SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

REPORTABLE 2024 INSC 267 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Corrected)

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 562 OF 2009

SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. ..... PETITIONERS

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS

WITH

W.P.(C) No. 505 OF 2020

AND

W.P.(C) No. 768 OF 2013

O R D E R

The present applications relate to mining activities being

undertaken in Districts - Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur in

Karnataka.

In 2009, the petitioner - Samaj Parivartana Samudaya had filed

a writ petition praying for this Court’s intervention on grounds of

the illegality of such mining activities and consequent harm caused

to the environment. This Court intervened and has passed several

directions and orders.

To avoid prolixity, we will not be referring to the catena of

orders babita pandey passed by this Court in depth and detail. However, to appreciate the present applications, we have summarized the

relevant developments below:

• The genesis of the Central Empowered Committee1 goes back

to this Court’s order dated 09.09.2002 in “T.N. Godavarman

Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors.”, where the Court was

concerned with the rampant pilferage and illegal extraction

of natural resources, particularly iron ore, and the

environmental degradation and disaster that may have

resulted from unchecked intrusion into the forest areas.

• The CEC was constituted to monitor the situation, implement

this Courts’ orders, and delineate the steps to be taken.

• On 19.11.2010, the CEC was directed by this Court to submit

a report with respect to certain mining leases granted by

the State of Karnataka in District – Bellary.

• The initial reports of CEC indicated large-scale illegal

mining being undertaken.

• On 06.05.2011, this Court constituted a ‘Joint Team’ to

determine the boundaries of the specific mines since a large

number of mining lessees were carrying out operations beyond

the lease boundaries, thereby causing environmental

degradation.

• On 29.07.2011, this Court imposed a temporary ban on mining

operations in District – Bellary.2

• On 26.08.2011, this Court extended the temporary ban on

mining operations to Districts – Chitradurga and Tumkur.3

• On 05.08.2011 and 26.08.2011, this Court directed the Indian

1 For short, “CEC”. 2 See State of Andhra Pradesh v. Obulapuram Mining Company (P) Ltd, 2011 (12) SCC 491. 3 See Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 8 SCC 209.

Council of Forest Research and Education4 to conduct a

macro-level environmental impact assessment, in

collaboration with domain experts to determine the extent of

environmental degradation due to illegal mining.

• On 14.08.2011, ICFRE submitted its report wherein it inter

alia recommended: (i) imposition of district-level

production ceiling; and (ii) preparation of Reclamation and

Rehabilitation Plans5 for each mining lease which apart from

prescribing actions for reclamation and rehabilitation works

would also prescribe a Maximum Permissible Annual

Production6 restricting the total quantity of iron ore that

could be produced at the specific mining lease.

• Based on ICFRE report and CEC’s recommendations, this Court

imposed differing production ceilings on mining leases in

the three districts, which have been enhanced from time to

time:

o vide order dated 13.04.2012, production ceiling of 25

Million Metric Tons7 was fixed on mines in the Bellary

District and 5 MMT in Tumkur and Chitradurga Districts;

o these caps were enhanced to 28 MMT for the Bellary

District and 7 MMT for Tumkar and Chitradurga Districts

vide order dated 14.12.2017; and

o these caps were further enhanced to 35 MMT for Bellary

District and 15 MMT for the Tumkar and Chitradurga

4 For short, “ICFRE”. 5 For short, “R&R Plans”. 6 For short, “MPAP”. 7 For short, “MMT”.

Districts vide order dated 26.08.2022.

• Vide report dated 03.02.2012, the CEC recommended the

categorization of the mines into Categories A, B and C based

on the severity of encroachment by the mines and overburden

dumps, determined in terms of the percentage in relation to

the total lease area. In such categorization, Category A

mining leases bear no/marginal illegality and Category C

mining leases stand in flagrant violation of laws.

• To strike a balance between environmental protection and

development, a central public sector undertaking – National

Minerals Development Corporation was allowed to operate two

mining leases in District – Bellary.

• Further, permission to sell old stock of iron ore by e-

auction was granted through a Monitoring Committee set up by

this Court.

• Vide report dated 13.03.2012, the CEC recommended the

implementation of R&R Plans, as a precondition to resumption

of mining operations.8 In due course of time, mining was

permitted to resume in specific Category A and B mines based

on the reports of the CEC and on judgments/orders of this

Court.

