Vedanta Ltd vs. Director Of Mines And Geology

ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.7 SECTION PIL

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. Nos.204 & 219, 223 In I.A.No.204 and I.A.Nos.224 I.A.No.227 in I.A.No.215 and I.A.No.225 in I.A.No.188 in Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).562/2009

SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(For directions, intervention and impleadment, permission to place on record affidavit and permission to file addl.documents)

Date : 15/09/2014 These applications were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR<br>HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR<br>HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
Amicus Curiae(s)	Mr.A.D.N.Rao, Adv.
	Mr.Siddarth Choudhary, Adv.
For Petitioner(s)	Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv.<br>Mr.K.V.Dhananjay, Adv.<br>Mr.Ramesh K.Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	Mr.Maninder Singh, ASG<br>Mr.S.P.Singh, Sr.Adv.<br>Mr.J.S.Attri, Sr.Adv.<br>Ms.S.K.Bajwa, Adv.<br>Ms.Gunwant Dara, Adv.<br>Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Adv.
	Mr.K.K.Venugopal, Sr.Adv.
	Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr.Adv.<br>Mr.K.Maruthi Rao, Adv.<br>Mr.K.Dhiraj Kumar, Adv.<br>Ms.Anjani Aiyagari, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by<br>Satish Kumar Yadav<br>Date: 2014.09.16<br>17:35:35 IST<br>Reason:	Mr.Chander Uday Singh, Sr.Adv.<br>Mr.Rajat Jariwal, Adv.
	Mr.Aakash Bajaj, Adv.
	Mr.Raju Ramachandran, Sr.Adv.<br>2
	Ms.Anitha Shenoy, Adv.<br>Ms.Vishruti Vijay, Adv.
	Mr.Phanindra Rao, Adv.<br>Mr.Jayant Mohan, Adv.

Mr.Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv. Mr.Shrey Kapoor, Adv.

Syed Tanweer Ahmad, Adv. Mr.Ritesh Kumar, Adv. Mr.B.V.Balram Das, Adv.

Mr.E.C.Agrawala, Adv.

Ms.Nandini Gore, Adv. Ms.Neha Khandelwal, Adv. Ms.Tahira Karanjawala, Adv. Ms.Devina Sehgal, Adv. For M/s Karanjawala & Co., Adv.

Ms.Anil Katiyar, Adv.

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

Certain petitions in public interest came to be filed in this Court alleging violations of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as also the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The averments made in these petitions demonstrated that no regulatory measures were enforced and the mining activities were being carried out at random, and in complete disregard of the statutory provisions. It is, therefore, that this Court stepped in for ensuring that regulatory measures were put in place, so as to systemise the process of mining.

During the proceedings, it emerged that the process of grant of mining leases as also their renewal was unduly prolonged resulting in great hardship and accordingly this Court venture to regularise the aforesaid process as well. 3

In its first step, violations were sought to be categorised. The classification was recorded by this Court in Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and others vs. State of Karnataka and others (2013) 8 SCC 154 as under:

"IV. CLASSIFICATION OF LEASES IN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES ON THE BASIS OF THE LEVEL OF ILLEGALITIES FOUND.

27. CEC, based on the extent of illegal mining found by the Joint Team and as appropriately modified by CEC in its Proceeding dated 25th January, 2012 and after considering the other relevant information has classified the mining leases into three categories namely "Category-A", "Category-B" and "Category-C".

28. "Category-A" comprises of : (a) working

leases wherein no illegality/marginal illegality have been found and (b) non working leases wherein no marginal/illegalities have been found. The number of such leases comes to 21 & 24 respectively.

29. "Category-B" comprises of : (a) mining leases wherein illegal mining by way of (i) mining pits outside the sanctioned lease areas have been found to be up to 10% of the lease areas and/ or (ii) over burden/waste dumps outside the sanctioned lease areas have been found to be up to 15% of the lease areas and (b) leases falling on interstate boundary between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and for which survey sketches have not been finalized. For specific reasons as mentioned in the statement of "Category-B" leases, M/s. S.B. Minerals (ML No. 2515), M/s. Shantalaxmi Jayram (ML No. 2553), M/s.Gavisiddeshwar Enterprises (ML No. 80) and M/s. Vibhutigudda Mines (Pvt.) Ltd. (ML No. 2469) have been assigned in "Category-B". The numbers of such leases in "Category-B" comes to 72.

