; entertained."
was already there in the statute_V'book at time anfi'en.dn5ent 'of' Section 11 of the IVEMDR Act byt._'ejme'e.amefit«A,et at of 1999, which came into effect front .as--.,ri9ht|Yi D0F|'ited Out by Mr.Rao, learneij.5enior"'Coii'ifisel.i,.apoearih§'tor the appellants herein (resp9ni<i're,nt5i:i$ioS'--4;ate 5.I'ii':':'.v£hu'5,3i"'lilirlt petition) and the learned the étate Government. Therefore, the first Vipijovieo to Ajjseictitin. 911(2) of the MMDR Act has to be read, to achieve' th.eVé';$urpose, object and intention of "lithe l'e_ciis.iatien via.,'"f'or the development and regulation of "tlje__i1~.in'e,s mine:-ais and to consider all the apo'li_cations:{that were received before or after the 'notification; otherwise, the purpose, object and intention amendment itseif would be defeated to hold ix'..._""'oth%erwise viz., the appiications fiied before the .fi;'ipublication of notification of the area required to be 193 notified under Rule 59 (1) of the MC Rules sho_uicI"-.nOt be considered at all merely because they are pr{eni'at1fe-eh-:aq.nd, shall not be entertained, in our,consid'ere:{'_'voj§'i.nion,_ fish'- opposed to the heart beats of the legisia'tion"i'n'ti9odue§_ng ' the first proviso to Section 11(«.2_V) otiithe 26.15.3. The Apex Court in-'thVe',_:case'of CaEh:TR£iL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. VBRQJO ,'eisus;Gui,$l"e' AND ANOTHER reported in o'bsAe_n/ediias foliows: e"i'2'8....:i;The«iiiiifcéi/»' toviisewe the needs of the society'* "it. If the law is to play its allottecl role of.sérVingj"'-theiiineeds of the society, it must reflect the i_tiea.s','--antl_ itieologies of that society. It must A_ time iwith____the heartbeats of the society and «,_livith'i:Ath_e"«needs and aspirations of the people. As the the law cannot remain immutable. The " A H 'early riinjeteenth century essayist and wit, Sydney Smith, °'said:_""'When I hear any man talk of an unalterable laI}\.',.,__A.11* am convinced that he is an unalterable fool." At 'T "The law must, therefore, in a changing society it "march in tune with the changed ideas and ideologies. Legislatures are, however, not best fitted for the role of adapting the law to the necessities of the time, (/"*1 194 for the legislative process is too slow and the legislatures often divided by politics, stowed down by periodic elections and overburdened with myriad goth-er1__ legislative activities. A constitutional documentis' " A less suited to this task, for the philosophy,":'and:V'thei " ideologies underlying it must of necessity be"expifessed in broad and general terms and the process of ani«eno'i_i}g,V'a Constitution is too cumbersome and7..time~consumii1.g meet the immediate neeo's.7Th.is ta'§ki~,.must, the're.'o.re,H of V necessity fall upon the courtsi'ebécause"the'courts can by the process of ju.dicia,i-~in.terp'retation' adapt the law to suit the needs of 'til.-_e sjo;-ieijy._. _ suppiied} 26,,j."6';- .,¢C~;nice:§:r;diy~,.'.ig the "'first"§ respondent herein (writ petitioner) impugned area and requested the State Goverinmxent recorininend to the Central Government to .~.reEax_»"t.he__fRu!e l5"9'(1)______o:' the MC Ruies, viz. registration and V7_is'5ua'n.ce -of'~n'otitivcation, by exercising the power conferred under RuieV'.IA'i?iViVthe absence of any application, the State ',Gover4nrnéVn,t.iNouid not have recommended to the Centrai '2§.over-nument to exercise the power under Rule 59(2) to reiax ...l.'Rui-e'h'5'§(1). If that be so, if the appiication made prior to the 'minhotification is premature and shai! not be entertained, the State r"""*v~«,t 195 Government could not even recommend to the,"-..Ce_ntral Government to relax the Rule 59(1) of exercising the power under Rule 59(2V),Hof the.'iVi'C"---Rul,e'si:a'n.d "a. result Rule 59(2) of the MC Rules co_,uld::'~not be,_.'irnVplenfente:d_sat . all and Rule 59(2) of the iVlC.