• Category C mining licenses were cancelled, and the proceeds

from sale of iron ore from Category C mines were ordered to

be forfeited to the State.

• Some of the Category C mining leases have been auctioned and

8 See this Court’s judgment/order dated 13.04.2012 where the Court directed the implementation of R&R Plans in all the three categories of mines.

have subsequently commenced production. The new leaseholders

have undertaken to implement R&R Plans as a precondition to

commence operations.

• Vide order dated 28.09.2012, this Court constituted a

Special Purpose Vehicle9, namely, Karnataka Mining

Environment Restoration Corporation10 to facilitate

ameliorative and mitigative measures around the mining

leases in the three districts.

• Vide order dated 21.04.2022, this Court constituted the

Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy Committee as an Oversight

Authority to oversee the work of the SPV.11

• Vide order dated 28.09.2022, this Court directed the Joint

Team to prepare sketches of 7 mining leases placed in

Category B-1.

The seven B-1 Category mining leases (listed below) lie

between the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. They require

demarcation on the ground.

S.No Lease ML Location Exten Village Taluka Divisio . Names No. t in n Ha. 1. T. Narayan 252 Sy. No. 32.65 Thumati Sandur Bellary Reddy 7 01 2. N. 670 Sy. No.01 14.16 Thumati Sandur Bellary Rathnaiah 3. Hind 254 Sy. No. 19.63 Vitalapur Sandur Bellary Traders 8 01 a

9 For short, “SPV”. 10 For short, “KMERC”. 11 For short, “Oversight Authority”.

4 Mehaboob 256 Sy. No. 16.19 Thumati Sandur Bellary Transport 8 106 & 01 and Co. Vitalapur vitalapur a a 5. Vibhuti 254 Sy. No. 137.0 Hunahalli Bellar Bellary Gudda 2 283 0 y Mines Private Ltd. 6. Suggallamm 254 Sy. No. 10.11 Bellagala Bellar Bellary a Gudda 1 90 y Mining & Co. 7. Bellary 265 Sy.No. 15.80 Halakundi Bellar Bellary Mining 1 465 y Corporatio n

This Court’s order dated 28.09.2022, directing the Joint Team

to prepare sketches of these seven mining leases, was deferred till

the inter-state boundary was demarcated on the ground.

Vide letter dated 09.01.2023, the State of Karnataka informed

the CEC that inter-state boundaries between the states of Karnataka

and Andhra Pradesh had been fixed on the ground.

However, it is apparent that further work must be undertaken

at the ground level by deploying the total station survey method

along with the satellite images of the mining sites.

By letter dated 29.02.2024, the government of Andhra Pradesh,

had stated it would be represented by the following four officers,

as a part of the Joint Team which was directed to render support to

the CEC in surveying the seven mining leases:-

S. No. Name of the Designation Officer 1. Sri Vineeth Kumar, Divisional Forest Officer, I.F.S. Ananthapuramu

By letter dated 20.01.2023, the State of Karnataka stated that

it would be represented by the following three officers in the

Joint Team:

S. No. Name of the Officer Designation 1. Sri T. Heeralal Chief Conservator of Forest, Ballari Circle Ballari (Incharge Working Plan Ballari) 2. Dr. Bagadi Goutham IAS, Director, Mines and Geology, Bengaluru 3. Sri Prashant Kumar IPS, Additional Director Thakur General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru

We clarify that if there is a change of the aforesaid named

officers of the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, the

replacement/designated officer would be co-opted in the Joint Team.

The CEC has requested the National Institute of Technology,

Suratkhal, Karnataka,12 to carry out the aforesaid survey at the

ground level, based on the total station method and satellite

images of the seven mining leases. The members of the ‘Joint Team’

will be associated and shall cooperate with representatives of NIT

Karnataka.

The survey will be undertaken for one mining lease at a time.

12 For short, “NIT Karnataka”.

The report will be submitted with the joint signatures of the

‘Joint Team’ to the states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. A copy

thereof will be filed before this Court. The said exercise would be

completed no later than six months from today.

The CEC after receiving the survey/demarcation report will

issue notice to the respective lessees and pass appropriate orders.

