Supreme Court Addresses Various Applications in Karnataka Mining Case (03 April 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 03 April 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 304

Judges: Sanjiv Khanna J., M.M. Sundresh J., Bela M. Trivedi J.

The Supreme Court of India continues to oversee the complex legal landscape surrounding mining activities in Karnataka. This order addresses a multitude of pending applications, providing clarity on various issues related to iron ore extraction, land usage, and rehabilitation efforts. The bench, consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, M.M. Sundresh, and Bela M. Trivedi, reviewed the applications and issued specific directions to ensure the proper implementation of previous orders and to address new concerns that have arisen.

Case Background

This case is a continuation of a long-standing legal battle concerning mining activities in the state of Karnataka. The Supreme Court has been actively involved in monitoring and regulating these activities through various orders and committees. The present order deals with numerous Interlocutory Applications (IAs) filed by different parties seeking various reliefs, clarifications, and directions related to the mining operations.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court has been actively monitoring the mining activities in Karnataka through various committees, including the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and the Monitoring Committee. The court has been receiving reports from these committees and has been issuing orders and directions to ensure that mining activities are carried out in a sustainable and environmentally responsible manner. The present order is a continuation of this process, where the court is addressing various applications filed by different parties seeking various reliefs and directions.

Legal Framework

The legal framework for this case primarily involves the interpretation and application of various orders passed by the Supreme Court in relation to mining activities in Karnataka. There is a reference to the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) and the procedures for filing returns related to extracted minerals. The court also refers to the concept of Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plans (R&R Plans) for mining areas. The court is essentially exercising its powers to oversee the implementation of its previous orders and to ensure that mining activities are conducted in accordance with the law and in an environmentally sustainable manner.

Arguments

The arguments presented in the various applications are diverse, reflecting the complex nature of the mining disputes. Here’s a breakdown of the key arguments:

• I.A. No. 241/2015: The applicant claimed that they had extracted 9,23,582 MT of iron ore, but the Monitoring Committee had sold 10,67,813 MT, resulting in an excess of 1,44,231 MT. The applicant further contended that they had filed revised returns to the IBM, which should be considered.
• I.A. No. 253/2016: The State of Karnataka sought to merge some Category C mines for auction purposes.
• I.A. Nos. 62856/2018, 57649/2020 and 57650/2020: These applications sought a refund of guarantee money furnished by the lessees, based on the implementation of R&R Plans.
• I.A. Nos. 143275/2019, 143282/2019 and 143284/2019: The applicants sought a change in the categorization of their mines. They also argued that they were only entitled to mine manganese ore, not iron ore, based on the Government of Karnataka’s order.
• I.A. Nos. 115375/2021 and 115376/2021: The applicants sought the removal of 16060 MT of iron ore, as per a previous court order, alleging non-compliance by the State Government.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in this order. However, the court’s treatment of the various applications indicates the following implicit issues:

1. Whether the applicant in I.A. No. 241/2015 is entitled to payment for the excess iron ore sold by the Monitoring Committee.
2. Whether the State of Karnataka can merge Category C mines for auction purposes.
3. Whether the lessees are entitled to a refund of their guarantee money based on the implementation of R&R Plans.
4. Whether the categorization of mines should be changed.
5. Whether the applicants in I.A. Nos. 115375/2021 and 115376/2021 should be permitted to remove the 16060 MT of iron ore as per previous court order.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied upon its own previous orders and reports from the CEC and the Monitoring Committee. There were no other authorities cited in the judgment.

