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

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 577 · Decided: 21-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 6 S.C.R. 577 
SAMAJ PARNARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
(I.A. No. 247, I.A. No. 250 in I.A. No. 247 
and I.A. No. 252 in I.A. No. 247) 
Ill 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 562 of2009) 
MARCH 21, 2017 
[RANJAN GOGOi, PRAFULLA C. PANT AND 
A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.] 
Environment: 
A 
B 
c 
Pollution - Illegal mining - Large scale degradation of 
environment due to unprecedented illegal mining - Ameliorative and 
mitigative socio-economic measures taken by Supreme Court - Vide 
D 
order dtd. 18.4.2013 passed by Supreme Court, lessees in three 
districts of respondent-State directed to contribute 10% of sale 
proceeds of mining to Monitoring Committee for eventual transfer 
to a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), constituted for execution of 
such ameliorative and mitigative measures - Respondent-State 
uls.9(B) of 2015 Act set up a District Mineral Foundation (DMF) in 
every district affected by mining, directing lessees to make payment 
to DMF as well - Plea of lessees that in view of overlapping objects 
of DMF and the purpose for which Court had passed orders for 
creation of SPV, the lessees should no longer be required to contribute 
10% of sale proceeds to Monitoring Committee/SPV from the date 
from which they became liable to make payment to DMF - Held: 
E 
F 
Not tenable - There has been systematic, extraordinary and 
unprecedented plunder of natural wealth and environment in the 
three districts of respondent-State - It was to deal with such an 
extraordinary situation that the necessity of SPV was contemplated G 
- Special funds in deposit with Monitoring Committee being the 
proceeds of illegal mining were meant to be deployed for recreation 
of what has been lost due to such illegal activities - Funds in huge 
proportions would be necessary - In such a situation lessees who 
.may be even remotely connected with degradation and destruction 
of nature must continue to pay their share in the process of restitution 
H 
577 
578 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
by contributing to Monitoring Committee from their present sale 
proceeds - Even the new lessees who may not have been involved 
with such degradation are contributing to the process of reclamation 
and restoration - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) 
Amendment Act, 2015 - s.9B - District Mineral Foundation Rules, 
2016 - r.3. 
Pollution - Illegal iron-ore mining - Ameliorative .and 
mitigative socio-economic measures - Comprehensive Environment 
Plan for the Mining Impact Zone ("CEPMIZ") prepared by State 
Government in consultation with Central Empowered Committee 
(CEC) as per various orders passed by Supreme Court -
C Implementation of - Held: The entire CEPMIZ Scheme need not be 
approved in one go and such approval may be considered and 
accorded in phases -The initial activities identified, namely, (i) 
construction of conveyor belt system; (ii) railway sidings and iii) 
railway sub-lines, need to be prioritized as the same being most 
D 
significant steps towards controlling environmental pollution that 
persists on account of open movement of iron ore by road - It is 
only after controlled and regulated movement of iron ore is achieved 
that the other socio-economic measures should be undertaken so 
as to produce meaningful results. 
E 
F 
Dismissing the I.As, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 At first blush, it may appear that there is some 
amount of overlapping between the objects of the District Mineral 
Foundation and the purpose contemplated by the Court's order 
in setting up the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV). However, the 
statutory enactments and exercises carried out subsequent to 
the Court's order(s) will have to be understood to be the 
expression of the legislative opinion of the necessity to meet the 
challenges of mineral exploitation that are incidental to any mining 
operation. Every mining activity results in baneful effects which 
need to be corrected and destruction of environment that 
G inevitably occurs in the process needs to be mitigated. This is 
the specific reiteration that has been made by the amendment of 
the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and 
Regulation) Act by inclusion of Section 9B; and District Mineral 
Rules, 2016 framed thereunder. What had happened in Bellary, 
Chitradurga and Tumkur, has been noticed by this Court in 
H 
Paragraph 37 of the judgment dated 18.04.2013 i.e. systematic, 
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. STATE OF 
579 
KARNATAKA & ORS. 
extra

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