This exercise will be undertaken even if the leases have expired in

the due course of time. Orders passed by the CEC will be

communicated to the parties, and a report will be filed before this

Court within a period of seven months from today.

The Monitoring Committee will also be associated with the

aforesaid exercise undertaken by the CEC, post the submission of

the survey/demarcation report(s).

The State of Karnataka will be empowered and entitled to

participate in the proceedings before the CEC and raise all

objections and contentions.

Re-list all pending applications in W.P.(C) no. 562/2009 and

768/2013 on 03.04.2024.

I.A. No. 225561 of 2023

MPAP and District-Level Production Ceiling

As noticed in the summary of developments above, this Court

had fixed a district-level production ceiling for all mining leases

in the Districts – Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga. These caps were

enhanced from time to time. The final enhancement of production

ceilings was done vide order dated 26.08.2022 whereby a production

ceiling of 35 MMT for Bellary District and 15 MMT for the Tumkar

and Chitradurga Districts was specified.

The district-level production ceilings apply to Category A and

Category B mining leases. Category ‘C’ mining leases were cancelled

and were thereafter e-auctioned, and hence are under a different

legal regime.

Parallelly, in its report dated 13.03.2012, the CEC fixed the

guidelines for the preparation and/or implementation of the R&R

Plans as a pre-condition to the resumption of mining in the three

districts. This was done given the devastation and degradation of

the environment on account of unregulated and illegal mining

activities. The objective of the R&R Plans is to:-

(a) carry out the time-bound reclamation and rehabilitation of

the areas found to be under illegal mining;

(b) ensure scientific and environmentally sustainable mining;

(c) ensure compliance with the various standards stipulated

under the environment/mining statutes; and

(d) regular and effective motoring, evaluation and corrective

measures.

As noticed above, the R&R Plans, together with specifying

actions to be undertaken for reclamation and rehabilitation works,

provided for an MPAP restriction for each mining lease. However,

the upper cap fixed at the district level is mandatory and binding.

This Court, vide judgment/order dated 14.12.2017, directed

that a production cap of the individual mining leases will be

regulated through the MPAP limits prescribed in the R&R Plans,

without reference to the upper or general cap fixed at the district

level.

The CEC states that the lease-wise R&R Plans have been

prepared for all mining leases, which have been submitted by the

Joint Team. It consists of two broad components: (a) R&R Plans for

areas found to be under illegal mining by the Joint Team and (b)

Supplementary Environment Management Plan. In addition,

Comprehensive Environment Plans for the Mining Impact Zone13 for the

areas surrounding the mining leases, would be prepared.

Accordingly, the CEC and CEPMIZ had proposed, and it was

accepted by this Court, that MPAP for each of the mining leases

should be implemented and executed. This figure may be

substantially lower than permissible limits specified under the

Environment Clearance, Approved Mining Plan, and/or the Consent to

Operate, granted for the respective mining leases. For the purpose

of feasible annual production, the following factors would be kept

in mind:-

(a) mineral reserves in the lease area;

(b) area available for overburden/waste dump(s) and subgrade

dump(s); and

(c) existing transport facilities vis-a-vis the traffic load

of the mining lease and adjoining mining leases.

The MPAP is the minimum of the quantity that may be feasible

based on the above three parameters. Further, if the total of the

lease-wise annual production from all the leases in the district

exceeds the ceiling limit fixed for a specific district, then the

MPAP for each mining lease was/is to be scaled down on a pro-rata

basis, to ensure that the district-level production ceiling is not

13 For short, “CEPMIZ”.

breached.

The aforesaid parameters were accepted by this Court by the

order dated 13.04.2012. We respectfully concur and state that these

directions shall continue.

Our attention has been drawn to the CEC report dated

14.07.2017 and the orders passed by this Court on 14.12.2017 and

26.08.2022.

Keeping in view the aforesaid position, we would request the

CEC, together with the Monitoring Committee and aid and advice of

the Oversight Authority, to undertake a complete exercise in the

three districts, and the respective mining leases situated therein,

and submit a report before this Court. While undertaking the said

exercise, they shall keep in mind the parameters referred to in the

report dated 13.03.2012. The CEC will be entitled to take help and

assistance of the scientific domain experts who will examine data,

including environmental pollution data available/recorded in the

districts from time to time.