*R'u_,|.es, Vth,erefore,V:'lwgouslgdn becvomigg. redundant. Therefore, in order effect"tou:Ru|e VS9(2) of the MC Rules, the appIicatioVn:,_._.'ap_pli_Vedefohri'~g'ra.nt of an area which is required to be notified MC Rules, if not notified so, is and shall not be entertained, to be considered for relaxing iV_lC'VRu|es by exercising the power under Rules. In other words, such premature,applicati'on's rnentioned under Rule 60 of the MC Rules re._rna'i'n "passive, till theWCentral Government exercises its power 'under the MC Rules for active consideration. A '26.3_.__7; rightly pointed out by Mr. Rao, Rule 60 creates legal if 'fi.ction rendering the application made before the A ,p'u.,biical:ion of notification, if no notification is made or if the "fl':=.applications are made during the period specified in such / ......... .,__uM K / 196 notification, as premature and not entertainable. l3_u.tV_fR_4u~Ee 60 does not say that such of the applications lease, if no notification is issued or if the sam'e"a'refnm'aide-before. the period specified in such notification a-iiezliabie ito"-he"Vreje'c;teéd; ' nor deemed to be rejected. .W'h_en the proviso to Section 11(2) of is} plain and unambiguous, the same b-e'»o'rnittecf, 'nor be ignored nor be substituted,_and niay'rio,_t"V'be proper for this Court to under Article 226 of the Constitu,tion,'§t:oV.a--dd or draw an inference 11(2) of the MMDR Act, when theft:-afimel is.V.pAl'a.lili.,:'un:a'l'n'biguous and do not expressly or impliedly, spelal4"o.;,lt'ai'ly inconsistence or conflict with any other '' V'pro,vi'sio'ns.''iof the Act and in any event, the Rules cannot lcontroll'th:e»..,effectv"_of the Act and the Court has to iron out the creaseand. that the intention of the legislation is given effect Once a notification is published notifying the available and inviting applications for grant, an the 197 applications, whether applied prior to the publicatigon of such notification notifying the area availabEe,,..an_d':ieviting applications. for grant of reconnaissa-nyceff. permi_t,' prospecting licence or mining 1-'fe'ase*ar'ad -:iiad«_n.ot"be"en 7. disposed of, as weli as thegyapplications received" the period specified in the no't.i:l'ic,ation'---s_halIf'.be'1deei11ed to have been received ongthe ,s'a"m'e':d'ay_ forthe"purpose of assigning priority under'se"cti'eri' MMDR Act. 26.19. In: "appiications which are premature..,.an'd_i'.'siiall not.:Vbe'*-entertained remain passive and enti'tAIed'tov active consideration once the notification" Section 11(2) of the MMDR _._Act inflorder to"'gi.v:e_ effect to the first and second proviso :Se'ction..M14:::l'(,2_) of the MMDR Act or otherwise, they becoine By this interpretation, all the A .provis*ion~s o'i"'the Act and Rules are harmoniously read and 4H"i.44"g,iven__'effect to without any inconsistence or conflict '_'_rwh.atsoever, because, it is settled iaw that the statutes, it ':'_''both provisions of the Act and Rule, shouid be read 198 harmoniously and the provisions of the Act and Rules should be interpreted to achieve the object____of the legislation and the Court should avoid an inter'p.reta--tion that would be inconsistent with one another_;:--. 2 26.20. We are, therefore, of consideredo'pVi.nio:n tlzalti-thVe"--V_._ applications filed either before publication:Aof3n'ojtifi'cat:ionorbefore the expiry of the period specifie-din thée'.no'tification,.:even':';thouQ'h are premature and shall not be enVt'erdt'ained,"froth'thelrnoment the notification is published;..4fl._§i;ch-'_V' ap_plications_ are entitled to be taken forlact-iveVconsidverat'i'on';'* In short, such applications applied before the noti_fication r-:~_;r"r:ai~'ns passive and become active when "the .r'i_C}tification is"':'ss.ued or when the same is taken for .V'con'sio'era'ti.o'rli Rule 59(2) of the MC Rules. ..__Acco'rding|y, we answer Issue (II) in positive. 199 XVI-I E II :