Judgment

The Supreme Court disposed of a large number of Interlocutory Applications (IAs) in this order. The court’s approach was to either dismiss the applications as infructuous, in default, or withdrawn, or to issue specific directions to the concerned parties. The court also clarified that any party with grievances or issues related to the CEC, Monitoring Committee, or Oversight Authority should approach the Supreme Court directly.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The order dated 30.07.2015 in “Samaj Partivartana Samudaya and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.” [(2017) 11 SCC 509] was used to dismiss I.A. No. 239/2015 and 240/2015 as the issue was already covered by this decision.
• The order dated 28.09.2012 was the basis for the guarantee money deposit, and the court relied on it to direct the refund process.
• The order dated 25.04.2017 in I.A. No.267/2016 was the basis for the refund of 90% of the guarantee money on the Monitoring Committee’s satisfaction.
• The CEC report dated 07.07.2017 was used to assess the progress of R&R Plans in Category B mining leases.
• The CEC report dated 28.08.2018 was used to seek directions from the Court to the Monitoring Committee.
• The order dated 30.08.2018 was used to direct the Monitoring Committee to complete the inspection of remaining leases and release guarantee money to lessees where the implementation of R&R Plans is complete.
• The order dated 21.03.2018 was used to dispose of I.A. No. 141339/2017.
• The order dated 22.03.2023 was used to permit the applicant(s) to remove 16060 MT iron ore available at the site.
• The order dated 14.03.2024 was used as a reference point for disposing of several applications.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision-making in this order was primarily guided by the following considerations:

• Adherence to Previous Orders: The Court consistently referred to and sought to implement its previous orders related to mining activities in Karnataka.
• Reports of Committees: The Court relied heavily on the reports and recommendations of the CEC and the Monitoring Committee.
• Procedural Compliance: The Court emphasized the need for parties to follow proper procedures, such as filing returns with the IBM and seeking necessary permissions.
• Environmental Concerns: The Court remained focused on the implementation of R&R Plans to ensure that mining activities are conducted in an environmentally responsible manner.
• Efficiency and Finality: The Court aimed to dispose of pending applications to ensure the smooth functioning of the mining sector and to avoid repeated litigation.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was a blend of factual analysis and legal principles. The court considered the factual aspects of each application, such as the amount of iron ore extracted, the status of R&R plans, and the procedural compliance of the parties. Simultaneously, the court applied legal principles based on its previous orders, statutory requirements, and the need to ensure environmental sustainability.

The court did not consider any alternative interpretations of the law or facts in this order. The court’s focus was on implementing its previous orders and ensuring that the mining activities were conducted in a sustainable and responsible manner. The court rejected arguments that were not supported by evidence or that were contrary to its previous orders.

The decision was reached by applying the existing legal framework and the specific facts of each application. The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles in this order.

“To avoid prolixity and repetition, we refrain from restating the facts and developments in the present writ petition s, as they have already been delineated in our pr ior order dated 14.03.2024.”

“The revised return(s) itself indicate s wrong-doing or, at least discrepancies. Finally, no provision or rule permits the revision of returns.”

“In case the State of Karnataka wants to merge some of the Category C mines for the purpose s of auction, they can prepare a justification report and file an application for appropriate order before this Court.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court continues to actively monitor and regulate mining activities in Karnataka.
• Parties must adhere to the court’s previous orders and follow proper procedures for filing returns and seeking permissions.
• The implementation of R&R Plans is a key priority for the court.
• The court is focused on disposing of pending applications to ensure the smooth functioning of the mining sector.
• Any party with grievances should approach the Supreme Court directly, not the High Court.

Directions

• The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and the Monitoring Committee are to submit reports on the implementation and execution of the Reclamation and Rehabilitation (R&R) Plans within seven weeks.
• The State of Karnataka is permitted to prepare a justification report and file an application for merging Category C mines for auction purposes.
• The State Government is directed to comply with the order dated 22.03.2023 for removal of 16060 MT of iron ore within six weeks, or approach the Court if there are reservations.
• The Monitoring Committee and CEC are directed to submit a status report within a period of seven weeks from today with regard to the implementation and execution of the R&R Plans.

Development of Law

This judgment does not introduce any new legal principles or change the existing legal position. The court’s primary focus was on the implementation of its previous orders and the monitoring of mining activities in Karnataka. The ratio decidendi is that the court will continue to oversee mining activities in Karnataka, ensuring that its previous orders are followed and that environmental concerns are addressed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order dated April 3, 2024, addresses a multitude of pending applications related to mining activities in Karnataka. The court’s approach was to ensure adherence to its previous orders, rely on the reports of the CEC and the Monitoring Committee, and ensure that mining activities are conducted in an environmentally responsible manner. The court disposed of several applications, issued specific directions, and clarified that any grievances should be brought directly to the Supreme Court.