A copy of the said report will be filed before this Court

within a period of four months from today. While submitting the

report, it shall also be examined whether sub-caps in particular

areas should be fixed or caps should be increased or decreased. In

other words, the CEC will also examine whether a mining cap must be

imposed in an area for better compliance and regulation.

Further, the CEC, the Monitoring Committee and the Oversight

Authority will examine whether any form of regulation like e-

auctioning is required to be put in place for the sale of the mined

material. While examining this question, they will take into

consideration the data with regard to the royalty and other cess

etc., which were recovered when e-auctioning was mandatory and post

the order dated 20.05.2022, whereby private sales have been

permitted.

The question of whether satellite mappings/images should be

undertaken with regard to each mine for the purpose of ascertaining

the mining activities including the sale and disposal of the waste

etc., will be examined by the CEC, the Monitoring Committee and the

Oversight Authority.

The CEC, the Monitoring Committee and the Oversight Authority

will be entitled to examine any other aspect, which they feel is

relevant for consideration of the issues and questions referred to

them.

In view of the directions given today, the application in I.A

No. 225561 of 2023 shall await the report of the CEC. Accordingly,

the application is not finally decided.

I.A. No.183 of 2013

It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that

in view of the subsequent development, the present application has

become infructuous.

In view of the statement made, the present application is

dismissed as infructuous.

I.A. No. 189 of 2013

None is present to press the present application.

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.

I.A. No. 191 of 2013

It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that

the present application, which was filed as a contempt petition,

has become infructuous, as the petitioner has filed a substantive

writ petition and other proceedings.

In view of the statement made and without commenting on the

merits, the present application is dismissed.

I.A. No. 203 of 2014

None is present to press the present application.

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.

I.A. No. 204 of 2014

None is present to press the present application.

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.

I.A. No. 213 of 2014

None is present to press the present application.

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.

I.A. No. 214 of 2014

None is present to press the present application.

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.

I.A. No.222 of 2014 in I.A. No. 214 of 2014

None is present to press the present application.

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.

I.A. No. 226 of 2014

None is present to press the present application.

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.

I.A. No.228 of 2014

None is present to press the present application.

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.

I.A. No. 229 of 2014

None is present to press the present application.

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.

I.A. No.232 of 2014

The CEC, in consultation with the Monitoring Committee, will

file their report on the assertions and prayer made in the present

application, within a period of six weeks from today.

Liberty is granted to the State of Karnataka to file their

reply/response within six weeks to the present application.

Reply/response to the report will be filed within period of

six weeks from the date of service of the report.

The application is not disposed of today.

I.A. No. 234 of 2014

None is present to press the present application.

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.

I.A. No.124132 of 2022

The CEC, in consultation with the Monitoring Committee, will

file a status report to the assertions and prayer made in the

present application. The application is not disposed of today.

I.A. No. 21884 of 2020

The CEC, in consultation with the Monitoring Committee, will

file a status report on the assertions and prayer made in the

present application, within a period of six weeks from today.

The application is not disposed of today.

I.A. No.149994 of 2018

We are not inclined to accept the prayer(s) made in the

present application by the applicant – National Mineral Development

Corporation Limited14 in view of specific orders passed by this

Court on 23.09.2011, and subsequent order dated 28.09.2012.

It is to be noted that the applicant – NMDC, by a subsequent

order dated 22.02.2023, was directed a refund of 10% of the sale

proceeds, deposited towards SPV w.e.f 01.01.2019 onwards. This

order, according to us, balances out the equities and hence, the

prayer for reducing the amount to be deposited towards the SPV from

10% for the period prior to 31.12.2018, is rejected. We clarify

that the applicant – NMDC will be liable to pay contribution to the

SPV at the rate of 10% of the sale proceeds w.e.f 01.01.2019 and

thereafter. Any excess amount above 10%, collected/paid by the

applicant – NMDC, on and with effect from 01.01.2019 will be

refunded to them by the Monitoring Committee within a period of six

weeks from today.

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.

I.A. Nos. 43677/2024 and 52570/2024

I.A. no. 52570/2024 seeking permission to file application for

14 For short, “NDMC”.

directions is allowed.