Whether granting mining lease in consid.ei=atio:nv:hofiA A ' Rule 35 of the MC Rules fallsmoutside"ti:ei:purv.iew of the matters specified under_:Se_cEion" the MMDR Act? ' A' " " ' 28.1. Mr. Krishnan Venugiolpal, lea.rn'ed"'.=se'niVorV counsel contends that first respondent he'rein.i(w'ritA petitioner) is already in the mining industry, which'byijitself_.i.s"ai_'.sta_nd--a|one industry. Therefore, the firsttjrespondent'V.«herei~n.j_'(writ:petitioner) is entitled for preferenc-;a"oi§V,r'e.rtrie herein (respondents 4 and 5 in the su.lastantially satisfy the matters specifiedunderVSection_'i11._(i3~).of the MMDR Act. According to Mr. Krishnan 4VcnVugo.pal;'v.the. existing iron and steel industry run "(by a.p.pel.lants'"herein (respondents 4 and 5 in the writ "p_et'itio"r'i) nfotpcyarry any merit with reference to end---use of minerals and therefore preferring the appellants herein '(respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition) in terms of Rule 35 of 'tih_e.i?lC*'_.Ru|es would only fall outside the consideration of matters _.._""'spe;':ified under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act. 200 28.2. Rule 35 of the MC Rules reads as follows: "35. Preferential rights of certain"A.'persons4i 2 where two ore more persons... _have_-"'appliedV'"=for reconnaissance permit, prospectingb_,licen'ce ': lease in respect of the same land,:"the'--_State »Goyernment'..VhVV' shall for the purpose of sl:_b"+sectionv- (2). consider besides the mattersumentionediim. claLises':,(a) to
(d) or sub-section (3*,',.of Section} the end "use" of the mineral by the applicant.' 2' 28.3. We are alnabltéito' V-th:e:"'aoove contention of Mr. Krishnan§,Ve'ngg:opaI of the MMDR Act is only in Rule 35 of MC Rules also. With. we propose to refer Section 11(3) of ti"1e"--l:\Lct anfifth".reacl's"...hereunder: V. ,"'_§1&'1"('1,) matters referred to in sub--section (2) are M v_th'e'I.tollowing.'-
4' any special knowledge of, or experience in, reconnaissance operations, prospecting operations or mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant;
([9) the financial resources of the applicant; 5'" "Z? .
201 (C) the nature and quality of the technica{""«._,»l'~». staff employed or to be employed applicant; 2 l
(d) the Investment wnich._the_'H proposes to make in thetmlnesi and tin)"-the?-et..__ industry based on the mineral}: b
(e) such other inatters V. as' prescribed. it i ' E _. _ .p V :"{pemphasis supplied} 28.4. The words employed bythe.-'Pa'r'i--i.am.ent under Section 11(3)(e) viz., 's;:1cng.o'i'her=._matters'~as '-rna_y_,:be prescribed' include the matters .Aprescritied'«..:Li'n.d_er j Rule 35 of MC Rules also specifically' rebfeyrslto":§ectio«n:'1'i(3) of the MMDR Act. It is, therefore, _manVdatory"fo.'rV' the State Government to consider the I-','__'énd7t1se ndineraisvfltiy the applicants while evaluating their
-re.lati_vei'In the instant case, the appellants herein (respe,nde_nts,Vb?3eAland 5 in the writ petition) who have already Z""~.__establist§e.d':'iron»-ore based industry viz., iron and steel plant, it the State Government to prefer the appellants herein .b:V(re_spondents 4 and S in the writ petition) as against the first ~ ., ifrespondent herein (writ petitioner). When the appellants herein E,/'"""'f:=v~'¢ 202 (respondents 4 and S in the writ petition) proposed_.vto,iuisevv the iron--ore mined as captive consumption for the e::i.stir1'g.'['i:'n--dt:stry which in turn generate more employment a'n'd'*-s'pan'-ancillary.2 industries, the consideration and eva.l4uat;'i'on5'of'=rel'ati've"fir.~eri:s'of the appellants herein (respondents 4 allrrdlxfi in the}wrE.tfl,Detitdionl' and the first respondent herein (wlr'ir,,:pe,tition'er,ll_in terms of Rule 35 of MC Rules, would ce-rt.TainAly§_ fall' matters specified under Section 11(3)_ofMMD.i§'_;?:ct',V._A A
