- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The order consolidates directions passed in several proceedings pending before the Supreme Court of India, principally in:
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009 concerning iron-ore mining operations in the districts of Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga, State of Karnataka.
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995, in which the Court exercises continuing jurisdiction over forest and environmental matters across the country.
- Special Leave Petition (Civil) … CC No. 18195 of 2012 arising from an order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh dated 9-8-2005 restricting fresh mining activities by the petitioner.
Earlier orders of 29-7-2011 and 26-8-2011 had halted almost all mining in the three Karnataka districts. The Court has since moved towards a phased resumption of mining subject to strict environmental safeguards and the oversight of a Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and a Court-appointed Monitoring Committee. The present order responds to:
- Requests by the Additional Solicitor General to delete an “unhappily worded” paragraph in a Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) affidavit;
- A series of fresh recommendations made on 27-9-2012 by the Amicus Curiae, Mr Shyam Divan, for regulating future mining;
- Applications seeking specific permissions for diversion or use of forest and ridge land for infrastructure projects; and
- An SLP asking that the High Court of Chhattisgarh be directed to hear a long-pending application to modify its 2005 restraining order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether paragraph 22 of the MoEF affidavit should be struck out to avoid any perceived insinuation against the Amicus Curiae, CEC or others.
- What additional directions are required to ensure environmentally sustainable resumption of mining in Karnataka, including matters such as:
- Demarcation of the inter-State boundary between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh through the Bellary Reserve Forest;
- Controls over the grant of new mining leases in Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga;
- Powers of the Monitoring Committee to dispose of low-grade iron-ore and utilise interest income for monitoring purposes;
- Creation and structuring of a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for rehabilitation and reclamation (Cepmiz); and
- Rejection of certain recommendations of the Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education (ICFRE) concerning mining in the Western Ghats.
- Whether conditional permission should be granted for (a) use of 2.25 acres in the Delhi Ridge by the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) and (b) diversion of 1.4459 ha of forest land inside Balram-Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary, Gujarat, for a Dedicated Freight Corridor (DFC) railway track.
- Whether the Chief Justice of the High Court of Chhattisgarh should be directed to ensure prompt adjudication of the petitioner’s pending application to vacate/modify the 2005 prohibition on fresh mining.
Arguments of the Parties
Union of India / MoEF
- The Additional Solicitor General, Mr Gourab Banerji, acknowledged that paragraph 22 of the MoEF affidavit was “unhappily worded,” denied any intent to cast aspersions, and requested its deletion to avoid misunderstanding.
Amicus Curiae
- Mr Shyam Divan submitted a note dated 27-9-2012 proposing seven specific measures (serial numbers (ii)–(vii)) to govern future mining and environmental rehabilitation in Karnataka.
State of Karnataka & State of Andhra Pradesh
- Counsel for Karnataka (Mr Raju Ramachandran) and Andhra Pradesh (Mr T. V. Ratnam) were asked to obtain governmental responses on boundary demarcation.
- Karnataka clarified that a letter raising doubts about renewal of Category ‘B’ leases did not reflect the State’s position and assured disposal of all renewal applications within one month.
Applicants for Specific Permissions
- BRO and the DFC project applicants unconditionally accepted all environmental and financial conditions proposed by the CEC for land use within Delhi Ridge and Balram-Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary respectively.
Petitioner in the SLP
- Asserted that all statutory clearances have been obtained since the 2005 High Court restraint and sought an expeditious hearing of its pending application to modify that order.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Order dated 29-7-2011, (2011) 12 SCC 491 | Imposition of a complete halt on mining in Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga. | Recalled as the basis for earlier suspension of mining; the Court is now moving towards phased resumption with safeguards. |
| Order dated 26-8-2011, (2013) 8 SCC 209 | Continuation of the mining ban and related environmental directives. | Cited to contextualise the ongoing regulatory framework governing Karnataka mining leases. |
| Order dated 28-9-2012, (2013) 8 SCC 222 | Directed formation of a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for implementing the Comprehensive Environment Plans for Mining Impact Zone (Cepmiz). | Referred to while considering the CEC’s subsequent report of 10-10-2012 on SPV structuring, now open to comments from Karnataka and Mysore Minerals Ltd. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded issue-wise:
- Deletion of Para 22: Accepting the ASG’s concession, the Court ordered the disputed paragraph to be struck out from the MoEF affidavit.
