Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
IA No. 10973/2018, 83141/2017, 72931/2017 and 218/2014
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 562 OF 2009
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA
AND ORS. .....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
ORDER
1. The present hearing is in continuation of our earlier hearing and
order dated 20.05.2022, whereby this Court had considered and
granted certain reliefs relating to the sale and export of iron ore
in the Districts of Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga in the State
of Karnataka. In the said order, we had specifically left open the
question of the lifting/relaxation of the ceiling limit for
production of iron ore in the abovementioned Districts and had
sought an opinion from the Oversight Authority appointed by this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2022.08.26
15:11:30 IST
Reason:
Court vide order dated 21.04.2022. The observations made by
1
this Court were as follows:
“22….For the present, we propose to confine the
scope of this order to examining the twin prayers
made by learned counsel for the applicants namely,
permission to sell the unsold stock of iron ore already
excavated without resorting to the process of eauction
conducted through the Monitoring Committee and for
lifting the ban on export of iron ore/pellets from the
districts of Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur situated
in the State of Karnataka. Although certain
submissions were made by the parties regarding
lifting of the ceiling limit for total production of iron
ore, at this juncture we are not inclined to decide the
said issue.
32. With respect to the submissions of the parties in
relation to the lifting of the ceiling limit for production
of iron ore for mining leases in the Districts of
Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur, we are of the
considered opinion that it would be expedient to
obtain an opinion from the Oversight Authority
appointed by this Court vide order dated 21st April,
2022 about the same before deciding the said issue.
We request the Oversight Authority to take inputs
from the stakeholders, including the CEC and the
Monitoring Committee, and to send his opinion to
this Court preferably within a period of 4 weeks.”
2. On the last date of hearing, this Court took on record the Report
filed by the learned Oversight Authority and had directed that
copies of the same be made available to the parties whereafter,
the matter was posted for considering the issue of lifting of ceiling
limit.
3. Heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on
2
behalf of the original petitioner and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of Federation of Indian
Mineral Industries, South.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan submitted that the ceiling limits were
4.
imposed in view of the earlier CEC recommendation and the
report of the learned Lokayukta, which suggested that the rate of
mining of iron ore in the State of Karnataka was unsustainable
and would result in exhaustion of the iron ore deposits in the
State of Karnataka within 30 years. This as per the learned
counsel would seriously impact the goal of intergenerational
equity. Lastly, he submitted that as the learned Oversight
Authority has sought additional information regarding the
infrastructural capacity before giving an opinion as to the
viability of lifting of the ceiling limit, this Court should presently
refrain from passing any orders at this juncture.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Dushyant Dave, Senior Advocate
submitted that the present regime relating to iron ore mining in
the State of Karnataka, with Court imposed ceiling limits, has
been in existence for over a decade. When the ceiling limit was
first imposed, the Court was confronted with a vastly different
3
situation, where there was rampant illegal mining activity taking
place in the State of Karnataka. The said situation has now been
remedied through series of orders passed by this Court. As a
result, all illegal mining in the area has been halted and several
ameliorative measures have been taken for the improvement of
the environment and ecology of the region. In such
circumstances, the learned Senior Advocate submitted that the
present mining lease holders, who are complying with all the
laws, are being unfairly penalized for the illegalities that were
committed a decade ago. Such ceiling limits has resulted in a
discriminatory situation where mining lease holders in the State
of Karnataka are governed by one legal regime, while those in
other States of the country are governed by a completely different
regime.
6. At this juncture, it might be relevant, to highlight the history of
the ceiling limits on production of iron ore through various Court
orders. On 29.07.2011 and 26.08.2011, this Court had imposed
a ban on mining in the districts of Bellary, and Chitradurga and
Tumkur, respectively based on the report of the Centrally
Empowered Committee (‘ ’).
CEC
4
7. On 13.04.2012, this Court had accepted some of the
recommendations contained in the Report dated 13.03.2012 of
the CEC, including the following recommendation:
“B) a ceiling of 25 Million Metric Tonnes (MMT) for
total production of iron ore from all the mining
leases in District Bellary may be prescribed. A
ceiling of 5 MMT for production of iron ore from
all the mining leases in Districts Chitradurga and
may be prescribed”
Tumkur together
( emphasis supplied )
8. The above position was reiterated by this Court vide judgment
dated 18.04.2013, wherein the underlying set of petitions were
disposed.
9. Vide judgment dated 14.12.2017, while dealing with certain
applications seeking enhancement/lifting of ceiling cap. This
court had permitted to increase the same from 25 MMT to 28
MMT with respect to Bellary District, and from 5 MMT to 7 MMT
for Chitradurga and Tumkur Districts collectively, based on a
fresh report of the CEC dated 14.07.2017. Certain observations
made by this Court for granting the relaxation merit reiteration:
“ 16. The cap fixed by this Court by Orders dated
5.08.2011 and 1.09.2014 was in a situation where
there was virtually no control or effective
regulatory measures as to the maximum output
that could be generated by a particular mine.
