ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.5 SECTION PIL-W

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.562/2009

SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(Only the following I.As are to be listed.1. I.A. No. 149994 of 2018 (Application for directions)2. I.A. Nos. 57602, 57603 and 57605 of 2019 (Applications for Permission to file application for impleadment, impleadment and directions)3. I.A. No. 17250 of 2020 (Application for directions)4. I.A. No. 121324 of 2022 (Application for directions)5. I.A. No. 121326 of 2022 (Application for early hearing)6. I.A. No. 133902 of 2022 (Application for impleadment)7. I.A. No. 133912 of 2022 (Application for directions)8. I.A. No. 137180 of 2022 (Application for directions)9. I.A. No. 137183 of 2022 (Application for directions)The name of following Advocates may be treated to have been show in the list: Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr.Adv (A.C.), Mr A.D.N. Rao,Sr.Adv (A.C.), Mr. Sidhartha Chowdhary, Adv, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv, Mr. Shubranshu Padhi, Adv, Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Adv, Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, Adv, Mr. Anantha Naryana M.G., Adv, Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv, Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Adv, Mr. G.S. Makkar, Adv [TO GO BEFORE THREE HON'BLE JUDGES ])

Date : 28-09-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

• CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
• For Petitioner(s) Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Mr. Rashmi Singh, Adv.
• Ms. Aparna Bhat, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. K. M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv. Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Shubranshu Padhi, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Mr. B. K. Satija, Adv.

Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu, Adv. Mr. Kailash Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Krishna Yadav, Adv. Shri. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Upamanyu Hazarika, Sr. Adv. Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Adv. Mr. Ashvin Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv. Mr. R. R. Rajesh, Adv. Mr. T. S. Sabarish, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Suhashini Sen, Adv. Mr. S.K.Singhania, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. S. Dhanjay Reddy, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. S. Ashok Reddy, Adv. Mr. S. S. Ratanam, Adv. Mr. Sandhya S. R., Adv. Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv. Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. C. P. Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. Pushkar Anand, Adv. Mr. Sunil Dogra, Adv. Mr. Vivek Vishnoi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, AOR

Ms. Reena Rao, Adv. Mr. Nand Ram, Adv. Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh Tomar, Adv. Ms. Purnima Jauhari, ADv. Mr. Sujit, Adv. Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, AOR Mr. Rituraj Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Sujaya Bardhan, Adv. Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR Mr. Polnki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv. Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Ms. Rajeshwari Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. K. V. Girish Chowdhary, Adv. Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR Ms. Manjula Gupta, AOR Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR Mr. P. V. Dinesh, AOR Mr. Munawwar Naseem, AOR Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR Mr. Akhil Anand, AOR

Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR M/S. Ap & J Chambers, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, AOR M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, AOR Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR M/S. Lex Regis Law Offices, AOR Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Mr. Rajesh Mahale, AOR Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, AOR Mr. A. Raghunath, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-i, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR

Mr. Pulkit Tare, AOR Ms. Rohini Musa, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Surbhi Mehta, AOR Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR

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

I.A. No.137180 of 2022 IN I.A.No.67230 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.562 of 2009

We have heard learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Amicus Curiae. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Amicus Curiae points out that there is serious objection to allowing of the prayer in interlocutory application No.137180 of 2022. It is further pointed out that the applicant has actually mined from the land which has been found to be forest by the High Court. Still further he points out that the Report No.25 of Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in I. A. No.137180 of 2022 has been filed on 27th of September, 2022 of Central Empowered Committee (CEC).

Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Karnataka also would submit that Report has been filed yesterday.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant seeks and is granted time to file response to the aforestated Report.

List the matter on 3rd of November, 2022.

I.A. No.137183 of 2022 IN I.A.No.67231 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.562 of 2009

We have heard learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Amicus Curiae. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Amicus Curiae points out that there is serious objection to allowing of the prayer in interlocutory application No.137183 of 2022. It is further pointed out that the applicant has actually mined from the land which has been found to be forest by the High Court. Still further he points out that the Report No.24 of Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in I. A. No.137183 of 2022 has been filed on 27th of September, 2022.

Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Karnataka also would submit that the said Report has been filed yesterday.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant seeks and is granted time to file response to the aforestated Report.

List the matter on 3rd of November, 2022.

I.A. No.57605 of 2019 in W.P. (C) No.562/2009 allowed

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Amicus Curiae. Leaned Amicus Curiae points out that in this case what is pertinent is determination of the inter-state boundary. The boundary has been demarcated but the identification has to be done on the ground.

Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Karnataka seeks and is granted six weeks' time

from today to carry out demarcation of the inter-state boundary on the ground.

Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Amicus Curiae would request that the Court may direct that the 'Joint Team' appointed by this Court may also prepare sketches of the 7 mining leases placed in Category B1 (including the applicants in this case). We direct this exercise will also be carried out by the 'Joint Team', within a period of three months from the date of completion of demarcation of the inter-state boundary on the ground.

We are not pronouncing on the objection of the State of Karnataka that the applicant(s) of the 7 mining leases placed in Category B1 in question are actually not entitled to the relief which they are seeking in law.

All the lessees, including the applicant(s) involved in terms of the order will also be put on notice before the exercise we have directed is carried.

List in the month of Second week of January, 2023.

I. A. No.149994/2018 in W.P. (C) No.562 of 2009

There is Report No.21 of 2022 in I.A. No.14994/2018 filed by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and also Report filed by the Monitoring Committee. Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Karnataka, however, seeks and is granted time to file response to these Reports.

List this matter on 3rd of November, 2022.

I. A. No.133912/2022 in W. P. (C) No.562 of 2009

Application (I.A. No. 133902 of 2022) for intervention on behalf of the applicant- MSPL Limited stands allowed.

**This is an application filed by the applicant (**MSPL Limited) seeking the following, inter-alia, relief which is as follows:-

"i) The Applicant Company, MSPL Limited, be permitted to mine iron ore at full capacity of 1.80 MMT for the Vyasankare Iron Ore Mines, District Bellary, Karnataka for the year 2022- 2023."

We heard Mr. Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel and Mr. Dushyant Dave, leaned senior counsel appearing for the applicant. We also heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. A. D. N. Rao, learned Amicus Curiae. We further heard Mr. Prashant Bhushant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the writ petition.

Very briefly, the complaint of the applicant is that though applicant has been sanctioned Maximum Permissible Annual Production (for short 'MPAP') at 1.80 MMT for its mine Vyasanakare Iron Ore Mines**, District Bellary, Karnataka for the year 2022-2023, it has been reduced on the basis that the lease of the applicant is to expire on 13.11.2022. The case of the applicant is that there is no basis in law to effect such a proportionate reduction of the permitted production capacity. It is the case of the applicant that the production limit is fixed for the year and there is no limit qua the months, comprised in a year. It is also the case of the applicant that the reduction has been effected by the**

Monitoring Committee for which it does not have the legal authority. There is also a case for the applicant that it has made considerable investment in the matter and large number of employees are involved in the works.

A Report has been filed by the Monitoring Committee therein. The application has been opposed by Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. A. D. N. Rao, learned Amicus Curiae by pointing out that the proportionate reduction was necessitated on account of the expiry of the lease on 13.11.2022. It is, inter alia, pointed out that the applicant is entitled to work the mine only for seven and half months in the year 2022-2023 for which the MPAP is fixed. It is pointed out that the Report is on the basis of the set scientific criteria approved by this Court so that there shall not be any environmental damage, and the intergenerational equity for the available natural resources shall be maintained.

