Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 788
Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Deepak Gupta, J.
Can mining operations be allowed in forest areas under the guise of a lease? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving illegal mining activities in Chhattisgarh. This case highlights the blatant disregard for environmental laws and the complicity of certain state officials. The court’s decision underscores the importance of protecting forest areas and holding those accountable for environmental violations. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, and Justice Deepak Gupta.
Case Background
The case revolves around Mr. Anil Lunia, an industrialist, who applied for a mining prospecting license in Bhainsakanhar, District Kanker, on 31.10.1998 to mine iron ore. The Government of Chhattisgarh, Mining Department, granted a prospecting license on 25.1.2002 for an area of 18.27 hectares. Subsequently, a lease deed was executed on 26.5.2003. However, Mr. Lunia began mining operations in June-July 2003, violating the approved plan and cutting trees without permission, leading to a complaint by an NGO. An inquiry revealed that the mining area was a protected forest, which was illegally shown as non-forest revenue land to facilitate the mining lease.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 31.10.1998 | Mr. Anil Lunia applies for a mining prospecting license in Bhainsakanhar, District Kanker. |
| 25.1.2002 | Government of Chhattisgarh grants prospecting license to Mr. Anil Lunia. |
| 29.5.2002 | Written permission is granted for prospecting with certain conditions. |
| 26.5.2003 | Lease deed executed by the Collector, North Bastar Kanker in favor of Mr. Anil Lunia. |
| June-July 2003 | Mr. Anil Lunia starts mining operations, violating the approved plan and cutting trees without permission. |
| 18.9.2003 | Sub-Divisional Officer issues a letter stating the notified protected forest was shown as non-forest revenue land to facilitate the mining lease. |
| 25.9.2008 | Central Empowered Committee (CEC) files its report on the matter. |
| 22.9.2008 | Department of Commerce and Industry of the Government of Chhattisgarh blacklists Mr. Anil Lunia. |
| 30.01.2010 | State Government penalises Mr. R.A. Pathak by fixing his pay to the minimum pay scale. |
| 09.12.2011 | State Government penalises Mr. M. Kalyani by fixing his pay at the minimum pay scale for three years. |
Course of Proceedings
Following a complaint, a 3-member inquiry team was constituted by the Conservator of Forest Kanker. The team reported that the mining area was part of a protected forest. Despite this, mining operations continued. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was constituted by the Supreme Court, which found that the mining lease was executed in violation of statutory requirements. The CEC also noted that iron ore was extracted and transported in violation of the approved mining plan. The State Government initiated disciplinary proceedings against erring officials and issued a demand notice for the recovery of the sale proceeds of the illegally mined ore.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily concerns the violation of the Forest Conservation Act. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) found that the mining lease was granted and operated in violation of this Act. Specifically, the court noted the disregard for the requirement to obtain prior approval for non-forest activities in forest areas. The court also considered Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMRD Act), which requires the permission of the Central Government for granting prospecting licenses in areas reserved for Public Sector Undertakings. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification were also relevant, as the mine operated without the necessary environmental clearance.
The relevant legal provisions are:
- The Forest Conservation Act (no specific section mentioned in the source)
-
Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMRD Act)
*This section requires the permission of the Central Government for granting prospecting licenses in areas reserved for Public Sector Undertakings.* - The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (no specific section mentioned in the source)
- Environmental Impact Assessment Notification (no specific date mentioned in the source)
Arguments
The applicant, Mr. Bhupesh Baghel, M.L.A., argued that Mr. Anil Lunia carried out illegal mining activities in forest areas under the guise of a lease granted by the State of Chhattisgarh. He sought directions to stop these activities, initiate criminal prosecution of those involved, and recover compensation for environmental losses. Mr. Anil Lunia, in his reply affidavit, denied the allegations.
The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) highlighted several irregularities, including:
- Granting of the prospecting license despite Mr. Lunia’s involvement in illicit felling of trees.
- Violation of the condition that iron ore would be captively used in Mr. Lunia’s plant.
- Operation of the mine without environmental clearance.
- Extraction of iron ore far exceeding the permissible limit.
- Failure to stop mining despite the area being identified as a protected forest.
The State of Chhattisgarh, in its affidavits, detailed the actions taken in response to the CEC’s recommendations, including the issuance of a demand notice for recovery of sale proceeds, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against erring officials, and blacklisting of Mr. Anil Lunia.
| Argument | Sub-Argument | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Illegal Mining Activities | Mining operations carried out in forest areas under the guise of a lease. | Applicant (Mr. Bhupesh Baghel) |
| Violation of Forest Conservation Act. | Applicant (Mr. Bhupesh Baghel) | |
| Mining lease executed in violation of statutory requirements. | CEC | |
| Iron ore extracted and transported in violation of approved mining plan. | CEC | |
| Denial of Allegations | Denial of all allegations of illegal mining. | Respondent (Mr. Anil Lunia) |
| State Actions | Demand notice issued for recovery of sale proceeds of illegally mined ore. | State of Chhattisgarh |
| Disciplinary proceedings initiated against erring officials. | State of Chhattisgarh | |
| Blacklisting of Mr. Anil Lunia. | State of Chhattisgarh | |
| Steps taken to stop mining activities. | State of Chhattisgarh |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issues addressed by the court were:
- Whether Mr. Anil Lunia had violated the law by carrying out mining in forest areas.
- Whether the State Government had taken adequate steps to address the illegal mining activities.