There was no scientific study of the iron ore
reserves allocated to a particular mine in the
5
lease granted. As a result, it was virtually a free
for all exercise designed to achieve the maximum
profit within the shortest possible time frame.
There was rampant and illegal mining with
encroachments into forest land, particularly for
use as overburdened dumps resulting from
excessive mining. This had led to environmental
and ecological depredation to an extent that
necessitated judicial intervention to resolve a
situation which is the normal course may have fallen
within the executive domain. It is on the basis of the
intervention by the Court that R&R Plans have been
prepared for each mine by an expert body, ICFRE,
based on a scientific study of various parameters
including mining reserves. R&R Plans have been
drawn up specifying a particular/permissible limit for
each mine on the basis of limitations of reserves,
dumping areas, available infrastructure etc.
Accordingly, recommendations have been made for
increase of MPAP for 13 different category ‘A’ mines
and also for increase of MPAP in respect of 2 leases
held by the public sector lessee, i.e., NMDC.
Similarly, 10 mines are anticipated to undertake
operations within a short time….The solution offered
by the Court has to be realistic. Therefore, it is the
various features of the current scenario on the
ground as highlighted in the report of the CEC that
would deserve a close look/consideration. In this
regard, we may also take note of the fact that the
assessment of reserves has also changed over the
years and today the ironore reserves across the
State of Karnataka, comprising of haematite and
magnetite reserves, is to the tune of 10.071 BMT
(Billion Metric Tonnes) . All these reasons impel us
to accept the recommendations of the CEC for
enhancement of the cap for category A and B Mines
in the 3 district of Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga
as well as the recommendations with regard to MPAP
of NMDC and MML, as mentioned in paragraph 12
6
hereinabove, with the further direction that all
pending proposals for enhancement of MPAP shall be
decided without delay, naturally, subject to the cap
as above.”
( emphasis supplied )
10. It is in light of the above set of facts that the submissions made
by learned counsel ought to be considered. In 2017, this court
was of the view that the situation had vastly changed in the State
of Karnataka and had therefore allowed an increase in the ceiling
limit. We are now in the year 2022. It can be no one’s case that
the situation subsisting in the State of Karnataka currently, is
the same as had existed when the underlying petition was first
taken up, or when the Court had passed the order in 2017,
relaxing the ceiling limit to some extent.
This is also clear from the changed stance of the State of
11.
Karnataka and the CEC before this Court. In 2017, the CEC had
recommended a cumulative increase in the ceiling limit up to 5
MMT, whereas now, the CEC supports the view that the ceiling
limit need not to continue. The State of Karnataka, in 2017, had
submitted before this Court that the ceiling limit may be raised to
40 MMT, and gradually increased later to 50 MMT. However, the
State of Karnataka is now in favor of a complete removal of the
7
ceiling limit.
12. In fact, it appears that the CEC, the State of Karnataka, the
Ministry of Steel, Union of India, Karnataka Iron and Steel
Manufacturers Association (‘KISMA’) and the mining lease
holders are all ad idem that the changed situation on ground
warrants a complete removal of the ceiling limits that were
imposed by this Court to ensure protection of the environment
and keeping in mind the principles governing intergenerational
equity. The response dated 10.04.2022 of the CEC (viz. CEC
Report No. 3 of 2022) on the issue of lifting of ceiling limits merits
reproduction and is extracted herein below:
“
17. This Hon’ble Court by orders dated
05.08.2011 and 01.09.2014 had fixed a
production cap of 25 MMT in respect of
District Bellary and 5 MMT in respect of
Districts Chitradurga and Tumkur. This
Hon’ble Court by Judgement dated
14.12.2017 enhanced the production cap to
28 MMT in respect of District Bellary and 7
MMT for Districts Chitradurga and Tumkur.
The availability of iron ore as approved in the
R&R plans currently exceeds the limit of 35
MMT per annum fixed by this Hon’ble Court. As
per the latest data furnished by the Monitoring
Committee, currently 34 category ‘A’ and ‘B’
mining leases are in operation with an
approved MPAP of 36.31 MMT. An Additional 9
Category “C” mining leases and 4 Category “A”
8
and “B” expired leases, which were eauctioned,
are operational with MPAP of 5.54 MMT and
2.41 MMT respectively. Another 4 mining leases
located in Districts Bagalkote and Davanagere
have production capacity of 6.29 lakh MT per
annum and 60000 MT per annum respectively.
The production of iron ore in these two Districts
is not affected by the orders of this Hon’ble
Court. The sum of approved annual production
capacity of iron ore in Karnataka as on 31 .
03.2022 adds upto 44.949 MMT. In addition,
there are 5 Category “C” and 2 expired Category
“A” & “B” mines which have been eauctioned
by the state but the execution of lease
agreements are pending in respect of these 7
mines as on 31.3.2022.
…
…
23. Keeping in view the facts highlighted in the
preceding paragraphs, it is for consideration of
this Hon’ble Court whether the restrictions on
production and sale of the iron ore in the three
Districts Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur
imposed following the total ban on mining are
required to be reviewed and if agreed upon by
this Hon’ble Court the following may please be
considered
(i) Vacation of the orders of this Hon’ble
Court directing sale of iron ore through e
auction conducted by the Monitoring
Committee, and which ore has been
produced by the lessees after resumption
of mining operation. However, the sale of
balance old stock of iron ore, including
subgrade iron ore available on the date of
imposition of ban on mining be continued
through eauction. The Monitoring
Committee be directed to dispose all the
9
balance old stock through eauction before
st
31 July 2022. If any stock over which the
lessee has the ownership right is left
unsold the lessee may be allowed to
dispose of it.
(ii) The collection of 10 per cent of the sale
value from all the lessee except NMDC and
20% of sale value from NMDC towards
their contribution to the SPV may be
discontinued.
(iii) Vacation of the orders on total ban on
export of iron ore and pellets from the
districts of Bellary, Chitradurga and
Tumkur.
(iv) Vacation of the orders on fixing
district level caps on production of iron
ore in respect of Category ‘A’ and
Category ‘B’ mines from the financial
year 20222023.
24. However the system of determination of the
Maximum Permissible Annual Production
(MPAP) being fixed through the R&R Plans and
Supplementary Environment Plans, after
ensuring the scientific and sustainable mining
and after taking into account the mining
reserves available within the lease area and
after following the standards stipulated under
various environmental and mining statutes, as
approved in order dated 13.4.2012 and
judgement dated 18.4.2013 of this Hon’ble
Court, may continue. All mining leases to
operate strictly adhering to such MPAP, as may
be fixed /refixed.”
13. The Monitoring Committee, without directly alluding to the issues
10
raised by the others with respect to why the ceiling limit should
be maintained or lifted, has highlighted a separate concern, viz. ,
the infrastructural incapacity to transport the iron ore excavated
if the ceiling limits were to be raised. It is in this context that the
learned Oversight Authority appointed by this Court expressed
his inability to conclude on the said issue. The learned Oversight
Authority, in his report dated 29.07.2022, observed as follows:
The Oversight Authority as at present in unable
to express its firm opinion in the matter in view
of the conflicting reports submitted by Central
Empowered Committee and the Monitoring
Committee. It is not for the Oversight Authority
to express any opinion as to whether the
Monitoring Committee has exceeded its brief in
joining an issue with Central Empowered
Committee by pleading for continuation of the
ceiling limit. Be it as it may, it is just and
necessary to gather some further evidence in
the matter of ‘current available road
infrastructure’, ‘existing as well as
improvements made to transport infrastructure’.
There is no evidence as such made available for
the perusal of the Oversight Authority as to
what are the developments that have taken
place between today and 20.05.2022 i.e. when
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed the
Orders referred to hereinabove.
14. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the original petitioner, is therefore the sole objector to the request
11
of lifting of the ceiling limit, on principles. The motivating concern
behind the objection appears to be the anxiety that lifting of the
ceiling limit may spiral into the same situation that had resulted
in this Court’s judicial intervention in the first place. Learned
counsel submitted that such an order of lifting the ceiling limit
might lead to unmitigated mining activity in the State of
Karnataka, setting the clock back entirely and resulting in
regression of the entire state of affairs.
15. The concerns of the original petitioner and the Monitoring
Committee merit due consideration of this Court. Much good
work has been done in the State of Karnataka, because of the
action initiated by the original petitioner and the subsequent
judicial interventions by this Court. In fact, it is this progress
made steadily over the past decade that weighed with this Court
to even consider the relief regarding raising of the ceiling limit
sought by the present applicants. The concerns raised by the
original petitioner, of possible over excavation and its adverse
impact on intergenerational equity, must be balanced against the
concerns of the other parties, as the principles of sustainable
development also comes into play.
12
This Court has generally accepted the recommendations of the
16.
CEC when it comes to the ceiling limit. In the present case, the
CEC has recommended a complete relaxation of the ceiling limit.
But we are not inclined to allow the same in toto. Rather, the
situation merits a cautious approach, keeping in view the
concerns raised and to ensure that any changes in the situation
with respect to the mining activity in the State of Karnataka is
brought about gradually, we are of the opinion that the ceiling
limit of iron ore mining may be raised from 28 MMT to 35 MMT
for District Bellary, and from 7 MMT to 15 MMT for Chitradurga
and Tumkur Districts collectively.
17. Conservation of the ecology and the environment must go hand
in hand with the spirit of economic development and the fine
balance between the two goals is what is sought to be achieved
even now.
IA Nos. 83141/2017, 72931/2017 and 218/2014 are disposed of
18.
on the above terms. As far as IA No. 10973/2018 is concerned,
13
the same relates to directions to the CEC and Monitoring
Committee regarding deciding applications for enhancement of
MPAP in terms of the earlier orders of this Court. The same may
be considered by the Court on the next date of hearing.
...........................CJI.
(N.V. RAMANA)
…...........................J.
(HIMA KOHLI)
…...........................J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 26, 2022.
14