29. Issue. t~her_eiore,.__«arjswereld in negative.
Whethe--r theipdated 6"' December, 2004 usufdfdevrs V l'r~o rri,-S ' « "
r ..gi_i)»__"illegality;
"«d"i*s.cri:rriVl.nation ;
'""(iv)'~-V, a'r5ltrary and unreasonable " _ 'exercise of power, and 203
(v) violates the principles of natural jusfice?
30.1. It is no ones case that Government any opportunity as contemplated under 'the, Rules. On the other hand, conceded|y,_-first4ires~ponden't.__'herein ' (writ petitioner) has been give»n-opporltunlityy and 16"' August, 2003 and thieyiliayve "a'lso:l_'subn}1itted their written representations.' tire ;VQ»jri'itte'n_y'"representations dated 16"' August, 2003,' 31" Meaty; V2054 :an'da1'23?-Dctober 2004, the first respondent:_'herei:'nV (vlirit i3pe'titio'ner)"cl-airrned that:
(a)v"'they-iéropofsle resources available in their 7--.ex'isting_l'a'iea'=cougld__ not support their future investmelnt la n State;
v..(.b)'Vvthey p.ro'pose__Ato invest Rs.1000 crore in a one MT specialty steel plant in the State; propose to invest a five million MT A V_'integ'rated steel plant in the State over a span of 'gv'fi'?».re years for Rs.10,000 crore and the said project could be undertaken only if iron ore is assured by granting of mining lease applied by them;
204
(d) they also propose to invest Rs.15O crorecfor non-conventional energy generation in the: three years; _
(e) they propose to invest for it generating of 160 mW of t;vi'n'q..pQ-'W--,3r irz six months; and
(f) they propose to use theiron or"e.frorn1 t.i:1é"..,}fiin'in'g lease applied for the____p'ropo.sed s'te«elV_ plant as captive consurri__p'ti.on result in value addition in the State. " "
30.2. The Gove_rir'ime:nt,gtal2in'gintouchqifisideration Rule 26(1) of the MC Rules,:h'a_s'"g:i~ven'*o,pp'o~rtunityto first respondent herein (writ pet'i,tioner)V.V "does not say that opportunity should be given coVmp're'hen"s»ively to all the applicants, which, in _ our "ci§j3n'sidered"' opinion, is impermissible, impossible and Qimpractlcablefwhen more than hundred applications were re'ceiv.ed the impugned notification dated 15"' March, V it _2003.""'---Wh_erev more than one applications are made by the same ""v."'---party,and"the sister concern for the same area, and where more tha_n"on'e application are made for the same area by individuals, is required is, whether each of the applicants were given / 205 opportunity of being heard before refusing grant or rengew of mining lease over the whole or the part of the area..'a_p'pli4e;dgVV'for. Therefore, we are satisfied that there is Cfperocedeiraii irregularity. The learned Singie.'JJMudge,_ ?in -:oLi:r_" «¢;;ns1idered T. opinion, erred in rendering a finding th_at'*.the Stga'te"Gover.nrnen.tg had not acted legally and bonafid--erv.I,hi|e V.con_si'defr_inVg1.bthe various applications.
