LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Friday, January 29, 2021

the applicant seeks permission to sell the stock of minerals lying in the leasehold area and to deposit the sale proceeds directly with the State Government.

  19. From   the   averments   contained   in   the   application,   it appears that what is claimed by the applicant to be lying at the mining   lease   area   is   less   than   what   is   alleged   by   the   State Government to have been mined in violation of EC.  While it may be permissible to allow the applicant to sell the stock lying at site 9 and to deposit the sale proceeds entirely with the Government, it must   be   ensured   that   the   applicant   does   not   carry   out   any mining activity under cover of this Order. 20. Therefore, this application is disposed of permitting the applicant to sell and remove the ore already mined and lying at site,   under   the   supervision   of   the   Committee   appointed hereinabove.  The Committee shall be assisted by the concerned authorities of the State and the sale proceeds shall go directly to the treasury of the State Government to be adjusted towards the amount due under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act.


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOs.131281 and 131288 0F 2019

AND

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOs.179704 OF 2018

& 54364 0F 2019

AND

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.150858 0F 2019

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.114 OF 2014

COMMON CAUSE                    … Petitioner (s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                … Respondent (s)

O R D E R

I.A. Nos. 131281 and 131288 of 2019

1. These   applications   praying   respectively   for:  (i)

intervention in the main matter; and (ii) direction to the State to

permit the applicant to sell off the undisposed stock and for

issuance  of  transfer  permits  for  the  removal  of  ore  from the

leasehold areas, are taken out by a person claiming to be the

1

legal heir and power of attorney agent of the deceased mining

leaseholder.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned

counsel for the State of Odisha, the learned Amicus Curiae and

the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner.

3. The   claim   of   the   applicant   is   that   one   Mr.   Suresh

Chandra   Padhee   was   the   mining   leaseholder   in   respect   of

Banspani Iron Ore and Manganese Mines and the Gurubeda Iron

Ore Mines and that in terms of the amended Section 8A(6) of the

MMDR Act, 1957, the lease stood extended till 31.03.2020.  It is

further claimed by the applicant that pursuant to the directions

issued by this Court on 02.08.2017 in Writ Petition (C) No.114 of

2014, a demand notice dated 02.09.2017 has been issued by the

Government demanding an amount of Rs.1,20,22,711/­towards

compensation for the excess production.   This was in respect of

Banspani Iron Ore.   In respect of Gurubeda Iron Ore Mines, a

2

separate demand notice demanding a sum of Rs.27,71,73,835/­

was issued.  

4. According to the applicant he has already deposited a

sum of Rs.1,33,17,910/­ in respect of Banspani Mines and a

sum   of   Rs.1,40,00,000/­   in   respect   of   Gurubeda   Mines.

Petitioner wants permission to remove the ore already mined and

lying at site so that the compensation amount could be paid to

the Government.

5. The State has filed a reply contending inter­alia: (i) that

in respect of Banspani Mines, the last  lease period expired on

28.11.1993; (ii) that the lease is non­operating ever since 2009

and was declared as lapsed by the proceeding dated 16.06.2015;

(iii) that a revision application is pending against the said order;

(iv)  that in respect of Gurubeda Mines, the last lease period

expired on 04.07.2002; and  (v)  that the mining operation was

3

discontinued from 30.10.2009 for want of statutory clearances

and the revision filed against the same was also rejected.

6. After stating the above objections, the State Government

has also indicated its no objection to the sale of the already

raised mineral.   Paragraph 6 of the reply of the Government

reads as follows:

“It is further submitted that the State Government may have

no objection if the instant case is considered in the ratio of

order dated 15.01.2020 of Hon’ble Supreme passed in I.A.

No.30915 of 2019 filed by M/s Mideast Integrated Ltd. in

W.P.(C) No.114/2014 and the applicant is allowed sell of

raised and disposed stack lying in its mining leases to pay

the compensation amount outstanding against it.  However,

no mining operation may be allowed for resumption.”

7. However,   it   is   submitted   by   Mr.   Prashant   Bhushan,

learned counsel for the writ petitioner that while there could be

no objection to the removal and sale of the material already

mined   and   kept,   there   is   every   likelihood   of   the   applicant

misusing   even   a   mere   permission   to   sell   the   existing   stock.

Therefore, he suggested that the removal of the material and its

4

sale   should   be   under   the   supervision   of   an   independent

Committee of persons, apart from the State Government officials.

8. Since the apprehension is genuine, we appoint Hon’ble

Mr. Justice Bijoy Krishna Patel, Chairperson, Odisha Human

Rights Commission and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Parija, Former

Judge,   Odisha   High   Court   as   Members   of   the   Committee.

