To avoid prolixity and repetition, we refrain from restating
the facts and developments in the present writ petitions, as they
have already been delineated in our prior order dated 14.03.2024.
We address and answer the applications listed before us in the
manner provided below.
To await report(s) of the Central Empowered Committee1 and the
Monitoring Committee, and reply/response thereto, re-list in the
Digitallyweeksigned by commencing 20.08.2024.
babita pandey
1 For short, “CEC”.
It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant(s) that the present application has become infructuous.
The present application has become infructuous and is
accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
None appears on behalf of the applicant(s).
Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out that
the issue raised in the present applications is covered by the
decision of this Court, dated 30.07.2015 in “Samaj Partivartana
Samudaya and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.”2.
It appears that the applications may have become infructuous.
According to the applicant’s declarations before the Indian
Bureau of Mines3, they had extracted 9,23,582 Metric Tonnes4 of iron
ore in the period commencing 01.04.2011 till the suspension of
mining leases vide this Court’s order(s). However, the Monitoring
Committee had sold 10,67,813 MT of iron ore. Therefore, the total
excess iron ore sold by the Monitoring Committee stood at 1,44,231
2(2017) 11 SCC 509. 3 For short, “IBM”. 4 For short, “MT”.
MT.
The excess iron ore sold totaling to 1,44,231 MT includes
39,725 MT of iron ore which was found lying on the railway sidings.
If we exclude 39,725 MT of iron ore from the total quantum of
excess iron ore sold, that is, 1,44,231 MT, we arrive at a balance
of 1,04,506 MT of iron ore.
It is the contention of the applicant(s) that they had filed
revised return(s) to the IBM on 26.10.2011. We are not inclined to
accept the said submission for several reasons including the fact
that the revised return(s) was submitted post the order(s) of this
Court suspending the mining activities. The revised return(s)
itself indicates wrong-doing or, at least discrepancies. Finally,
no provision or rule permits the revision of returns.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not think that the
applicant(s) is entitled to payment viz. 1,04,506 MT of excess iron
ore sold by the Monitoring Committee.
For the 39,725 MT of iron ore found lying at the railway
sidings, the CEC report states that the applicant(s) was required
to establish that the said quantity had been legally extracted and
transported to the railway sidings. The applicant must establish
that 39,725 MT of the iron ore was declared in the return(s) filed
by them with the IBM.
It will be open to the applicant(s) to file the papers and
documents before the CEC, which will thereupon, in consultation
with the Monitoring Committee pass appropriate order(s). However,
any order passed for payment, will not be implemented without the
permission of the Court.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant(s) states
that in view of the order passed today, nothing survives in Writ
Petition No. 35626/2024, which is pending before the High Court of
Karnataka, and the same shall be withdrawn. The statement is taken
on record.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
None is present on behalf of the applicant(s).
None is present on behalf of the applicant.
infructuous in view of the subsequent developments.
The present application is filed by the State of Karnataka.
Most of the prayers have already become infructuous in view of the
subsequent development and the orders passed by this Court. In our
order dated 14.03.2024, directions have also been issued viz. the
unauctioned Category C mines, where the Reclamation and
Rehabilitation Plans5 work is yet to be undertaken.
In case the State of Karnataka wants to merge some of the
Category C mines for the purposes of auction, they can prepare a
justification report and file an application for appropriate order
before this Court.
In view of and recording the aforesaid, we dispose of the
present application in terms of the earlier order(s) passed by this
Court with liberty to the State of Karnataka to file a fresh
permission to withdraw the present application(s) in view of the
subsequent development, with liberty to approach this Court, if
Taking the statement on record, the application is dismissed
as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed.
It is stated that the present application has become
5 For short, “R&R Plans”.
I.A. Nos. 261/2016 and 262/2016 in I.A. No. 242/2016
The present applications are disposed of as infructuous with
the liberty to the applicant(s) to file a fresh application, if
None is present on behalf of the applicant – National Mineral
Development Corporation Limited6.
infructuous in view of the subsequent development/orders.
In view of the CEC’s report, we accept the proposal given by
the Secretary, Mining and the Government of Karnataka. Accordingly,
1.28 hectares, which is the forest land will be excluded from the
10.87 hectares to be added. Therefore, 9.59 hectares of additional
land may be added to the free leased land of 9.15 hectares, in the
Mining Lease No. 2525. Thus, the total area of the Mining Lease No.
2525 will be enhanced to 18.74 hectares.
We also permit the State of Karnataka to auction the said
mining lease in terms of the directions given by this Court. The
new lessee will have to undertake the R&R Plans.
6 For short, “NMDC”.
The application is disposed of in the above terms.
None is present for the applicant(s).
It appears that most of the prayers in the application may
have become infructuous.
Learned counsel for the applicant(s) does not press the
application, as I.A. No. 268/2016 has been dismissed in default.
The application is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
This application has become infructuous given the subsequent
development and the orders passed by this Court.
permission to withdraw the present applications in view of the
subsequent development and prays for liberty to approach this Court
by way of a separate application, if required and necessary.
