SLP(C)NOS............ CC NOS.21329-21330:
Permission to file SLPs granted.
The petitioner herein filed an application for getting
himself impleaded in a Writ Petition filed before the High Court and
the same was rejected by the High Court. The petitioner alleges that
before the High Court a reference has been made to the petitioner in
paragraphs in 16,17,18 and 21 in the Writ Petition filed by the
respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits
that the respondent is prepared to delete all statements/averments
made in the Writ Petition pertaining to respondent-Mr.Tapal Ganesh,
who is the appellant herein. We record the same. These
statements/averments are deemed to have been expunged and while
considering the Writ Petition by the High Court, the averments be
ignored.
The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
SLP(C) NOS............... CC NOS.21271-21272:
Permission dismissed.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.269-270/2010 @ SLP(C)Nos.35169-35170/2009:
Leave granted.
The State of Andhra Pradesh has filed these appeals
challenging the interim order passed by the High Court of Judicature
of A.P. at Hyderabad in different Writ Petitions which were jointly
heard by the High Court. The respondents herein were granted three
leases for mining and there were allegations that the lease/licence
holders had extended the mining activities beyond the boundaries of
the leasehold properties and that the Central Empowered Committee
(for short 'C.E.C.') has filed a Report on 19.11.2009 and in the
Report it was stated that there were certain violations of
boundaries of the lease-hold area. After the report of the C.E.C.,
the State Government passed an order stopping the mining operations
on 25.11.20090. This order was challenged by the respondents in
these two appeals. By the impugned order, the High Court permitted
these respondents to go on with the mining subject to certain
conditions. The operative portion of the order is as follows :
“1) The applicants are entitled to carry on
mining operations within the designated mining areas
covered by the leased deeds;
2) the applicants shall not carry on mining
operations to the extent of the area of about 40
meters towards the Karnataka boundary as pointed out
by the Three Member Committee in respect of
Compartment Nos.698 and 699 of Bellary reserved
forest, pending further orders;
3) the State Government shall be free to
identify, demarcate and fix the boundaries of the
leased areas after giving notices to the applicants;
4) on such demarcation, if the State
Government finds that the applicants have occupied
any area beyond the leased areas, it is entitled to
invoke its power under Section 21 of the Act, evict
the applicants from such unauthorized areas and
exercise all the powers vested in it under the said
provision, after following the prescribed procedure;
and
5) the applicants shall furnish bank guarantee
for the entire A stock(iron ore) of 1,95,000 tons,
which is said to be lying in their stock yards, at
the rate as fixed by the competent authority as per
Rules in force, before transporting the iron ore from
their stock yards.”
This Court, while entertaining these appeals, granted stay of the
impugned order on 17.12.2009.
The parties have filed their counter affidavits/replies
and we have heard both sides. We are told that the main Writ
Petitions are coming up before the High Court on 18.01.2010.
Learned counsel appearing for the State Government shall file its
counter affidavit and documents, if any, within a week and as this
Court has passed the interim stay of the order, the High Court shall
consider the main matters and dispose of the same as early as
possible at least within a period of four weeks. In the impugned
judgment the High Court has made certain observations regarding the
C.E.C. Report. We make it clear that both the parties are allowed
to raise their contentions in respect of the report of the C.E.C.
The pendency of any matter regarding this before this Court need not
preclude the High Court from considering the C.E.C. Report on
merits. We also make it clear that this Court had not specifically
directed the C.E.C. to file its report as regards these leases. The
High Court shall also hear the C.E.C., who is made as one of the
respondents in these proceedings. The facts stated by the C.E.C.
may be considered on merits by the High Court. One of the
conditions in the impugned order is that the State Government shall
be free to identify, demarcate and fix the boundaries of the leased
areas after giving notices to the applicants. It may be done by the
State Government and the interim stay ordered by this Court will
continue, except as regards this condition, till the High Court
passes a final order. The parties would appear before the High Court
on 18.01.2010. These appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Consequently, Special Leave Petition (C)Nos.1301/2010 and 1379/2010
are also disposed of. No costs.
As learned counsel for the respondent points out that they
have got international agreements, the High Court should endeavour
to dispose of the matters as early as possible, at least within a
period of four weeks.