Supreme Court directs survey of mining leases in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh: Samaj Parivartana Samudaya vs. State of Karnataka (2024) INSC 267 (14 March 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 14 March 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 267
Judges: Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice M.M. Sundresh, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Can the Supreme Court intervene to ensure proper demarcation of mining leases to prevent environmental damage? This question lies at the heart of a long-standing dispute regarding mining activities in Karnataka. The Supreme Court of India, in this recent order, has directed a joint survey of certain mining leases situated on the border of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. This order aims to resolve issues of illegal mining and environmental degradation in the region. The bench comprised Justices Sanjiv Khanna, M.M. Sundresh, and Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

The case originates from a 2009 writ petition filed by Samaj Parivartana Samudaya, raising concerns about illegal mining activities in Bellary, Chitradurga, and Tumkur districts of Karnataka. The Supreme Court has been actively monitoring this issue, issuing several orders and directions to address the problem. The core concern revolves around the illegal extraction of iron ore, which has led to significant environmental damage. The Court has also constituted several committees to oversee and implement its orders.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court has been actively involved in this matter since 2009, issuing numerous orders and directions. Initially, the Court focused on identifying and halting illegal mining activities. It established committees like the CEC and Joint Team to investigate and monitor mining operations. The Court also imposed temporary bans and production ceilings to curb environmental damage. Over time, the Court allowed resumption of mining under specific conditions, including the implementation of R&R Plans. The present order is a continuation of these efforts, focusing on the demarcation of mining leases.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the implementation of orders previously passed by the Supreme Court to regulate mining activities. There are no specific statutes or sections of law discussed in detail in this judgment. However, the judgment refers to the need for scientific and environmentally sustainable mining, compliance with environmental and mining statutes, and the implementation of R&R Plans. The core legal framework is the Court’s own previous orders and the need to balance environmental protection with economic development.

Arguments

The primary arguments in this case revolve around the implementation of the Supreme Court’s previous orders. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) has been tasked with overseeing the mining activities and ensuring compliance with environmental regulations. The State of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh are involved in the demarcation of inter-state boundaries. The National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC) has raised issues regarding its contribution to the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV). The main points of contention are:

• Demarcation of Mining Leases: The seven mining leases in Category B-1, located on the border of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, require precise demarcation to prevent illegal mining and environmental damage.

• District-Level Production Ceilings: The Court has set production ceilings for each district (Bellary, Tumkur, and Chitradurga) to regulate the amount of iron ore that can be mined. These ceilings are to be implemented alongside Maximum Permissible Annual Production (MPAP) limits set for each mining lease.

• Implementation of R&R Plans: Each mining lease is required to have a R&R Plan to address environmental damage caused by mining activities. These plans include measures for reclamation, rehabilitation, and environmental management.

• Contribution to SPV: The NMDC has sought a reduction in its contribution to the SPV, which is responsible for implementing the Comprehensive Environment Plans for the Mining Impact Zone (CEPMIZ). The Court has addressed this issue by clarifying that NMDC will be liable to pay 10% of the sale proceeds w.e.f 01.01.2019 and thereafter.

Innovativeness of the argument: The arguments were not particularly innovative but rather focused on the implementation of existing orders and the need for better coordination between different stakeholders.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame any new issues in this order. The issues were primarily related to the implementation of previous orders, specifically:

1. Demarcation of the seven mining leases located on the border of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
2. Implementation of district-level production ceilings and MPAP limits for individual mining leases.
3. Implementation of R&R Plans for all mining leases.
4. Whether the 10% levy imposed on the sale of iron ore and transferred to the SPV for implementing the CEPMIZ should be discontinued.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The court referred to several of its previous orders and reports by various committees to come to its decision. These are:

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment focuses on the implementation of its previous orders and ensuring that mining activities are conducted in an environmentally sustainable manner. The Court has given the following directions:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors.* – The Court referred to this case as the genesis of the CEC, highlighting its importance in addressing illegal mining.
• State of Andhra Pradesh v. Obulapuram Mining Company (P) Ltd, 2011 (12) SCC 491* – The Court used this case to refer to the imposition of the temporary ban on mining operations in Bellary.
• Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 8 SCC 209* – The Court cited this case to show the extension of the mining ban to Chitradurga and Tumkur.
• Report dated 14.08.2011 by ICFRE – The Court relied on this report as the basis for setting production ceilings and requiring R&R Plans.
• Report dated 03.02.2012 by CEC – The Court used this report as the basis for categorizing mines into A, B, and C.
• Report dated 13.03.2012 by CEC – The Court referred to this report as the basis for implementation of R&R Plans.
• Order dated 13.04.2012 – The Court reiterated the directions for implementation of R&R Plans and MPAP.
• Order dated 14.12.2017 – The Court referred to this order to show the enhancement of production caps.
• Order dated 26.08.2022 – The Court cited this order to show the further enhancement of production caps.
• Order dated 28.09.2022 – The Court referred to this order for the direction to Joint Team to prepare sketches of mining leases.
• Order dated 21.04.2022 – The Court cited this order for the constitution of the Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy Committee.
• Judgment dated 21.03.2017 – The Court relied on this judgment to reject the plea to discontinue the 10% levy for CEPMIZ.
• Order dated 21.03.2018 – The Court referred to this order for the directions to KMERC to submit a revised comprehensive proposal of CEPMIZ.
• Report dated 10.04.2022 by CEC – The Court acknowledged the report on SPV funds and the recommendation to discontinue the 10% levy but did not accept it.
• Order dated 22.02.2023 – The Court referred to this order for the reduction of NMDC’s contribution to SPV from 20% to 10%.
• Order dated 28.09.2022 in “M/s Arjun Ladha v. The State of Odisha” – The Court referred to this order to explain the dismissal of Writ Petition (C) No. 505 of 2020.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s primary concern was to ensure the proper implementation of its previous orders and to prevent further environmental degradation due to illegal mining. The Court emphasized the need for a scientific approach to mining, with a focus on reclamation and rehabilitation. The Court also took into account the need for a comprehensive plan for the Mining Impact Zone (MIA) and the socio-economic development of the region. The Court was not inclined to discontinue the 10% levy as the CEPMIZ plan was still at an initial stage and required funds for implementation.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the need to implement its previous orders and ensure environmental protection. The factual aspects of the case, such as the need for demarcation of mining leases and the implementation of R&R plans, were considered alongside the legal framework established by the Court’s previous orders.

The Court considered the need for a comprehensive approach to environmental management, including the implementation of R&R Plans and the CEPMIZ. The Court also recognized the need for scientific and sustainable mining practices. The Court rejected the plea to discontinue the 10% levy because the CEPMIZ was still in its initial stages of implementation and required funds to be properly executed.

The Court stated, “The district -level production ceilings a pply to Category A and Category B mining leases. Category ‘C’ mining leases were cancelled and were thereafter e -auctioned , and hence are under a different legal regime.”

The Court also noted, “the R&R Plans, together with specifying actions to be undertaken for reclamation and rehabilitation works, provided for a n MPAP restriction for each mining lease. However, the upper cap fixed at the district level is mandatory and binding.”

The Court further clarified, “We do not think, at this stage, it will be appropriate to withdraw the 10% levy imposed by this Court in terms of the o rder dated 13.04.2012, as the CEPMIZ Plan is still at the initial stage of execution.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this judgment. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The Supreme Court has directed a joint survey of seven mining leases on the Karnataka-Andhra Pradesh border to ensure proper demarcation.
• ✓ District-level production ceilings and Maximum Permissible Annual Production (MPAP) limits for individual mining leases are to be strictly implemented.
• ✓ The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), State of Karnataka, has been directed to scrutinize and submit R&R Plans for Category C mines.
• ✓ The 10% levy on the sale of iron ore for the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) will continue as the Comprehensive Environment Plans for the Mining Impact Zone (CEPMIZ) is still in the initial stages of implementation.
• ✓ The Court emphasized the need for scientific and environmentally sustainable mining practices.

This order is likely to have a significant impact on the mining sector in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, ensuring better regulation and environmental protection. The survey will help in resolving boundary disputes and prevent illegal mining activities. The continued levy for the SPV will ensure that funds are available for the implementation of the CEPMIZ.

Directions

The Supreme Court has given the following directions:

• ✓ The National Institute of Technology (NIT), Suratkhal, Karnataka, will conduct the survey of the seven mining leases using the total station method and satellite images.
• ✓ The Joint Team, comprising officers from Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, will assist NIT Karnataka in the survey.
• ✓ The survey report will be submitted to the states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, and a copy will be filed before the Supreme Court.
• ✓ The CEC, after receiving the survey report, will issue notices to the respective lessees and pass appropriate orders.
• ✓ The Monitoring Committee will also be associated with the exercise undertaken by the CEC.
• ✓ The State of Karnataka is entitled to participate in the proceedings before the CEC and raise objections.
• ✓ The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), State of Karnataka, will undertake a detailed scrutiny and survey of all Category C mines where data and R&R Plans have not been submitted and submit R&R Plans.
• ✓ The cost incurred for the R&R Plans will be collected from the erstwhile Category C lease holders or the Category A and B lease holders as arrears of land revenue.

Development of Law

This judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but reinforces the importance of implementing previous orders of the Supreme Court to protect the environment and regulate mining activities. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Supreme Court will continue to monitor and direct the implementation of its orders to ensure that mining activities are conducted in an environmentally sustainable manner. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in the case of Samaj Parivartana Samudaya vs. State of Karnataka is a significant step towards ensuring the proper regulation of mining activities in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The Court’s directions for a joint survey, implementation of production ceilings, and R&R Plans, along with the continuation of the levy for the SPV, underscore its commitment to environmental protection and sustainable development. This order highlights the Court’s active role in addressing environmental concerns and ensuring compliance with its previous orders.

Category

• Environmental Law
  • Mining Regulation
  • Environmental Protection
  • Sustainable Development
• Mining Law
  • Mining Leases
  • Production Ceilings
  • Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plans
• Supreme Court Orders
  • Implementation of Court Orders
  • Monitoring Committee
  • Central Empowered Committee
• Environmental Law
  • Central Empowered Committee (CEC)
• Environmental Law
  • Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plans (R&R Plans)
• Environmental Law
  • Comprehensive Environment Plans for the Mining Impact Zone (CEPMIZ)

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue is the need for proper demarcation of mining leases and the implementation of environmental regulations to prevent illegal mining and environmental degradation in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

Q: What did the Supreme Court order?
A: The Supreme Court ordered a joint survey of seven mining leases on the Karnataka-Andhra Pradesh border, the implementation of district-level production ceilings, and the continuation of a 10% levy on the sale of iron ore for environmental restoration.

Q: What is the role of the CentralEmpowered Committee (CEC)?
A: The CEC is a committee constituted by the Supreme Court to oversee mining activities and ensure compliance with environmental regulations. It plays a key role in monitoring the implementation of the Court’s orders.

Q: What are Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plans (R&R Plans)?
A: R&R Plans are measures for reclamation, rehabilitation, and environmental management to address the environmental damage caused by mining activities. Each mining lease is required to have such a plan.

Q: What is the Comprehensive Environment Plans for the Mining Impact Zone (CEPMIZ)?
A: CEPMIZ is a comprehensive plan to address the environmental and socio-economic impact of mining activities in the affected region. It is funded by a levy on the sale of iron ore.

Q: Why did the Court not discontinue the 10% levy?
A: The Court did not discontinue the levy because the CEPMIZ plan is still in the initial stages of implementation and requires funds to be properly executed.

Q: What is the significance of this order?
A: This order is significant as it reinforces the Supreme Court’s commitment to environmental protection and sustainable mining practices. It ensures better regulation of mining activities and addresses the issue of illegal mining.

Disclaimer

This document is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided is based on the analysis of the Supreme Court’s order and related documents. For specific legal advice, please consult a qualified legal professional.