30.3. Coming tQ.."V._vreas'o~n.s':..'1jh'at weighed the Government in ?fa'vbll-rn "afpp_"ei.iants-«herein (respondents 4 pointed by "first respondent herein (writ petitioner) is..all'ead'y_ h'av'ing.'e'a mining lease over an extent of _,,.722.94_%.,:'hVectaresV"an.dL_tha:': itself is sufficient for the integrated v."~.steel.,pVlanvt Vprovpos_ed to be established by them. On the other ha"nd,'l...t,he"aVp_vp_eil.an.ts herein (respondents 4 and 5 in the writ V .petitio"n) a're'va;iready running the steel plants investing over crore and Rs.600 crore respectively, but they do not '_'_hav.e"'a'ny mining lease in their favour for their captive if ':'_4'covn'sumption. The appellants herein (respondents 4 and 5 in 206 the writ petition) having established huge steei ,pV|Van'ts_,_ are therefore entitied for grant of mining lease in prefére--n'ce: first respondent herein (writ petitioner) as 14-1(3)' the MMDR Act and Rufe 35 of the MC ,Ru|fes'.--,_ 'T_hat"ap.a'_tt,,the * State Government poficy is afso,__in favour of,,»g'vi*an'ting lease taking into consideration iihninerals by the appficants and its vaf'ti:e"'~addit(i.o'n--,,(":3 V' 30.4. Concededlv,.....the herein (writ petitioner) in August, 2003, 315' May 2004 anatt(12:F5'socttiiaefiiiioeiiiiihagg specificaliy ciaimed that it intends to use the 'irrip,uigned,_.i'ron "ore as captive consumption for the proposedstieei On the other hand, the appeliants _.(herein«};(res~ponde'nts:Véwand 5 in the writ petition) require the '=_impugned irotnvrore as captive consumption for their existing industw. 3'"I't_v».__is,,."under such circumstances, the Government V .right|v',' tai'!<:ing""'into consideration all the relative merits of the "3.'Au3respective)"parties, preferred the appeffants herein (respondents and "S in the writ petition) and recommended them to the .:'_4:C'e'ntraf Government for the grant of mining fease. /,.».a..,..
;' 3'-\_ 207 30.5. The State Government, in the proceedings dated 6"' December, 2004, has clearly given the reasons in writing for preferring the appeliants herein (respondents 4 and writ petition) as against the first respondent herein The preference of the appellants herein (respond--e'ffits"?i: and the writ petition) as against the first irespoénde4n't"-.h'e~rei,_n«~»:.§ir~.irit 0' petitioner), for the reasons referred t'o,above,.,»'cioe.s. not; suffer. from any irregularity, illegality,"»..diiscrimin'atioin, arbitrariness, unreasonableness or viol'a,_t_i\i-.e 01'; prjinci--p_ies"'of natural justice.
31. Issue No.. (IV) is"a'n.,s:wer'ed,_in negfaitlixie. ' result, we pass the following:
0 R D E R
(i)" _'":.The order of the learned Single Judge dated 0 7th August, 2008 in writ petition No.21608 of 2005 quashing the notification dated 15th March, 2003 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed;
/ gee"
208
(ii) Consequently, the directions (a) to (m) give*nT in the order dated 7"' August 2008 Writ Petition No.21608/2005 at parag_re_ph"""1Sg'3,:' . are set aside;
(iii) Notification dated 15"' ivierci1,.«2eooe3'iisisoeci;ey the State Government is heidivialid; " " "
(iv) Proceedings dated 6"i'Diecvembet;~ibifiéi and the consequentia!<"..__appro"vai.:'j4 or' the" Central Government, are 3'ieIi;i__ ./-///I / ':'_4"v".4ebi1ost: / eNO"""""
A " .~iVEsk/Nk/Inn/Ia/Snb