I.A. no. 43677/2024 has been filed seeking certain directions.

We are not inclined to grant any relief to the applicant(s)

and hence, the application is disposed of.

I.A. No. 233 of 2014 and I.A. No. 235 of 2014 in I.A. No. 233 of

2014

Learned counsel for the applicant(s) states that the present

applications have become infructuous.

In view of the statement made, the applications are dismissed

as infructuous.

I.A. No. 217 of 2014

Learned counsel for the applicant(s) seeks permission to

withdraw the present application.

In view of the statement made, the application is dismissed as

withdrawn.

I.A. No. 190 of 2013

Learned counsel for the applicant(s) states that he is

satisfied with the orders dated 09.12.2013 and 06.01.2014. He

states that in view of the said orders, the application may be

disposed of.

In view of the statement made, the application will be treated

as disposed of.

I.A. No. 212 of 2014

We are not inclined to examine the merits of the said

application in view of the notification/corrigendum dated

04.08.2014. In case the said notification/corrigendum is set aside

or modified, it will be open to the applicant(s) to raise pleas and

contentions before this Court or before the High Court.

All pending applications in I.A. no. 212/2014 shall stand

disposed of.

I.A. No. 208 of 2014

We are not inclined to examine the merits of the assertions

made in the application, as the issue involved is rather secondary

to the issue pending consideration in W.P.(C) no. 562/2009. In

case the applicant(s) has any grievance or issue, it will be open

to the applicant(s) to file appropriate proceedings before the

jurisdictional High Court or any other authority.

The stay order passed by this order on 10.02.2014 will

continue for a further period of two months in order to enable the

applicant(s) to take steps in accordance with law.

We clarify that we have not made any comments either way on

the merits.

The application is disposed of.

I.A. No. 197 of 2013

This application has become infructuous and is dismissed as

such.

It will be open for the applicant(s) to press for hearing of

SLP(C) nos. 1684/2017 titled “Dhruvdesh Metasteel Pvt. Ltd. v.

Kiocl Ltd. & Ors.” and 6854/2017 titled “M. Babanna v. Kiocl Ltd. &

Ors.”, before the appropriate Bench.

I.A. No. 160407 of 2022

Arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the

applicants. The issue is whether a 10% levy imposed on the sale of

the iron ore and transferred to the SPV for implementing the

CEPMIZ, in terms of the judgment/order of this Court dated

13.04.201215, should be discontinued.

It has been pointed out that Rs.24,464 crores are available to

the SPV, namely, KMERC, which is to prepare and implement the

CEPMIZ to mitigate the environmental damage in the Mining Impact

Zone16 in the three districts.

Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of this Court

dated 21.03.2017,17 wherein a similar plea upon being raised, was

considered, but rejected by this Court, observing that CEPMIZ is a

scheme, which can be divided into two broad categories: (i) socio-

economic development; and (ii) integrated mining and railway

infrastructure, industrial infrastructure and medical

infrastructure. The said order noted that the total cost of

implementation of the CEPMIZ over a period of ten years was

Rs.15,742.35 crores. The prayer was rejected, observing that at

that stage, the CEPMIZ was a vision document with all concrete

measures, steps and proposals left to be worked out at a later

stage, that is, the stage of the preparation of the Detailed

Project Report18. We would like to reproduce a portion of the said

judgment:

15 (2013) 8 SCC 213. 16 For short, “MIA”. 17 (2017) 5 SCC 434. 18 For short, “DPR”.

“15. What had happened in Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur, has already been noticed by this Court in para 37 of the judgment dated 18-4-2013 [Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 8 SCC 154] i.e. systematic, extraordinary and unprecedented plunder of the natural wealth and environment. This Court has specifically observed in para 37 that: (Samaj Parivartana case [Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 8 SCC 154] , SCC p. 187) “37. … The situation being extraordinary the remedy, indeed, must also be extraordinary.” (emphasis supplied)

