LexGOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. versus M/S. OBULAPURAM MINING CO. PVT. LTD.& ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2010] 6 S.C.R. 796 GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. v. M/S. OBULAPURAM MINING CO. PVT. LTD.& ORS. ETC. (Special Leave Petition (c) Nos.7366-7367 of 2010) MAY 10, 2010 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, DEEPAK VERMA AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Interim Orders: Mines and minerals - Right to mine iron ore - Boundaries of areas covered under mining /eases disputed - Committee constituted to demarcate boundaries - HELD: Meanwhile, respondent No.1-Company can be allowed to start D the mining operation only in the undisputed area which neither falls in the State of Kamataka nor would be abutting Kamafaka boundary - It will not be permitted to do any mining operation in those areas which according to the base Map dated 4.5.2010 Annexure Ji' fall within its leased area but may be falling in the leased area of other lessees - This permission E is granted to respondent No. 1 to work out equities between the parties but on account of it, respondent No. 1 shall not be able to claim any right as the same would be finally adjudicated upon at the time of hearing of the special leave petitions - The Committee constituted by order dated F 22.3.2010 passed by Supreme Court would continue to earmark the boundaries of States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka - Since State of Karnataka is not a party respondent in this litigation, Chief Secretary of that State would appoint officers of its Forest Department and Mining G Department so that it could cooperate and render full assistance in the exercise of demarcation within the stipulated period - For the purpose of effective demarcation to be carried out by the Committee, it shall be open for it to ask respondent No. 1 to stop mining operations in that area where H 796 GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. v. 797 OBULAPURAM MINING CO. PVT. LTD.& ORS. ETC. demarcation is to be done and the same shall be strictly A obeyed by respondent No.1. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No(s). 7366-67 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 26.02.2010 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 25910 of 2009 and W.P. No. 26083 of 2009. G.E. Vahanvati, AG, Gopal Subramaniam, SG, K. B Parasaran, P.P Rao, Mukul Rohatgi, P.S. Narasimha, T.V. C Ratnam, Paari Vendhan, K. Raghavacharayulu, Sridhar Potaraju, Madukar, D.Julius R., Gaichangpau Gangmei, Aman Ahluwalia, D.S. Mahra, G. Umapathy, M.M. Manivel (for Rakesh J<. Sharma), for the apearing parties. The following order of the Court was delivered D ORDER 1. Determination of right to mining iron ore, a natural resource, has reached this Court in second round of litigation. E Respondent No.1 in both the Special Leave Petitions had challenged the Order of State of Andhra Pradesh issued on 25.11.2009, suspending the mining operations of the respondent No.1-Company (R-1 is different in both SLP's), based on the proceedings of Principal Chief Conservator of F Forests, Hyderabad dated 6.11.2009, 20.11.2009 and letter dated 23.11.2009 issued by Member of Central Empowered Committee. Against the interim order passed in favour of the respondent No.1-Company by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, State had preferred to approach this Court in G SLP(C)Nos .35169-35170 of 2009 titled Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Mis Obu/apurrn Mining Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on the ground that no case was made out by respondent No.1-Company for grant of injunction, against those orders challenged in the writ petition and therefore, those H 798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R. A interim orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court be vacated and till the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions inqJ:iis Court, they be stayed. 2. Those matters had come up for hearing before this 8 Court on 14.1.2010. Since the Special Leave Petitions were against the interim orders passed by the High Court, it was deemed fit and proper to dispose of the same with a request to the High Court to consider the matter on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks. However, C it was directed that the interim order passed by this Court would continue, meaning thereby that no mining operation would be carried out by respondent no.1 till the pendency of the writ petitions. 3. The relevant part of the said order dated 14.1.2010, 0 passed by this Court is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: E F G H "We make it clear that both the parties are
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.