The expression the "year" under the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 is a period of 12 months beginning from the 1st day of April and ending on the 31st day of March of the following year. The mining plan is therefore approved for, in respect of 12 months. By and large, the ore extracted should be proportionately distributed over the 12 months for the purpose of scientific mining. It is also pointed out with reference to figures for the mining carrying out by the applicant for the years 2017- 2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 that the proportionate figure arrived at is still higher than the quantum which has been mined. It is also the case of the Monitoring Committee that the proportionate reduction has been effected in

respect of number of mining leases which are detailed in paragraph 6 of the Report of the Monitoring Committee. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Amicus Curiae, however, would submit that it is only in respect of one of these leases, namely, GG Brothers (ML No.2586) that the proportionate reduction has been effected in a year other than first year of the lease. In other words, in respect of all the other leases it is not in dispute that the proportionate reduction has been effected in the first year of the lease. Here, we must notice that even the applicant does agree that in the first year of the lease under the environment clearance, there can be a proportionate reduction effected.

Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Amicus Curiae would submit that under the legal framework there may not be any provision, as such, which may sanction the proportionate reduction.

Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that intensive mining would necessarily be involved if the claim of the applicant is to be entertained and this aspect must engage attention of the Court. The carrying capacity of the environment is, in particular, projected before the Court to contend that if the applicant is permitted to achieve the annual MPAP in the remaining short period of the lease of nearly 46 days, it would undermine the interest of the environment. No doubt, he also refers to the aspect of intergenerational equity and he also projects a situation which may arise if all the leases are to expire within a very short period, of the beginning of the year (1st of the April of the year). He poses a question that if such a eventuality arises, not only there would be mining carried on at a

vigorous level which may not be in conformity with the interest of the environment but poses the question as to what would happen to the right of the future lessees having regard to the maximum that can be mined in the District which at present has been fixed 35 MMT for Bellary, 15 MMT for Tumkur and Chitradurga.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and noting the facts of this case, we are of the view that we cannot entirely overlook the fact that there is strictly no legal embargo against the mining being carried out with reference to the annual limit fixed. No monthly limit as such is shown to exist in law. We cannot at the same time overlook the fact of the Monitoring Committee being a body which has been put in place by the order of this Court and which has been intimately engaged in the Monitoring work of the various leases, their opinion on the impact of the lessee being permitted to achieve the annual production through very intense mining in a short span of time cannot be discounted.

Having considered all the inputs available in the facts of this case, we are of the view that the entire relief as sought by the applicant cannot be allowed. We should limit the applicant to mine a quantum with reference to the figures available for the previous years which would be just to the applicant and at the same time would equally safeguard the interest of the environment. We have made an attempt to balance the interest in the absence of any legal statutory regime which proscribes the claim of the applicant, in the facts of this case.

It is brought to our notice that as of today, the applicant has mined 1188414.09 Metric Tons (in the year 2021-2022). We have noticed that the maximum which the applicant has mined from the years 2017-2018, maximum is 1515537.50 MT in the year 2019-2020. We find that the applicant is entitled to mine about 80 thousand Metric tonnes in terms of the modified MPAP. We are inclined to permit the applicant to mine total quantum of 3.80 Lakh Metric tonnes which includes the amount of 80 thousand Metric Tonnes which even otherwise it is entitled in terms of the modified MPAP.

Accordingly, we partly allow the application and allow the applicant to mine 3.80 Lakh Metric Tonnes (MT) iron ore from the Vyasanakare Iron Ore Mines**, District Bellary, Karnataka on the basis of the lease. We make it clear that this extraction can be carried on only upto 13.11.2022 and not beyond.**

We further, make it clear that the Monitoring Committee will be at liberty to place all the reasonable safeguards necessary for the protection of the environment in view of the order which we have passed today permitting the applicant to mine the quantum as already indicated. The application is partly allowed.

I.A. No.121324/2022 in W.P. No.562/2009

List the interlocutory application on 15th of November, 2022.

(JAGDISH KUMAR) (RENU KAPOOR)

COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR