COMMON CAUSE versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1204 · Decided: 12-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: IA disposed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
COMMON CAUSE
v.
         UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(IN RE: SARDA MINES PVT. LTD.)
(I.A. No. 40 of 2015, I.A.No.42 of 2015, IA No.61 of 2015 in IA
No.40 of 2015 and IA No.111989 of 2018)
In
(Writ Petition (C) No. 114 of 2014)
NOVEMBER 12, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Environmental laws: Illegalities involved in the mining lease
of Sarda Mines Private Limited (SMPL) – In the instant case, SMPL
was granted permission on 13.7.1999 to extract 1.4 LTPA of iron
ore – However, environmental clearance was granted to SMPL on
22.9.2004, which referred to the proposal for expansion of
production of iron ore (lump) from 1.5 LTPA to 4.0 MTPA  – Validity
of environmental clearance granted to SMPL and the production
of iron ore without/in excess of the  environmental clearance
challenged – Held: Permission granted on 13.7.1999 was for
production of iron ore and not for iron ore (lump) – Even MMDR
Act referred to mineral iron ore and not to iron ore (lump) – Therefore,
the environmental  clearance granted on 22.9.2004 must be
understood in the context of permission granted on 13.7.1999 and
MMDR Act – Environmental clearance does not have any
retrospective effect – It is operational from the date it is granted –
Therefore, the mining activity carried out by SMPL from 13/
14.8.2001 till the date of environmental clearance  that is 22.9.2004
is legal to extent of 1.4 LTPA and SMPL cannot be penalized for
this mining activity during this period – Since environmental
clearance does not have retrospective effect, the first year of
production would be 2004-2005 (pro rata) based on the
environmental clearance – The records showed that there was excess
mining of iron ore from the first year of production itself – This
excess mining was clearly illegal and must be penalized – Central
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 1204
1204
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1205
Empowered Committee (CEC) is directed to quantify the penalty to
be imposed on SMPL from 22.9.2004 and based on the terms of the
environmental clearance – Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957.
Iron ore:  Environmental clearance – Extraction of mineral
iron ore is extraction of iron ore Run of Mine (ROM) – Lumps of
iron ore are by-product of ROM – In the instant case, permission
was granted to SMPL on 13.7.1999 to extract mineral iron ore –
This had no reference at all to the sub-category or by-product called
iron ore (lump) but has to be understood as permission to extract
mineral iron ore ROM – It was this permission that was sought to be
proposed for expansion of production – The environmental
clearance on 22.9.2004 was only with reference to iron ore ROM –
This must be read in the context of the MMDR Act which refers to
mineral iron ore and does not refer to iron ore (lump) – There is no
merit in objections raised by SMPL to the report of the CEC with
regard to the validity of the environmental clearance or the excess
or illegal mining of iron ore by SMPL.
Disposing of the IAs, the Court
HELD: The concept of extraction or production of iron ore
(lump) introduced in the environmental clearance was alien to
the permission granted on 13th July, 1999 and the MMDR Act.
Therefore, the environmental clearance granted on 22nd
September, 2004 must be understood in the context of the
permission granted on 13th July, 1999 and the MMDR Act. The
mining activity carried out by SMPL from 13/14 august 2001 till
the date of environmental clearance that is 22nd September, 2004
is legal to the extent of 1.4 LTPA and SMPL cannot be penalised
for this mining activity during this period. [Paras 8, 10][1209-H;
1210-A-B; 1211-B]
National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. State
of M.P. (2004) 6 SCC 281 : [2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 1;
Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India (2015) 6 SCC 193:
[2015] 6 SCR 29 – relied on.
Common Cause v. State of Orissa. (2017) 9 SCC 499 –
referred to.
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
(2017) 9 SCC 499
referred to
Para 2
[2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 1
relied on
Para 16
 [2015] 6 SCR 29
relied on
Para 17
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 40 of 2015, I.A.
No. 42 of 2015, I.A. No. 61 of 2015 in I.A. No. 40 of 2015 and I. A. No.
111989 of 2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 114 of 2014
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv., A. D. N. Rao, Sudipto Sircar, Siddhartha
Chowdhury, Ms. Aparajita Singh, Advs. with him (A.Cs.)

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