COMMON CAUSE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 13 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 02-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR, DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 13 S.C.R. 361 
COMMON CAUSE 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114 of2014) 
AUGUST 2, 2017 
(MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] 
Mines and Minerals - Illegal mining of enonnous proportions 
in districts of Odisha - Writ petition partly based on reports given 
by Justice MB. Shah Commissions of Inquiry sought directions, 
inter alia, to Union of India and Government ofOdisha to immediately 
stop forthwith all illegal mining in the State of Odis ha and for CBI 
investigation into such illegal mining - Plea of mining lease holders 
that reports given by Commission were v,itiated as they were not 
given notice u/ss.8B, 8C of the 1952 Act. and thus. the very 
foundation of the writ petition goes away - Held: First report given 
by Commission was a general, overall perspective on the subject -
A 
B 
c 
D 
No irregularity or illegality has been committed so as to vitiate the 
first report - Second report went into specific details of several 
mining lease holders, but herein one is not concerned with those 
specifics - Therefore. whether notices were issued or not to the 
E 
lease holders who were the subject matter of discussion in the second 
report is of no consequence -However. the reports of the 
Commission are not being relied upon for the purpose of present 
judgment and order - Further. for now, no direction is being given 
with regard to any investigation by CBI - Expert Committee be set 
up under the guidance of a retiredjudge of Supreme Court to identifY 
the lapses occ1:l'red over the years enabling rampant illegal or 
unlawful mining in Odisha and measures to prevent this ji·om 
happening in other parts of the country - Furthe1; directions issued -
Commissions of Inquiry Act. 1952 - ss.8B. 8C. 
Committees: 
Central Empowered Committee (CEC)- Constitution of-Held: 
CEC was first constituted by Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarma11 
case as an interim body -
Thereafter, it was constituted by 
notification issued uls.3(3) of the 1986 Act - It has continued 
361 
F 
G 
H 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
A fimctioning and is now an established body which renders extremely 
valuable advice to this Court- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 -
s.3(3). 
Central Empowered Committee (CEC) -
Jurisdiction of -
Challenge to - Plea of lease holders that in giving the report on 
B 
mining. CEC tfXceeded its remit - Held: Not tenable - Jurisdiction 
of CEC was not limited and it was expected to give a detailed report 
on all aspecrs of illegal mining or mining being carried out without 
any lawful authority in whatever manne1: 
lllines and Minerals (Development and Regulatio11) Act, 1957 
c (MMDR) - ss.4(1). 4(2). 5(2). IO. 12. 13. 18. 21 - Grant ofmi11ing 
lease -- Schenie of - Discussed. 
s. 6 - Maximum area for which a prospecting licence or 
mining lease may be granted - Violation of by various companies -
If any - Discussed. 
D 
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (MCR): 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Distinction between A!CR and MCDR - Held: The distinction 
is that the MCR deal. inter alia. with the grant of a mining lease and 
not commencement of mining operations - However. the MCDR deal. 
inter alia. with the commencement of mining operations and protection 
of environmenr by preventing and controlling pollution which might 
he caused by mining operations- Mineral Conservation and 
Development Rules. 1988 (MCDR). 
r.22A - Held: r.22A makes it clear that mining operations 
shall be undertaken only in accordance with the duly approved 
mining plan - Therefore. a mining plan is of considerable importance 
for a mining lease holder and is in essence sacrosanct - A mining 
scheme and a mining plan are a sine qua non for the grant of a 
mining lease. 
1:24A - Plea of mining lease holders that since many of them 
were grantedfirst deemed statutory renewal of mining lease ulr.24A. 
the requirements of Environment Impact Assessment (EJA) Notification 
of 1994 (EIA 1994) would not be applicable - Held: Nor tenable -
For renewal qf mining lease. an application is required to be made 
by mining lease holders and the deemed renewal clause ulr.24A will 
come into operation onzv ajier an application for renewal is made 
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
363 
in Form Jin Schedule I of MCR - Even otherwise, renewal of a 
A 
mining lease would require a prior environmental clearance (EC) 
in terms of EIA 1994. 
r.37 - Violation of - Several mining lease holders entered 
into raising contracts which were actual

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.