30. "Category-C" comprises of leases wherein (i) the illegal mining by way of (a) mining pits outside the sanctioned lease area have been found to be more than 10% of the lease area and/or (b) overburden/waste dumps outside the sanctioned lease areas have been found to be more 4

than 15% of the lease areas and/or (ii) the leases found to be involved in flagrant violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act and/or found to be involved in illegal mining in other lease areas. The number of such leases comes to 49."

The first step was to determine what was the extent of violation so as to place the defaulters in the categorisation expressed hereinabove. Consequent upon the arduous efforts made by this Court, demarcations were carried out. Its finality was expressed by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, relevant extract

whereof is being reproduced hereunder:

"47. We make it clear that we have not understood the above statement as an admission on the part of the Federation and it is on a consideration of the totality of the facts placed before us that we accept the findings of the survey conducted by the Joint Team constituted by the orders of this Court and the boundaries of each of the leases determined on that basis. We further direct that in supersession of all orders either of the authorities of the State or Courts, as may be, the boundaries of leases fixed by the Joint Team will henceforth be the boundaries of each of the leases who will have the benefit of the lease area as determined by the Joint Team. All proceedings pending in any court with regard to boundaries of the leases

involved in the present proceeding shall stand adjudicated by means of present order and no such question would be open for re-examination by any body or authority."

The issue that concerns us now is, whether the violators can be dealt with in terms of the statutory provisions? Our attention has been invited to the different orders passed by the Karnataka High Court wherein, prosecution was quashed merely on account of intervention of this Court, in adopting the regulatory measures referred to hereinabove. It is therefore that I.A.No.215 5

came to be filed in this Court seeking inter alia the following reliefs:

"A) Direct initiation of prosecution of Category A, B and erstwhile Category C lessees for violation of relevant laws with respect to encroachment of forest area;

B) Direct the CEC to make suitable recommendations for investigation of illegalities after taking into consideration the averments and evidences supplied by the Petitioners in the present application and in IA 140 and following submissions dated 20-2-2013, 7-3-2013 and 21-3-2013."

In disposing of the aforesaid prayers made in the I.A, we consider it just and appropriate to clarify, that the measures adopted by this Court, at no stage, should be considered to be indicative of the fact, that prosecution shall not be initiated against those who had violated penal provisions of law. The instant order should not be treated as one whereby prosecution should now be initiated even against minor violators. We would feel that such of the lessees, which have now been classified as 'Category-A' shall be treated as minor violators, and unless there is some blatant abuse of power, no prosecution should be initiated against them.

Prayers made in I.A.No.215 of 2014 are accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

As a sequel to disposal of I.A.No.215 of 2014, I.A.Nos.224 of 2014 and 227 of 2014 are also disposed of.

All other I.As be listed after two weeks.

COURT MASTER	(SATISH KUMAR YADAV)			(PHOOLAN WATI ARORA)<br>ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
6
ITEM NO.801		COURT NO.7	SECTION PIL
		S U P R E M E C O U R T O F<br>RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS	I N D I A
I.A. No.	2014	In Writ Petition(s)(Civil)	No(s).562/2009
		SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS.	Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.			Respondent(s)
(For direction)
Date : 15/09/2014 This application was mentioned today.
CORAM :		HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR<br>HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR<br>HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
For Applicant(s)<br>Mr.Mohan Parasaran, Sr.Adv.(Mentioned by)<br>Mr.K.Raghavacharyulu, Adv.<br>Mr.Kailash Pandey, Adv.
Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following<br>O R D E R
On a mention made by Mr.Mohan Parasaran, learned senior
counsel for the applicant, we direct that this I.A. be listed for
hearing on 19.09.2014.

COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PHOOLAN WATI ARORA)