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

Citation: [2017] 14 S.C.R. 409 · Decided: 14-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

(2017] 14 S.C.R. 409 
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. 
A 
V. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
(Interlocutory Application Nos. 270, 271,273, 56562, 76163, 76167 & 
103342) 
B 
In 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 562 of2009) 
DECEMBER 14,2017 
[RANJAN GOGOi, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND 
C 
NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] 
Mining - Illegal extraction of iron-ore - Regulation of -
Absolute ban imposed by the Supreme Court on the mining activities 
in three districts of Karnataka. i.e., Bellary, Chitradurga and Titmkur 
to prevent and protect the huge ecological and environmental D 
degradation caused by illegal mining in aforesaid districts -
However. to ensure that a minimum quantity of iron ore is available. 
the Supreme Court permitted limited mining activity by permitting 
I 8 leases in Category 'A· and 63 in catego1y 'B ·mines for extraction 
of iron ore with cap/ceiling on maximum production - Interlocutory 
applications filed seeking modification of the said orders on ground 
E 
of significant change in circumstances after the orders imposing 
the cap were passed - Propriety of - Held: The cap fixed by the 
Court 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 lease 
granted - Resultantly, there was rampant and illegal mining with 
encroachments into forest land - This led to environmental and 
ecological depredation that necessitated judicial intervention to 
resolve a situation which in the normal course may have fallen within 
executive domain - Fixing cap upon extraction of mineral ore is the 
business of the Executive branch of the Central Government and 
not of the Court - In instant case, it is on basis of the intervention 
by the Court that Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plan ("R & R" 
plan) have been prepared for each mine by an expert body, ICFRE, 
409 
F 
G 
H 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A based on a scientific study of various parameters including mining 
reserves - However. various features of the current scenario on the 
ground as highlighted in the report of the Central Empowered 
Committee (CEC) deserve a close look/consideration -
Assessment 
of reserves has also changed over the years - Consequently, all 
B I.As disposed of by accepting the recommendations made by CEC 
for category 'A ' and 'B' mines, subject to the conditions so far as 
category 'C' mines are concerned. 
Disposing of all the l.A.s, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1 The cap fixed by the C.ourt Orders 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 lease 
granted. As a result, it was virtually a free for all exercise designed 
to achieve the maximum profit within the shortest possible time 
D 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 
E 
F 
may have fallen within the executive domain. It is on the basis of 
the intervention by the Court that Reclamation and Rehabilitation 
Plan ("R&R" plan) 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 Maximum Permissible Annual Production (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. 
G Similarly, to mines arc anticipated to undertake operations within 
a short time. [Para 16)(422-B-E] 
1.2 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 Central Empowered 
H Committee (CEC) that would deserve a close look/consideration. 
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA v. STATE OF 
411 
KARN AT AKA 
The assessment o

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