It is to deal with such an extraordinary situation that the necessity of CEPMIZ and implementation thereof by a special purpose vehicle out of funds in credit with the Monitoring Committee was contemplated. The special funds in deposit with the Monitoring Committee being the proceeds of illegal mining were meant to be deployed for re-creation of what had been lost due to such illegal activities. It is for the aforesaid purpose that CEPMIZ was required to be drawn up and thereafter implemented. The state of implementation of the Scheme has not yet commenced. Funds in huge proportions would be necessary. A full and clear picture is yet to emerge. In a situation lessees who may be even remotely connected with the degradation and destruction of nature must continue to pay their share in the process of restitution by contributing to the Monitoring Committee from their present sale proceeds. Even the new lessees who may not have been involved with such degradation are contributing to the process of reclamation and restoration. In such a situation, we do not see how we can vary or modify our earlier orders that require all existing lessees to pay 10% of the sale proceeds and/or to depart from the requirement of payment of what has been already ordered, namely, 10% of the sale proceeds to the Monitoring Committee/SPV.”

The Court did not make comments on the CEPMIZ, except to state

that insofar as socio-economic measures are concerned, different

heads under which restoration and implementation work was proposed

to be done, details thereof were to be worked out. It is to be

noted that at that stage, funds to the extent of Rs.10,336 crores

were available.

This aspect was again examined in the order dated 21.03.2018

on an application filed by the Federation of Indian Mineral

Industries, Southern Region19 enclosing therewith reports of the CEC

dated 19.03.2018. In this report, the CEC, with reference to the

CEPMIZ, had suggested submission of a project report by KMERC

indicating very broadly, different facets of the CEPMIZ, the work

to be undertaken and the cost, which is reasonably expected to be

incurred. Accordingly, this Court rejected the prayer made in the

application, and stated that the same would be considered

subsequently. Directions were issued to KMERC to prepare and

submit within six months, a revised comprehensive proposal of

socio-economic development and eco-restoration including those

relating to road infrastructure with short-term and long-term

targets and study relating to the railway backbone required to

support the mining activity, as suggested by certain

authorities/experts.

This Court, in the order dated 21.04.2022, granted in-

principle approval to the CEPMIZ submitted by the State of

Karnataka, as recommended by the CEC in its reports dated

22.10.2018 and 16.04.2019. However, this order also records that

the parties are at liberty to place any objections or submissions

before the Oversight Authority with regard to the CEPMIZ. The

order states that the Oversight Authority shall decide the

objections or suggest modifications after hearing the parties and

taking assistance of any expert including the CEC, as may be

required. Further, if any clarification is required, the parties

were granted liberty to approach this Court.

19 For short, “FIMI, South”.

The Oversight Authority constituted by this order was to

oversee the works and progress being carried out by KMERC.

Our attention was also drawn to the report of the CEC, dated

10.04.2022, which states that the SPV amount maintained by the

Monitoring Committee exceeds Rs.20,000 crores as of 31.03.2022.

This amount including the interest, which will accrue, would be

adequate to meet the expenses incurred with the activities proposed

to be undertaken under the CEPMIZ. This report recommends that 10%

of the sale value (20% of the sale value from NMDC) being

contributed towards the SPV, may be discontinued.

At this stage, we may record that this Court vide order dated

22.02.2023, reduced the contribution of NMDC to the SPV from 20% to

10% w.e.f. 01.01.2019 and accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,326 crores

has been refunded to them.

As per the figures placed before us, the CEPMIZ Plan, as

provisionally approved by this Court, states that a tentative

expenditure of nearly Rs.25,000 crores is likely to be incurred for

various sectors, as tabulated below:-

S.No. Sector/Districts Bellary(Rs. Chitradurga Tumkur Total Cr.) (Rs. Cr.) (Rs. Cr.) (Rs. Cr.) 1 Eco-Restoration 1584.79 555.64 515.23 2655.75 2 Agriculture & 881.93 391.04 330.08 1603.05 allied 3 Drinking Water, 3464.70 978.68 486.52 4929.90 Sanitation & Rural Roads 4 Health 1450.17 255.94 209.67 1915.78 5 Education 643.49 330.58 192.28 1166.35 6 Development of 695.60 188.54 198.42 1082.56 vulnerable sections

7 Housing 1027 106.88 60 1193.88 8 Skill 436.19 70.79 31.27 538.25 Development 9 Tourism 148 34 7 189 10 Irrigation 799 154.70 53 1006.70 11 Physical 734.99 105.29 44.08 884.36 Infrastructure 12 Roads & 1512.55 620.22 426.40 2559.17 Communication 13 Railway 5271.96 Infrastructure Grand Total 13378.41 3792.30 2554.05 24996.71

The total expenditure to be incurred on the projects, which

stand approved, is about Rs.7,000 crores.

