The State Of Karnataka vs. Sri B. R. Ganapathi Singh

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

WRIT PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 562/2009

SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA . & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) (ONLY I.A. NOS. 247, 250, 265, 270, 271, 273, 268, 56562, 56590, 76163 AND 76167 AND IA NO.90519/2017-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS AND IA NO.90523/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION)

Date : 13-09-2017 These applications were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

18:10:07 IST Reason:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

For parties:

Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.(A.C.), Mr. A.D.N Rao, Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury (A.C.), Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Govind Jee, Adv. Mr. Omanakuttan K.K., Adv. Mr. T. Sudhaker, Adv. State of Mr. Raju Ramchandran, Sr. Adv. Karnataka Mr. Madhusudan R. Naik, Adv.Gen., Karnataka Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Adv. Mr. Jayant Mohan, Adv. IA 56562/17 Mr. P. Chidambaram, Sr. Adv. FIMI (SOUTH) Mr. Aditya Narayan, Adv. Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, Adv. Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA Date: 2017.09.14 Signature Not Verified

NMDC	Mr. K.K. Venugopal, AG
	Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG
	Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, Adv.
	Mr. Kailash Pandey, Adv.
	Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Adv.
IA 56590/17, 247,
250	Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv.
FIMI (SOUTH)	Mr. Aditya Narayan, Adv.
	Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv.
	Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, Adv.
	Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv.
	Mr. K.N. Phanindra, Adv.
	Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv.
	Mr. Jayant Mohan, Adv.
	Mr. Anjuman Tripathy, Adv.
	Mr. Rohan Sharma, Adv.
	Mr. Sunil Dogra, Adv.
	Mr. Vivek Vishnoi, Adv.
	Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv.
	Mr. Rishikesh Madhav, Adv.
	Mr. Krishnan Venogopal, Sr. Adv.
	Mr. Uday Tiwari, Adv.
	Mr. A. Raghunath, Adv.
	Mr. Vikas Mehta, Adv.
	Mr. Rajat Sehgal, Adv.
	Mr. Tanvir Nayar, Adv.
	Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv.
	Ms. Anushree Menon, Adv.
	Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
	Mr. Sanjeev K. Kapoor, Adv.
	Mr. Aakash Bajaj, Adv.
	Mr. Sahil Narang, Adv.
	For M/S. Khaitan, Adv.
	Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
	Mr. Chandra Uday Singh, Sr. Adv.
	Mr. Sahil Narang, Adv.
	Mr. Aakash Bajaj, Adv.
	For M/s. Khaitan, Adv.

Ms. Aparna Bhat, AOR Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG Ms. Prachi Priyadarshini, Adv. For M/s Aura & Co., AOR Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv. Mr. Kabir Hathi, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv. CBI Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Mr. P.K. Dey, Adv. Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv. Mr. M.K. Maroria, Adv. Mr. N.K. Karhail, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur, Adv. Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Adv. Mr. Chanchal K. Ganguli, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv. Ms. Rachna Gandhi, Adv. Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Purnima Jauhari, Adv. Dr. B.K. Jauhari, Adv. Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. The issue of implementation of the Comprehensive Environment Plan for Mining Impact Zone (CPMIZ) pursuant to this Court's previous orders is the subject matter of consideration for the day.

2. In this regard we have read and considered the reports of the CEC, particularly, the report dated 10th August, 2017. We have also read and considered the notes submitted by Shri M.K. Jiwrajka, former Member Secretary, C.E.C., pursuant to this Court's order dated 16.8.2017. We have heard Shri Shyam Divan, learned amicus curiae**, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, Shri P. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for FIMI (Southern Region) and Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka.**

3. By our previous order dated 21.03.2017, we have made it clear that the truncated scope of consideration, insofar as implementation of CPMIZ is concerned, would be the issues of relating to a conveyor belt system; railway sidings and railway sub-lines. Consideration of all other aspects of the Scheme recommended by the CEC was deferred.