Taking the statement on record, the applications are dismissed
as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed.
withdraw the present applications in view of the subsequent
development and prays for the liberty to file a fresh application,
if required and necessary.
Orders have been passed on the question of physical
demarcation of the inter-state boundaries between the states of
Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. The other prayers in the present
application(s) can be considered only after the physical
demarcation is concluded. Therefore, we grant liberty to the
applicant(s) to file a fresh application.
The applications are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty as prayed.
withdraw the present applications with the liberty to file a fresh
Taking the statement on record, the applications are dismissed
as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.
The present application has already been disposed of/dismissed
vide order dated 21.03.2018.
Hence, no orders are required to be passed and the application
should not be listed.
I.A. Nos. 9764-9765/2018
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant(s) seeks
permission to withdraw the present applications with liberty to
file a fresh application, if required and necessary.
as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.
It appears that the applications may have become infructuous.
It appears that the applications may be covered by this
Court’s order dated 14.03.2024.
The applications are dismissed in default.
However, we give liberty to the applicant(s) to file a fresh
application post the completion of the demarcation and
categorization.
It also appears that the application may have become
infructuous in view of the previous order(s) passed by this Court.
I.A. Nos.62856/2018, 57649/2020 and 57650/2020
These applications are for a refund of the guarantee money
furnished by the lessees.
The guarantee money was directed to be deposited in terms of
the order dated 28.09.2012, which order also states that the
guarantee money will be refunded upon the implementation of the R&R
Plans to the complete satisfaction of the CEC and subject to the
approval of this Court.
Thereafter, the order dated 25.04.2017 in I.A. No.267/2016
directs refund of 90% of the guarantee money on the Monitoring
Committee’s satisfaction viz. the implementation of R&R Plans in
the case of Category B mining leases. The balance 10% is to be
released to the applicant(s) after full implementation of R&R
Plans.
Our attention is drawn to the CEC report dated 07.07.2017,
which states that in 44 Category B mining leases, the progress in
implementation of the R&R Plans is above 85%. Subsequently, report
of CEC dated 28.08.2018 seeks certain directions from this Court to
the Monitoring Committee.
Lastly, our attention is drawn to this Court’s order dated
30.08.2018, directing the Monitoring Committee to complete the
inspection of remaining leases (10 in number) on or before
15.09.2018, besides the release of guarantee money to lessees where
the implementation of R&R Plans is complete. The question of review
in 16 cases where a part of the guarantee money had been released
was left open.
Learned Amicus Curiae appearing in the matter states that in
26 cases, guarantee money has been released. In 12 cases, the
matter requires examination. In six cases, no guarantee money was
submitted.
The Monitoring Committee and the CEC will submit a status
report within a period of seven weeks from today with regard to the
implementation and execution of the R&R Plans. In case the
Monitoring Committee and the CEC are ad-idem that R&R work is
complete, the guarantee money can be refunded to the Category B
mining lease holders. If the R&R Plans have not been fully
implemented, a copy of the report will be furnished to such mining
lease holders, who shall thereupon submit their reply to the
Monitoring Committee and CEC.
Liberty is granted to the parties, as well as the CEC and
Monitoring Committee, to approach this Court by way of an
appropriate application in case they have any grievances.
Recording the aforesaid, the applications are disposed of.
At the request of learned counsel for the applicant(s), the
present application is not taken up for hearing today.
It will be open to the applicant(s) to file additional
documents.
We note the objection raised by the Amicus Curiae, that the
prayer(s) made in the present application had already been rejected
while deciding I.A. No. 141339/2017 on 21.03.2018. The Amicus
Curiae, therefore, submits that the present application is not
maintainable.
Learned counsel for the applicant(s) will examine the said
aspect.
In view of the order dated 14.03.2024, the applications would
be treated as disposed of with liberty to file fresh
application(s).
permission to withdraw the present application.
It is stated that SLP(C) Diary No. 1663/2019 and SLP (C) No.
2928/2019 are pending before this Court.
We clarify that withdrawal of the present application should
not be treated as having any bearing on the stand of the
applicant(s) viz. the said special leave petitions.
Learned counsel for the applicant(s) states that in view of
the subsequent developments and events, the present application has
become infructuous.
It appears that the applications have become infructuous.
This is an application seeking permission to file additional
documents in I.A. No. 37377/2018.
As I.A. No. 37377/2018 has been dismissed in default, the
present application has become infructuous.
This application is disposed of in view of the directions
given in the order of this Court dated 14.03.2024 with liberty to
the applicant(s) to approach this Court, if required and necessary.
permission to withdraw the present applications.
The present application is to be dismissed in view of this
Court’s order dated 14.03.2024.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
We, however, clarify that the dismissal of the present
application will not have any bearing on the question of stock,
which issue, it is stated, has been raised in a separate
application.
On mentioning, the applications are taken on Board.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant(s) seeks
permission to withdraw the present applications.
We reject the prayer for a change of categorization. The
categorization was undertaken after a detailed consideration in
2012-2014. These applications are filed later in 2019.
The orders passed by this Court in 2013-2014 were in the
public domain and known to parties.
In view of the delay and lapses, we are not inclined to re-
examine the facts. The prayer(s) made is rejected.
The applicant(s) also states that in terms of the grant of
renewal of the mining lease vide Government of Karnataka’s order
dated 21.03.2012, the applicant(s) was only entitled to mine
manganese ore and not iron ore. This issue is not directly related
to the present litigation.
In case the applicant(s) has any grievance, he can raise the
same before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. We make
no comments either way on merits in this regard.
The applications are disposed of in the above terms.
None appears to press the present application.
This application has to be rejected in view of the reasons
given while dismissing I.A. No. 119035/2019. The application is
accordingly dismissed.
The undertaking given by the State of Karnataka will be
treated as non-effective.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant(s) states
that the issue with regard to the excavated ore has not been raised
in the application. We make no comments in this regard.
The dismissal of the present application will not operate as
res judicata on issues not raised in the present application.
In view of the order dated 14.03.2024, we dispose of the
present application with the liberty to the applicant(s) to file a
fresh application, if required and necessary.
Issue notice to the CEC and the Monitoring Committee, which
may submit their respective reply within a period of six weeks from
today. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, will be filed within six weeks
after service of reply.
The present application has become infructuous in view of the
subsequent development and orders passed by this Court.
Accordingly, without making any comments on the merits, this
application is disposed of as infructuous.
These applications were disposed of vide this Court's order
dated 22.03.2023, permitting the applicant(s) to remove 16060 MT
iron ore available at the site.
It is stated that the State Government is not complying with
the said order and permitting the removal.
The applicant(s) is permitted to file a representation with
the State Government for removal of the said material in terms of
this order. In case the State Government has any reservation or
issue with regard to the grant of permission, they must approach
this Court by way of an appropriate application, otherwise,
directions given in the order should be complied within a period of
six weeks from today.
Issue notice to the State of Karnataka.
Notice is accepted by Mr. Nishanth Patil, learned counsel for
the State of Karnataka, who is present in Court.
Counter affidavit/reply may be filed within four weeks from
today.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, will be filed within four weeks
after service of counter affidavit/reply.
Re-list alongwith I.A. No. 124132/2022.
No one appears to press the application.
It appears that the present application has become infructuous
in view of the subsequent development and orders passed by this
Court.
In view of the order dated 14.03.2024, the present application
is disposed of with liberty to the applicant(s) to file a fresh
This application has become infructuous in view of the
subsequent development and orders passed by this Court.
Accordingly, the application is disposed of as infructuous.
Learned counsel for the applicant(s) states that in view of
the subsequent development, the present application has become
I.A. No. 103574/2022 in I.A. No. 119035/2019 and
It is stated that the present applications do not survive, as
I.A. No. 119035/2019 has been disposed of.
as not pressed.
Upon mentioning, the application is taken on Board.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, will be filed within a period of
I.A. No. 225310/2023 in 124132/2022
The present application will be treated as disposed of.
Learned Counsel for the applicant(s) seeks permission to
Learned Counsel for the applicant(s) seeks permission to
List along with I.A. No.124132/2022.
I.A. No. 137180/2022 in I.A. No.67230/2021
List along with I.A. No. 124132/2022.
I.A. No. 137183/2022 in No. 67231/2021
List along with I.A. No. 124132/2022.
The present application will be treated as disposed of in
terms of our order dated 14.03.2024.
None appears on behalf of the applicant(s).
I.A. Nos. 70118/2023, 70119/2023, 70124/2023 and 70125/2023
Issue notice and tag with I.A. No.124132/2022.
None is present on behalf of applicant(s).
The applications are dismissed in default.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Karnataka Mining
Environment Restoration Corporation7 and JSW Steel state that the
present application has become infructuous.
In case the parties have any grievance, they are given liberty
to approach the Court.
withdraw the present application with liberty to file a fresh
application at a later stage.
7 For short, “KMERC”.
withdrawn with liberty as prayed.
In view of our order dated 14.03.2024, no further orders are
required in the present application.
The application will be treated as disposed of with liberty to
the applicant(s) to file fresh application at a later stage, if
The prayer made in the present application is allowed.
Payment may be made in terms of the Office Order dated
11.10.2022 passed by the Karnataka Mining Environment Restoration
Corporation.
We are not inclined to entertain the present applications and
hence, the same are dismissed.
All pending applications in the applications disposed
of/dismissed/allowed today in Writ Petition (C) No. 562/2009 stand
disposed of.
Re-list along with all pending applications in the week
We wish to clarify that if a party has any grievance or issue
with the action, in-action or report of the CEC, the Monitoring
Committee or the Oversight Authority in respect of the mining
leases in the three districts, namely, Bellary, Chitradurga and
Tumkur in Karnataka, they should approach this Court by filing an
application. Normally, the High Court should not entertain an
application/issue/dispute, as the matter is sub-judice and this
Court is in seisin. Albeit, this Court can direct the parties to
approach the High Court, if required and necessary.