It is an accepted and admitted position that in respect of 51

Category C mining leases, ICFRE had approved R&R Plans of 28

leases. In respect of the remaining 23 leases, inputs have not

been provided to ICFRE to approve the R&R Plans. It is also stated

that 23 lessees of Category C have not submitted any data. In

three cases, R&R Plans submitted have not been approved by the CEC.

We do not think, at this stage, it will be appropriate to

withdraw the 10% levy imposed by this Court in terms of the order

dated 13.04.2012, as the CEPMIZ Plan is still at the initial stage

of execution. The proposed plan was provisionally approved by this

Court only vide order dated 21.04.2022. Objections and suggestions

have been invited and are pending consideration by the Oversight

Authority. This apart, we feel certain directions are required to

be given for preparation of R&R Plans and execution thereof in

respect of Category C leases, which were terminated/cancelled, but

thereafter no progress has been made for submission of the plans or

execution or implementation of R&R Plans.

Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to direct the Principal

Chief Conservator of Forests20, State of Karnataka to undertake a

detailed scrutiny and survey of all Category C mines, where data

and R&R Plans have not been submitted and submit R&R Plans after

conducting their scrutiny and survey. PCCF, Karnataka will be

entitled to procure assistance from domain experts, specialized

agencies or institutions. The cost incurred will be paid in the

interim from the funds available with the SPV. The R&R Plans will

be thereupon implemented and executed either through KMERC or if

more appropriate, through any other agency, which may be nominated

for this purpose after moving an application before this Court by

the CEC, the Monitoring Committee, and the Oversight Authority.

The directions given above will equally apply to other cases

of Categories A and B mines, where R&R Plans have not been

submitted or approved.

The amount incurred for R&R Plans must be collected from the

erstwhile Category C lease holders or the Category A and B lease

holders, as appropriate. The amount will be collected as arrears

of land revenue. However, no amount shall be refunded to the new

lease holders. The amount collected will be deposited with the SPV.

I.A. No. 41984/2023

This application has become infructuous and is disposed of.

We clarify that the applicant will be entitled to file a fresh

application after this Court has received a report from the CEC in

20 For short, “PCCF”.

terms of the directions given above.

I.A. Nos.17247/2020 and 17249/2020 and 17250/2020

I.A. nos. 17247/2020 seeks permission to file application for

impleadment and 17249/2020 seeks impleadment. I.A. no. 17250/2020

has been filed seeking certain directions.

We see no reason to grant the prayer in the applications

seeking directions to shift the category of the applicant from

Category C to B. We have also examined the CEC report no. 23 of

2022.

All the applications accordingly stand dismissed.

In view of the aforesaid, I.A. Nos. 121324/2022, 121326/2022,

and I. A. No. 173897/2022 (Application for Additional Documents)

shall also stand disposed of.

I.A. No. 21886 of 2020

We are not inclined to accept the prayer made in the present

application in view of the facts and hence, the same is dismissed.

I.A. No. 172166/2023

We are not inclined to accept the prayer made in the present

application in view of the facts and hence, the same is dismissed.

I.A. 49701 in W.P.(C) No. 768/2013

The application is not taken up for hearing today.

Writ Petition No. 505 of 2020

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 –

State of Karnataka has drawn our attention to the order dated

28.09.2022 passed in “M/s Arjun Ladha v. The State of Odisha”21. The

said order specifically refers to the present Writ Petition(C) No.

505 of 2020.

The period of the lease has expired by flux of time. We do not

think any relief can be granted to the petitioner(s) in the present

writ petition, and the same is dismissed.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that

the petitioner(s) would like to challenge the fresh auction. It

will be open to the petitioner(s) to challenge the fresh auction in

accordance with law. However, we make no comments either way in

this regard.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.....................J. (SANJIV KHANNA)

.....................J. (M.M. SUNDRESH)

.....................J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI) NEW DELHI; MARCH 14, 2024.

21 Writ Petition (C) No. 539 of 2022.