- Amicus Suggestions on Mining in Karnataka:
- Boundary Demarcation (Serial (ii)): Decision deferred pending responses from both State Governments and the Union of India.
- New Mining Leases, Sale of Low-Grade Ore, and Utilisation of Interest Income (Serial (iii)–(v)): Fully endorsed and incorporated into the order. The CEC was directed to examine a representation from Banashankari Mining Corporation for a Tumkur lease.
- Special Purpose Vehicle (Serial (vi)): Noted that an earlier order already dealt with the SPV; CEC’s 10-10-2012 report was placed on record and opened for comments.
- ICFRE Observation on Western Ghats (Serial (vii)): Explicitly rejected; the Court reiterated that no mining whatsoever would be permitted in the Western Ghats.
- Renewal of Category ‘B’ Leases: In light of Karnataka’s assurance, the Court expected all pending renewal applications to be decided within one month.
- Land-Use Permissions:
- Delhi Ridge (BRO): Permission granted for use of 2.25 acres subject to three CEC-recommended conditions relating to financial deposits, compensatory plantation, and removal of temporary structures.
- Balram-Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary (DFC Rail Track): Permission granted for diversion of 1.4459 ha subject to statutory clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, payment of NPV and afforestation charges, and compliance with wildlife authority conditions.
- Chhattisgarh High Court Matter: Observing undue delay, the Supreme Court directed the Chief Justice of the High Court to ensure that the petitioner’s application to vacate/modify the 2005 prohibition order is heard and decided within one month, even if a Special Bench must be constituted.
Holding and Implications
ORDERED:
- Paragraph 22 of the MoEF affidavit is deleted.
- Amicus Curiae recommendations (iii)–(v) are adopted; recommendation (vii) is approved; ICFRE suggestions on Western Ghats mining are rejected.
- Boundary demarcation issue held over for responses; State Governments to report back.
- Permissions for BRO (Delhi Ridge) and DFC rail project (Gujarat) are granted subject to stringent environmental conditions.
- Karnataka must dispose of pending lease-renewal applications within one month.
- The Chief Justice of the High Court of Chhattisgarh shall ensure disposal of the petitioner’s modification application within one month.
- Relevant IAs are disposed of; the SLP is disposed of with the above directions.
Implications: The order advances the Court’s phased approach to restarting iron-ore mining in Karnataka under tight judicial oversight, strengthens environmental safeguards through new controls on lease grants and monitoring, and affirms a zero-tolerance stance toward mining in the ecologically fragile Western Ghats. It also expedites ancillary infrastructure projects by granting conditional clearances. No broader doctrinal precedent is set; the directions are largely case- and fact-specific.
Order
IA No. 1000 with other connected matters
1. Mr Gourab Banerji, learned Additional Solicitor General, accepts that the statement made in Para 22 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the MoEF is unhappily worded. He, however, stated that it does not contain any insinuation or aspersion against the amicus or CEC or anyone. He further stated that since the statement is creating misunderstandings, he would like it to be deleted from the affidavit.
2. As requested by the learned ASG, let the statement contained in Para 22 be deleted.
3. Put up on 30-11-2012.
IA No. … of 2012 in WP (C) No. 562 of 2009 and connected matters
4. The mining operations in all the mining leases (except two mining leases of M/s NMDC Ltd.) in the districts of Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga in the State of Karnataka were stopped in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on 29-7-2011 (2011) 12 SCC 491 and 26-8-2011 (2013) 8 SCC 209. Now, the Court has started passing orders that would allow resumption of mining operations in a phased manner ensuring proper restoration and reclamation of the environment in the area. Mr Shyam Divan, learned Amicus Curiae, requested the Court to make certain further directions, in continuation of the previous orders, as suggested in his report dated 27-9-2012 in order to ensure that the mining operations in future may not cause any environmental degradation. The suggestions made in the note of the amicus curiae dated 27-9-2012 presently under consideration are as follows:
“(i)***
(ii) Directions be issued to the Union of India, the State of Karnataka, the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Surveyor General of India to finalise and demarcate the inter-State boundary between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh which runs through Bellary Reserve Forest;
(iii) No new mining leases in Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga be granted without obtaining permission of this Hon'ble Court. This will include cases for which notifications have been issued but where leases have not been executed;
(iv) Monitoring Committee be authorised to sell low grade/subgrade iron ore to cement plants, red oxide and other similarly placed industries. It may also be authorised to supply iron ore required for construction of nuclear plants at the rates mutually agreed between the Monitoring Committee and the authorities concerned in a transparent manner;
(v) Monitoring Committee may be authorised to utilise up to 25% of the interest received by it for engaging and utilising reputed agencies and experts for the monitoring of various parameters relating to mining and the R&R plans;
(vi) The State of Karnataka be directed to set up special purpose vehicle (SPV) for the purpose of ameliorative and mitigative measures as per the comprehensive environment plans for the mining impact zone (Cepmiz) around mining leases in Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur. SPV would be under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and would have senior officers of the departments concerned of the State Government as members. SPV would function in a transparent manner and the accounts of SPV would be subject to an annual audit by CAG. A detailed scheme containing the details of the works to be undertaken, process of selection of implementing agencies, accounting procedure and other details of Cepmiz may be directed to be prepared and submitted to this Hon'ble Court by the State of Karnataka, in consultation with CEC within four weeks. The amounts received/retained by the Monitoring Committee towards (a) 10% of the sale proceeds, (b) compensation, (c) other receivable be directed to be transferred to SPV (after its formation) for implementation of the provisions/prescriptions of Cepmiz.
(vii) The observations contained in the Icfre macro-level EIA report (quoted below) relating to iron ore mining in the Western Ghats be held to be beyond the remit of the Icfre and to stand rejected:
‘There is a need to commission a feasibility study in order to bring in superior underground mining technology which is more environment friendly in the Western Ghats to extract 10 billion tonnes of magnetite iron ore available in the country. Out of this 8 billion ton is in Karnataka.’”
5. The suggestion at serial number (ii) is for demarcation of the boundary between the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. In that regard, we would like to pass any order only after getting a response from the two States, and preferably with the consent of both the State Governments and the Union of India. Mr Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka, and Mr T.V Ratnam, learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh, are directed to obtain the response of the respective State Governments and inform the Court on the next date.
6. The suggestions made by the learned amicus, as mentioned at serial numbers (iii), (iv) and (v) are endorsed and incorporated as part of this order. In this connection, Mr Krishnan Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel, states that one Banashankari Mining Corporation (the applicant in IA No. 113 of 2012), has made a representation for grant of permission of mining lease in Tumkur area. CEC is directed to consider the representation and to give its report to the Court.
7. The other suggestion of the amicus, as contained in serial number (vi) hereinabove, has been dealt with in the order passed on 28-9-2012 (2013) 8 SCC 222. Mr Shyam Divan, learned Amicus Curiae, submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Court, CEC has filed its report on the formation of the special purpose vehicle on 10-10-2012. He stated that CEC has incorporated the suggestions made by Mr Datar, as regards the structure of the organisation. Mr Divan also invited the State of Karnataka to make its suggestions on the report for the consideration of the Court. The counsel appearing for Mysore Minerals Limited is also granted permission to file its response to the CEC Report dated 10-10-2012.
8. We also endorse and approve the suggestion as contained in serial number (vii) and we disapprove of and reject the suggestions of Icfre concerning mining operations in the Western Ghats. No mining operations of any kind in the Western Ghats is to be countenanced.
9. We are shown a letter of 18-10-2012 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force), Malleswaram, Bengaluru. From the letter, it appears that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, has some doubt whether to process the renewal proposals of the leases falling under Category ‘B’ or otherwise. Mr Raju Ramachadran stated that the views expressed in the aforesaid letter are not endorsed by the State Government and further assured the Court that final orders on all applications for renewal of leases pending before the Government shall be passed within one month from today. List on 30-11-2012.
IA No. 1349 in IAs Nos. 1246-47, 1378-80, 1446-47, 1502, 2299-300, 2652-53, 2866-67, 2952-53, 2954-56, 3406-408, 3462 and 3504-505 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 with IAs Nos. 3513-14, 3517-18, 3519-20, 3521-22 in IAs Nos. 1378-80 in IAs Nos. 1246-47 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 390 of 2012 in IAs Nos. 1378-80 and 1349 in IAs Nos. 1246-47 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
10. Stand over.
IAs Nos. 3488 and 3503 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
11. CEC in its Report dated 28-9-2012 has recommended for grant of permission for the use of 2.25 acres of non-forest land falling within the Delhi Ridge area for the construction of transit, training and other infrastructure facilities for the personnel of Border Road Organisation subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Border Road Organisation will deposit 5% of the sanctioned project cost amounting to Rs 85,55,090 (Rupees eighty-five lakh fifty-five thousand and ninety only) with the Ridge Management Board Fund and which, under the close supervision and direction of the Ridge Management Board, should be used by the Delhi Forest Department for conservation and development of Delhi Ridge;
(ii) the Border Road Organisation will deposit the cost of undertaking of plantation on 1 ha of land in the Central Ridge and its maintenance for a period of five years. This amount will be deposited with the Deputy Conservator of Forests (West) who shall take up plantation of indigenous species and its maintenance; and
(iii) the Border Road Organisation will immediately remove the labour sheds in front of their newly constructed buildings on the other side of the kuchha road and undertake plantations in the area under the technical guidance and supervision of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, West Forest Division.
12. On behalf of the applicant it is stated that all the conditions enumerated above are acceptable to it. Permission as sought for in the IA is granted subject to the satisfaction of the aforesaid conditions.
13. IAs stand disposed of.
IAs Nos. 3486-87 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
14. CEC in its Report dated 25-10-2012 has recommended for grant of permission for diversion of 1.4459 ha of forest land forming part of Balram Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary in the State of Gujarat for construction of DFCC Railway Track, subject to the following conditions:
(i) statutory clearance for diversion of forest land would be obtained under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 from the Ministry of Environment and Forests;
(ii) the net present value (NPV) and compensatory afforestation charges payable for diversion of the forest land would be deposited with ad hoc Campa; and
(iii) all the conditions imposed by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife and any other condition that may be imposed by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat will be complied with.
15. Mr Wasim A. Quadri, learned counsel appearing for the applicant states that all the above conditions are accepted by the applicant in an unqualified way. Permission as sought for in the IA is granted subject to the satisfaction of the aforesaid conditions.
16. IAs stand disposed of.
IAs Nos. 2062-2063 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
17. List on 23-11-2012.
SLP (C) No. … CC No. 18195 of 2012
18. Delay condoned. Heard learned Attorney General in support of the SLP.
19. The High Court of Chhattisgarh by order dated 9-8-2005 prohibited the petitioner from breaking any fresh ground for its mining operations.
20. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that after the order was passed, the petitioner has obtained all necessary statutory clearances/permissions from the MoEF and the other statutory authorities. Having obtained the clearances, the petitioner made an application for vacating/modifying the prohibitory order of the High Court passed on 9-8-2005. The application was filed sometime in March 2012, but for one reason or the other it has so far not been heard by any Bench and no order has been passed on it.
21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we ask the Chief Justice of the High Court to ensure that the petitioner's application is taken up and a final order is passed on it within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the High Court. If need be, the Chief Justice shall constitute a Special Bench for hearing the application.
22. The special leave petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
Court Masters
Alert