Subject to the supervision of the said Committee, adequately and

ably assisted by the concerned authorities of the State of Odisha,

the applicant is permitted to sell and remove the material already

mined.  The Committee shall ensure that no mining operation is

undertaken under the cover of this Order.   The sale proceeds

should go directly to the treasury of the State Government to be

adjusted towards compensation.  The applications are disposed

of on the above terms. 

    I.A. Nos.179704 of 2018 and 54364 of 2019

9. These   applications   are   taken   out   by   a   leaseholder   of

Oraghat Iron and Manganese Ore Mines in Tehsil Bonai, District

5

Sundergarh, Odisha praying respectively for:  (i)  condonation of

delay   in   depositing   the   compensation   amount   as   per   the

Judgement of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.114 of 2014 and

for permission to resume mining operations subject to getting all

required clearances; and (ii) to take on record certain additional

documents such as the letter seeking extension of mining lease

etc.

10. According   to   the   applicant,   he   had   a   mining   lease

executed on 06.04.1998 in respect of an area of 25.847 hectares

and that as per the Judgment of this Court dated 02.08.2017, he

was   obliged   to   make   payment   of   the   demand   on   or   before

31.12.2017.   However, the applicant could not make payment

within the time stipulated on account of various factors.   Hence,

the application for condonation of delay and for permission to

resume mining operations.

11. The State has filed a reply contending that the applicant

does not at all have the requisite clearances to operate the mines

6

and that the mining operation, though valid for a period of 20

years   from   06.04.1998   to   05.04.2018,   the   mining   operations

were stopped on 01.04.2013 for want of statutory clearances.

According to the State, the applicant is not eligible for extension

under Section 8A, as he does not possess the forest clearance.

12. It is admitted by the State that the petitioner has paid

Rs.9,68,08,288/­ including interest of Rs.1,43,08,386/­ towards

delay   in   payment   together   with   the   demand   amount   of

Rs.8,24,32,549/­ for violation of the Environment Protection Act,

1986 and Forest Conservation Act, 1980.  It is also admitted by

the State that the applicant has paid the compensation amount

of Rs.21,12,599/­ including interest of Rs.3,51,264/­ towards

delay   in   payment   together   with   the   demand   amount   of

Rs.17,60,177/­ for violation of MP/CTO.

13. More importantly, it is stated in paragraph 6 of the reply

that   the   applicant   has   approved   mining   plan   valid   upto

31.03.2023,   but   the   environment   clearance   expired   on

7

03.04.2018.  The applicant has also not obtained forest clearance

in respect of DLC forest land.

14. From   the   objections   of  the   State,   it  appears  that   the

applicant   has   cleared   all   monetary   liabilities   and   that   what

stands   as   an   impediment   is   the   non­availability   of   statutory

clearances.     Therefore   these   applications   are   disposed   of

permitting   the   State   Government   to   process   the   application

subject to all types of statutory clearances being obtained.

    I.A. No.150858 of 2019

15. This is an application filed by the holder of a mining lease

in respect of Bholbeda Iron Ore Mines over an area of 62.322

hectares.   The mining lease deed was executed on 10.06.1983,

effective for a period of 20 years upto 09.06.2003.  The applicant

filed an application for first renewal on 05.06.2002, but when it

was pending,  MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 came into effect.

16. According to  the  applicant,  they were  alleged to  have

mined 32,254 MT of Iron ore in violation of EC and that as per

8

the Judgment of this Court dated 02.08.2017, the same should

be compensated under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act.

17. The   applicant   claims   that   as   per   Form   H­1   of   the

applicant company the stock lying at the mining lease area is as

follows:

(i) Lumps:

Grades (% of FE content)  Closing stock at mine site (MT)

60% to below 62% 1812.000

62% to below 65% 8489.180

65% and above 18107.145

(ii) Fines

Grades (% of FE content)  Closing stock at mine site (MT)

55% to below 58% 5511.000

18. Therefore,   the   applicant   seeks   permission   to   sell   the

stock of minerals lying in the leasehold area and to deposit the

sale proceeds directly with the State Government.

19. From   the   averments   contained   in   the   application,   it

appears that what is claimed by the applicant to be lying at the

mining   lease   area   is   less   than   what   is   alleged   by   the   State

Government to have been mined in violation of EC.  While it may

be permissible to allow the applicant to sell the stock lying at site

9

and to deposit the sale proceeds entirely with the Government, it

must   be   ensured   that   the   applicant   does   not   carry   out   any

mining activity under cover of this Order.

20. Therefore, this application is disposed of permitting the

applicant to sell and remove the ore already mined and lying at

site,   under   the   supervision   of   the   Committee   appointed

hereinabove.  The Committee shall be assisted by the concerned

authorities of the State and the sale proceeds shall go directly to

the treasury of the State Government to be adjusted towards the

amount due under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act.

……………………………..CJI

(S.A. BOBDE)

……………………………….J.

(A.S. BOPANNA)

………………………………..J.

(V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN)

New Delhi

January 06, 2021

10