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