- Whether the recommendations of the CEC should be accepted.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether Mr. Anil Lunia had violated the law by carrying out mining in forest areas. | The Court accepted the CEC’s report, which clearly stated that Mr. Lunia had flagrantly violated the law and carried out mining in forest areas. |
| Whether the State Government had taken adequate steps to address the illegal mining activities. | The Court noted that the State Government had taken necessary steps, including stopping mining activities, initiating proceedings against erring officials, and attempting to recover the sale proceeds of the illegally mined ore. |
| Whether the recommendations of the CEC should be accepted. | The Court accepted the report of the CEC, thereby endorsing its findings and recommendations. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the report of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The CEC report highlighted the violations of the Forest Conservation Act, Section 5(1) of the MMRD Act, and the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Central Empowered Committee (CEC) Report | Supreme Court of India | Accepted |
| Forest Conservation Act | Statute | Violated |
| Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMRD Act) | Statute | Violated |
| Environmental Impact Assessment Notification issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 | Notification | Violated |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Mr. Bhupesh Baghel’s submission that illegal mining was carried out in forest areas. | Accepted based on the CEC report. |
| Mr. Anil Lunia’s denial of allegations. | Rejected based on the CEC report and findings. |
| State of Chhattisgarh’s submission that actions were taken against erring officials and to recover the sale proceeds. | Accepted as evidence of the State’s response to the violations. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Central Empowered Committee (CEC) Report | The Court accepted the CEC’s findings that Mr. Lunia had flagrantly violated the law and carried out mining in forest areas. |
| Forest Conservation Act | The Court implicitly held that the Act was violated by granting mining leases in forest areas without prior approval. |
| Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMRD Act) | The Court implicitly held that the Act was violated by granting mining leases in areas reserved for Public Sector Undertakings without the required permission. |
| Environmental Impact Assessment Notification issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 | The Court implicitly held that the notification was violated by operating the mine without the necessary environmental clearance. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the blatant violation of environmental laws and the established facts presented by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The Court emphasized the need to protect forest areas and hold those accountable for their actions. The Court also acknowledged the steps taken by the State Government to address the illegal mining activities.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Blatant violation of environmental laws | 40% |
| Findings of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) | 30% |
| Need to protect forest areas | 20% |
| Actions taken by the State Government | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the factual findings of the CEC, which clearly established that Mr. Anil Lunia had violated the law and carried out mining in forest areas. The court also considered the actions taken by the State Government to address the illegal mining activities. The Court accepted the CEC report and acknowledged the State’s actions.
The court did not discuss any alternative interpretations. The decision was based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal provisions.
The Supreme Court held that:
- Mr. Anil Lunia had violated the law by carrying out mining in forest areas.
- The State Government had taken necessary steps to address the illegal mining activities.
- The recommendations of the CEC were accepted.
The court stated, “From a reading of this Report of the CEC, it is apparent that Mr. Anil Lunia had flagrantly violated the law and had carried out mining in the forest areas.”
The court also noted, “The affidavit of the State Government reveals that the State Government itself was alive to these violations and has taken necessary steps in the matter.”
Further, the court observed, “It is clear that steps have been taken to recover the entire sale proceeds of the CMT of iron ore that was mined and transported by Mr. Anil Lunia…”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
✓ Mining in forest areas without proper approvals is illegal and will be strictly dealt with.
✓ State governments must take proactive steps to prevent and address illegal mining activities.
✓ Those involved in illegal mining activities will be held accountable, and compensation will be recovered for environmental losses.
✓ The judgment reinforces the importance of protecting forest areas and upholding environmental laws.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the confiscated iron ore be auctioned in accordance with the law. The court also disposed of the applications insofar as Anil Lunia was concerned, without directing a CBI enquiry.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that mining in forest areas without proper approvals is illegal and will be strictly dealt with. The judgment reinforces the existing legal framework for environmental protection and does not introduce any new legal principles.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case underscores the importance of environmental protection and the need to hold those accountable for illegal mining activities. The Court accepted the CEC’s report, acknowledging the blatant violations by Mr. Anil Lunia and the steps taken by the State of Chhattisgarh to address the issue. The judgment serves as a reminder that environmental laws must be strictly enforced, and those who violate them will face consequences.
Category
- Environmental Law
- Forest Conservation Act
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- Illegal Mining
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
- Section 5(1), Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
- Supreme Court Judgments
- Environmental Law
- Mining Law
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in this Supreme Court case?
A: The main issue was the illegal mining of iron ore in forest areas of Chhattisgarh by Mr. Anil Lunia, violating the Forest Conservation Act and other environmental laws.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court accepted the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) report, which found that Mr. Lunia had violated the law. The court acknowledged the actions taken by the State of Chhattisgarh to address the issue and directed the auction of the confiscated iron ore.
Q: What are the implications of this judgment for mining activities?
A: The judgment makes it clear that mining in forest areas without proper approvals is illegal and will be strictly dealt with. It also emphasizes the need for state governments to take proactive steps to prevent and address illegal mining activities.
Q: What actions were taken against Mr. Anil Lunia?
A: Mr. Anil Lunia was blacklisted by the State Government, and a demand notice was issued to recover the sale proceeds of the illegally mined ore.
Q: What does this judgment mean for the protection of forest areas?
A: This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting forest areas and upholding environmental laws. It sends a strong message that those who violate these laws will be held accountable.