4. Having now considered the matter, we are of the view that what has been stated by Shri Jiwrajka in paragraph 24 of the note submitted to the Court is a suggestion that the Court would like to act upon. The said suggestion is to the effect that as nine mines mentioned in paragraph 24 produces about 80% of the iron-ore in the Districts of Bellary and Chitradurga, the primary concentration of the Court to control pollution and ensure a safe environment should be, in the first instance, in respect of the aforesaid nine mines. The names of leases and the other particulars as set out in the note of Shri Jiwrajka is extracted below:-

S.No.	Name of the Lease	District	MPAP
1	NMDC Ltd.(ML No.1111)	Bellary	6.00 MMT
2	NMDC Ltd.(ML No.2396)	Bellary	6.00 MMT
3	MML (ML No.2605)	Bellary	1.06 MMT
4	MML (ML No.2629)	Bellary	3.00 MMT
5	Sesa Goa (ML No.2677)	Chitradurga	2.29 MMT
6	MSPL (ML No.2416)	Bellary	1.80 MMT
7	SMIORE (ML No.2580)	Bellary	1.60 MMT
8	B.Kumar Gowda (ML<br>No.2516)	Bellary	1.26 MMT

9	VESCO (ML No.2296)	Bellary	1.10
	Total		24.11 MMT<br>(79%)

5. Out of the aforesaid nine mines two mines of NMDC can be left out of consideration for the present as there is a conveyor belt system already operating therein. Insofar as MSPL (ML No.2416) is concerned, there is a special suggestion of Shri Jiwrajka keeping in mind that the aforesaid lease is expiring in 2022 which is to the effect that the costs should be borne proportionately. In the remaining six mines/leases conveyor belt system should be set up by the lessees themselves. Insofar as railway sidings is concerned, it has been stated by Shri Jiwrajka that railway sidings would be required only in three of the leases, namely, MML(ML No.2605), B.Kumar Gowda (ML No.2156) and VESCO (ML No.2296). Insofar as railway sub-lines are concerned, it is the suggestion of Shri Jiwrajka that only two sub-lines i.e. between Lakshmipur Cross and Dharmapura (about 4-5 km in length) & between Sandur existing line and Susheel Nagar (about 11 km in length) will be required.

6. Having regard to the immediate need for environmental protection and the imminent necessity to place adequate measures as a part of the CPMIZ, we are of the view that to begin with steps should be taken to examine the aforesaid proposal contained in the note of Shri Jiwrajka. To enable smooth execution of the proposal, as indicated above, we are of the view that a meeting should be convened by the CEC in which all the stake-holders should be present. All issues including who has to bear the cost, keeping in mind the long term benefits that would come to the lessees and, perhaps, in the distant future to others who are not before the Court, should be debated, discussed and attempted to be resolved in an amicable manner. The CEC will invite the seven lessees (barring NMDC), the representative(s) of FIMI (Southern Region), the representative(s) of State of Karnataka, the constituents of the SPV and also such other stake holders who the CEC may consider, at different points of time, necessary to facilitate a resolution of the matter.

7. The Rail India Technical and Economic Services(RITES), RITES Bhawan, 1, Sector 29, Gurgaon, Haryana and Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. (CMPDIL), Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand shall also be asked to participate in the meeting and offer their suggestions and views as to the extent of work that would be required to be done, the feasibility thereof in the light of suggestions, contentions and counter contentions that may be advanced. That the infrastructure contemplated should be an integrated one also will be kept in mind in the deliberations to be held. The CEC will thereafter submit a report to this Court indicating the feasibility of the suggestion of Shri Jiwrajka and the alterations/modifications of the said suggestions that would be required to be made to ensure due and proper implementation thereof so as to ensure that the objective behind the CPMIZ is achieved.

8. As RITES and CMPDIL are professional bodies and would be required to render professional opinion in the matter they would be entitled to their usual remuneration which will be paid by the CEC. We would expect the CEC to act promptly in the matter and submit a report to this Court within a period of six weeks from today.

9. List on 27th October, 2017.

10. Shri Raju Ramchandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka prays for liberty to withdraw the report on economic viability of auction of 'C' category mines with liberty to approach this Court once again on the same subject matter, if the need arises. Liberty, as prayed, is granted. Report on economic viability of auction of 'C' category mines is treated as withdrawn.

11. We make it clear that it will be open for the State of Karnataka to auction such of the Category 'C' mines which, according to the State, are viable and can be auctioned.

12. List for further hearing tomorrow i.e. 14th September, 2017.

[VINOD LAKHINA] [NEETU KHAJURIA] [ASHA SONI] AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER