Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE-._v DATED mxs THE as' DAY or JUNE, 2909' -« * _ PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAI<Q§ItRA_|}jT, §cr"»:;|a'?!-'_ _ , ti' 3"" THE HON'BLE MR. Ju's.ticE v.e;----sABti.nri"Ij"" WRIT A.PPEAL«.N"Cu 533:;/2oo3,"~ ~' cm warr APPEI_\_l._S__i)l_g.'o.5(3+2._t1-_,_§928, 5032, 5050,5051,5O52;§05§A5O64g5O6§.5066, §QE§_@$ !i&A$iBw*8;&3JQ§7J§§, w.A.Ng.§o25,g._i«_+9_§fL ~ BETWEEN: V V' V M/s. Jindal vihjﬁ/aJ.i.;aVg.aE3'stee,§§'~«1.,td._, _' P.O.Toran.ag'aHu, ' = " Sandur TaI'uk," ' V Beflary Distritt, Kavrnatalaai, " Now known as JSW Steel Ltd., Rep. hi; itstAManaging1,'Director. .. APPELLANT _ (By-sh. D'.'£.:.E\*.: Rao - Sr. Adv. with E5 ris. Aru n "Kym ar Va-rrna a nd M'¥ss=.S.R. 'vAh'aIfad!fra--v"- Advs. for Applt.) AND'--...__ M/s. MSPL Limited, .4 The State of Karnataka, ':'.E.C. Colony, Hospet, - Belféiry District, '"._Ré'p'.'by its Executive Director Sri. Rahul N. Baldota. Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Mines, SSI & Textiles, Department of Mines and Geology, M.S Building, Bangalore-01. 3. The Director of Mines and Geoiogy, Department of Mines and Geology , Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, = Bangalore-01 4. Union of India, Rep. By its Secretary, Government of India, __ Ministry of Coal and Mines, Department of Mines, " " Shastiri Bhavan, New Deihi. l RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Krishnan ';\ienu"g'epal"-+.'j*sr;rAdv. V With M.M. Swamyi:-V Adv.*for=R.--.1_ , Sri. Uc!a"y'a"Hol'lja ~-- Afdv. G-e,n'erai W'i"i;i'3* 'V Sri. B.?_Veerappva_--..Addl.'Govt. Adv. For R.2:an'd R.3. V' M Sri. Arav'ind"Kumar '~~.Asst;-.._Soli"éitor General for R.4) This Writ"A,ppe.a.l'- isdfiiedll under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courtjjict praying toﬂset aside the order dated 7.8.2008 passed by the " «E.earned'"sin-gieJtldge in"'W;P.No.21608/2005. l'-.@.Ng,.;vo_24'gjaoa§ BET.\iVE'ENV:' ' 'Sri. M.'S.rin\/Vasulu, S,/o. Late Sri. Venkataswamy, A " Agedabout 56 years, ":2./e._Nc5;168/c, 18"' Ward, _ -_3"§._CrosAs, Gandhinagar, .___'"Beliary. .. APPELLANT Sri. i<.N. Phanindra - Adv. for Appit.) AND 1.M/s. MSPL Limited, N.R. Coiony, Hospet, Beliary District, Rep. by its Executive Director, Sri. Rahui N. Baidota, Aged about 37 years. 2. State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary, Mines, SSI & Textties, , Department of Commerce & Ind'us't.ries, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veecihi,, Bangalore-560 001. 3. The Director of Mines &'f3éoiogy, Z V Department of Mines and'Geoiogy,";i. . Khanija Bhavan, 5"' Floor, " _ I 1 Race Course Road, V " Bangalore-56Q~vG3«.1.,'-- 4. Union oi'i'ndi_a,T; _ Rep. by its _Secreta,ry,. ., . _' Ministry of Coal anc'i'~M§i:es,tV..__ Shastri Blfiavan,' ' . New Dem?"-e__ 110 001. " 5. M/s.._§'Ji'ndai Vinj'ay.anagar Steels Ltd., P.~Q_.'iToy_ra rigallu, Sa'ndu'r Taluk, Beiiary 'DAi5t_r£k:t,_, Rep. by its ' .Managi'n,g'DVireVctor. 6. 'M./.5.»i<a!'yzi~%i;--«Ste§.eis Limited, Ho-spet _Ftoad,: Ginigera: 583 228, _ Koppaiffaluk 8: District, " 'Rt.-pa. by its Managing Director. M/s.riNadeem Minerais, i:io.419, Ground Fioor, % = ....6"' 'B' Cross, 20"' Main, 6"' Biock, Koramangaia, Bangaiore--560 095. ;:_..~«~t;3" 8. M/s. Vibhuthigudda Mines Pvt. Ltd, by its General Manager, No.60/356-A, Hospet Road, Allipura, . Bellary -- 583 204. . .. .'_REspo1:upE'NTs (By Sri. Krishnan Venugopal -- Senior Ad"-/,oca_te'*S with Sri. M.M. Swamy -- Adv. for,R.1. . ' Sri. udava Holla, Advocate Genorai-with A . _ Sri. B. Veerappa ---- Addl. Govt. Adv... for R.2 and , Sri. Arvind Kumar -- Asst. Solicitor Cieneral -- for «.R.4. ii Sri. D.L.N. Rao -- Senior Adv. with" = Miss. S.R. Anuradha -- Ac.'v__. 'for R5,,-R,.6'~.an.d"i2.,.7) This Writ Appeal is fiiedviunydar £"}ect'iori'§i.,'jo.f--V*'the Karnataka High Court Act praying to 'set aside the orderdatedy,7.8.2008 passed by the Eearned single Jucigeén. 'W.P1._N0§.2*l608,/20-05..._...-- w.A.Ng.so2a("2o'o;s 8ETWEEN':"'"' 1. V' M/s. Kalyani 'S>iI€€iSVi..ii;.;i'i"C--4E.(i;»_'vu"'--.._a _' Hospet Road, Ginig'er_a~:E83'-.328," Koppal Talukand DEstr_ict',., " Rep. byits Mans9..Eng.p':rector:" .. APPELLANT V' { By Rao -S9' Serriovr Advocate with vsri. Aron Kﬂrnar Verma -- Adv. and A Miss AntIra.dha ---- Adv. for Applt.) AND -,1. M/<5. M"S.PL.Lximited, . N.R. Colony, Hospet, "Be.|iary District, '-- _ R_ep'.; by its Executive Director, '1.S'r'i."RahuE N. Baldota, " 2.. ---- State of Ka rnata ka, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Mines, SSI & Textiles, Department of Mines and Geology, M.S. Building, Bangaiore--560 001. 3. The Director of Mines & Geoiogy, Department of Mines and Geology, ». Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bangaiore--560 001. 4. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Coai and Mines, Department of Mines, ' " Shastri Bhavan, New Deihi -- 110 001. "~..T"'».7._'gv.._AVRESPONDENTS (By Sri. Uci~a3;c1--2..i5%oiia 9- Adveica'te Ge'ne_r_aifwith Sri. V.ee:'a'ppa~v-?«.Add_i. G_ovt.,Adv. for R.2 and R.3 Sri. Arvind. Ktjrnaif "--'--{A-ss't.._,So|Eci,tor Generai -- for R.-4 Sri. Ki"§$h'i3£5V{'} Venugo'pai~-y Senior Advocate with Sriig-M. M;:.;s.wamy.« Ad'v;"fo"r C/R.1) This Writ ;xt$pe'e:..,:isﬂied:"wider Section 4 of the High Court Act praying to V, set 'a,si'd.ea the "vdi'der dated 7.8.2008 passed in w.P.i\:o.216o'c2/uzoos.'  Dix'/. Mahesh Kumar, .___"'Age:=,d about 37 Years. .. APPELLANT Sri. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay -- Adv. for Applt. AND 1"'. V1' Negw Deihi 5 '1..;o 001. _'_;~,.r>iav"in9' ' W.i?.No.21608/2005. M/s. MSPL Limited, N.C. Colony, Hospet, Bellary District, Rep. by its Executive Director, Sri. Rahul N. Baldota, Aged about 39 years. . The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Mines, s SS1 & Textiles, Department of Commerce & Industri_es,_ M.S. Building, Bangalore~--S6O 001. . The Director of Mines & Geoi~ogy',A',"'; Department of Mines and-Geoi'ogy', _ A Khanija Bhava_n,=._ 1 Race Course_R_oad;}" _. V . Bangaiore~560VQ_O1'~.v"I'__ . The Un"i.on"of Ind ital," -~ . A Rep. byits L'-_'~ecret,ary._.f. V' Government ofvindia, I " , Ministry of Coal an.d.'--Mines,'" Department of ivlines, Siv1astri;_-Bhavvan, ' .. RESPONDENTS ('By 'Sri.,lAKrVis§<%na:i"'V.e'nugopaI - Senior Advocate, . with Sri.'-V'lj~'§.|\,/.2'. Swamy -- Adv. for R.1 Sri. Arvind'..*Kumar - Asst. Solicitor General -- for R.4 Sri . Udaya Hoiia - Advocate General with Sri.'B._ Veerappa - Addi. Govt. Adv. for R.2 and R.3) 'This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act to set aside the order dated 7.8.2008 passed in W.A.NQ.S050[2008 BETWEEN: M/s. Kalyani Steeis Limited, - Hospet Road, Ginigera 583 228, Koppai Taluk and District, Rep. by its Managing Director. ,. (By Sri. S.R. Anuradha -- Adv. for Apspit) AND: . 1. The Sandur Manganese &1m-.-. Ores ,E:.td,Vf_ ' No.217, Sadashivanagar, Be'iiaryvRo[ad,--"~. ' V Bangaiore-560 080, . * Q I Represented by 'its_Cjomp_an\; S»ecr'etary',' V. ._ Shri Abdul S,aieem§i' ~ ' .- 2. The State of--vKa'rn§2,taka, " A Rep. bvyitts S.e'cj;reta'r%,g','-- " , Department o'fvMin,es,, 2 SS1 &T.extiies, ' M " Department' of Minesand' "G_e'c1o'gy, M.S. Buildin_g, _ '_ 1 Bangalore-550_001,; V' Theiﬁommissioner 'o'fi"---"Eines and Geology, V 'D_epart'ment"of Mines and Geoiogy, .=Khanija, Bharvara---,. Race Course Road, I . B.angavI~o:re,jV5SQ-.001. 4. Union of~En_d,i'a,i Rep. by" its Secretary, Government of India, Ministrx/'iof Coai and Mines, Department of Mines, R "'.Sh'a'stri Bhavan, New Delhi. .. RESPONDENTS Sri. D. Leeiakrishnan -- Adv. for C/R.1 * Sri. Udaya Hoiia -- Advocate Generai with Sri. B. Veerappa -~ Addl. Govt. Adv. for R.2 and R.3 Sri. Aravincl Kumar -~ Asst. Solicitor General for R.4) This Writ Appeai is filed under Section 4 of the HighV"C_oiu.rt Act praying to set aside the order dated 7.8.20Q8_'~,passedA. in W.P.NO.8971/2007. V' -1- W.A.No.5051[2008 BETWEEN: M/s. }indaI Vijayanagar Steeis Ltd, P.O. Toranagaliu, SandurTa|uk, ' ' Beliary District, Karnataka, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory _ ' Sri. P. Krishna Gowda, Genera! Manager. '.".-A m°PEI.LAHT (By Sri. D.i_.N. Rao -~ seniof'Ad_vo¢a_té:*»i¢;-itii'5] _ Miss. S.R. Anuraciha --- Ady.'for A_ppuIt.)='x,v ._ 1. The Sandur_M'an_ganese 84, Iron Ories 'i_im§ted',.ﬁ_ A . * i\io.217,'Sadashivanagar,'*~..,_ Beiiary Ro'ad_,VBang'a_|or.e," , Rep. by its Company Secretary, Shrij, MD. Abdui Saieem. State o;f"ii<ar"ri'a.taka, . .R.ep.. gb'y._it's Secretary De'partrn:'e-rat of'M-ines, 'S.Si=& TextiV'ijes,.1' Dept. of~CQrifimerce & Industries, M.s'. Biiiiding, BangaIcire--56O O01. Theéiﬁommissioner of Mines and Geology, '._Dept} of Mines & Geology, Khanija Bhavan, it = .---Race Course Road, Bangaiore-560 O01. 4. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Government of India, Dept. of Coal and Mines, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 5. M/s. Kaiyani Steels Limited, Hospet Road, Ginigera --~ 583 228, Koppal Taluk & District, ' V Rep. by its Managing Director. 'R.ESPC3.i\lDENTS (By Sri. D. Leelakrishna - Adv. for.iR'.'1=, Sri. Udaya I-ital? - Advocate General with' " M Sri. B. Veerappa -- Addl. Govt} Adv.._f?1r.vR.2'iarid, I-{,3 Sri. Arvind Kumar -- Asst. Solicitor G_enerai'~~.--~ fo_r*R--.~4 R.5 - Served) 2 ' I .. This Writ Appeal-.'_is~vfiledi-und.er:S.e'ctio'nV;4 of the High Court Act praying to €set_."=asid'e. ,th.e--._"ordAerztiated 7.8.2008 passed in w.P.No.897:/20,05.:;__ - «. w.A.No;,5o5;[ "2b:--n8,_ BETWEEN; * A A 1. M/s. .1.S.W.a"Steeis.Limited,"it A Company incoirporatecl under the Ce.m°pa_nies»..Act, 19'5'6"'l"iaving its «i?,egistered_Ol'fjce at '3indal Mansion', 2 :5--"A, _D'epLity"~R,egistrar. G. Deshmukh Marg, lVi.urnbai-5400 0'26"and works at A Vidyanagar - 583 275, "PO"'Jidyarié.9a,f, Toranagallu - 583 275, District_ .BGllé.i"y, Rep. by its GPA Holder Authoifised Signatory Sri. P.K. Vishwanath. . M/S.";Vl' nagar Minerals Private Limited "._A"Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered .--Office at 3SW --- Township, District Bellary, 10 Rep. by its GPA Hoider and Authorised Signatory Sri. Anil Sood. . South West Mining Limited, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, ~-- having its registered Office at 3 Estate 121, III" Floor, Dickenson Road", Bangalore-560 O42, , Rep. by its GPA Hoider/ " Authorised Signatory Sri. Anif Soo.d:E. .' (By Smt. Nalini Chidambaranj -- Senior Advocate with" Miss S.R. Anuradhav-~.._A:r!v. for .A.ppi'ts_'.»)_ AND 1. M/s. MSPL Limtéied,' _ 2. N.C. Coion_v., riosﬁe_t,'. B*ei£ary- .Dist_rictj,. , Rep. by its ExeTcuti'Ve"--D,Erector,' ' Sri. Rahui Nv.VBaE(.i;_o,ta. -- . :f'he State ofiikarnataika, Rep. by its Secretary, _ _ Department' of Néines-Q v "-- 51 &Textii'e.s,A _ ' , " . Department of_Min.es and Geoiogy, M.S_.i Buiiding, ' Baﬂ§'aEore~5f§0 001." **** . The' D_ireotor"of'I~1.ines & Geology, " 'Department of'M~i'nes and Geoiogy, Khanija Brua.\f.fa.r'i, Race Coo rse,=Road, BangaEore~560 001. . 'Uiiion of' India, Repfby its Secretary, 7Government of India, Ministry of Coai and Mines, * »-Department of Mines, Shastri Bhavan, New Deihi. RESPONDENTS .':WFj 11 (By Sri. Krishnan Venugopal -- Senior Advocate with Sri. M.M. Swamy ~ Adv. for R.1. Sri. Udaya Holla -- Advocate General with * .V Sri. B. Veerappa -- Addl. Govt. Adv. for R.2 and R3 " " Sri. Arvind Kumar ~ Asst. Solicitor General -- for Rfi). This Writ Appeal is fiied under Sectic--n 4 if ~:'I-Iigli Cc>,uri..A§;ts« E' praying to set aside the 'orderdated'j;7'..8.'2,008',p..g'ssedf in} W.P.N0.21608/2005. W.A.NO.5053[2008 BETWEEN: M/s. Vir Sponge & Power Limi:red,'_ No.25/604, Oshiwara Lini<way,_7' ' Opp: VSNL Quarters, V Oshiwara MHADA, Anclheri (W), = Mumbai -- 400 053, _ Rep. by Proje_ct---~injcl9:laVr_ge'v __ . Sri. Tanay Ag;arwai".__ . .. APPELLANT (By Sri. L.iv:,__cn,;aali.ahaax,rv_a~.5"Adv. for Applt.) AND __ . V. M/i.S:.'<'Mif5PL 'l-Jfniteidi """ " it , ':*l.C. C_oiony,'Hospet, *District--:_ Bella ry, .Re_pr,esen"l:.ed b.iy-i'ts Executive 'Director Sri..'j_R.ahul N. Baidota, Aged aV__b'ou.t38 years, Beliary. The of Karnataka, , "Represented by its Secretary, -- _ Dep"artrnent of Commerce and 7.Ind'ustries (SSI, Mines & Textiles), é./ikasa Soudha, Bangalore. 3. The Director of Mines and Geology, Department of Mines and 12 Geology, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bangaiore-560 001. . Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, - Government of India, 1 Ministry of Coal & Mines, Department of Mines, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. . M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Lim'ited,.,V_ . M/s. Kaiyani Ste'cis:,,'Limited;. . Sri. M. SriniVVasLiiu,V"«. P.O. Toranagaliu, SandurzTaiuk.,*"" -A Bellary District, V --_ --. ' Karnataka, represented by its ' Managing Director. " . E-Iospet Road,'--.('3ir€i;jgv_e.ra-583 228, T . D Koppai Taiuk and' Di.i;*:ri,ct",..,'j'--.,_ " » Represented V 'a'=;t;sn Managirig Director. S/o. L'ate"Sri.' Veiikatasvyamy', _ Aged about 56 yea'rs,'-- R/o. No.1'6..8/C, 18?" Ward, 3'" Cross, Gan_dhina'gar', Bei_iary;'. ' '- ' i\ib'atA;ieer'r;A.._i§/iinerals, . L Ncmi 19.._ Ground. Fioor, . é."" 'B'"C,ro,ss,..'-_--=' '.20*" Main',1"rjaF",,'eIock, Kora m_ariga,ia, Bang.a|"o,re-560 095. M/.s. \/ibhuthigudda Mines Private i_td., '- _ A Company registered under the Companies Act', having its Office at No.50/356--A, ii-Iospet Road, Aiiipura, Bellary-04, --Represented by its Genera: Manager Sri. D.V. Mahesh Kumar, I 13 Aged: 36 years. .. REsP0§.io_EiyT~s (By Sri. Krishnan Venugopa|~Senior Advocate -- _\@\iitn--« " :_. Sri. M.M. Swamy -- Adv. for R.1. " Sri. Udaya Hoiia ~-- Advocate General ---- ._ Sri. B. Veerappa ~-- Addl. Govt. .Aa»v....for R.2 and j,R.3'; Sri. Arvind Kumar ~ Asst. Solicitor Gen-erei --'-'for R.5$)_ A' This Writ Appeal is filed under séctic}h._4 of tI'11eHvig"hvCyoLirtVAct praying to set aside the order dated 7.8'._20Q8..._ypa.ssed --.in W.P.N0.21608/2005. W.A.No.5064[ 2008 BETWEEN: Smt. P. Sarasa Bai_.* V . " W/o.Sri. R. chand'i'-a..;\ja:k,=:_ __ V House No.58/6.1,'-.Yoti;th._Vi-iostel P.oad_,» fa V Cantonment, 3eEIa'r"/rw"--V. ' i. APPKLLANT (By Sri. CAni'dva_nayndayy'a:¥..Adv. for Applt.) . , -, '. V: 1. M/s. MSPL 1_imit'ec2,V N.C.;_ Coiony, Hospet, Di-str'ict_:.._ Beiiary, ---------- V Represen'te_d"b.y its Executive :Di'rector4 Sri_.-Rahul N. Baidota, .AgediAabo'uVt -years, Beilary. 2. The_ State oiffxiarnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Depaitrnent of Commerce and Industries (551, Mines & Textiles), Vikasa Soudha, '._Bang'a|ore. 3.-T:'f"he Director of Mines and Geoiogy, Department of Mines and Geology, Khanija Bhavan, 15 Sri. M.M. Swamy - Adv. for R.1. Sri. Udaya Hoiia -- Advocate General -- with V Sri. B. Veerappa -- Addl. Govt. Adv. for R2 and Sri. Arvind Kumar -- Asst. Solicitor Generai -- for RA"). Miss S.R. Anuradha --- Adv. for R5, R.6 and " .;. Sri. K.N. Phanindra --- Adv. for Rf)', R.9 --- served) A' This Writ Appeal is filed under S_ec.t.io__n 4 ofV't'he--:i%iig;i'h'i C_oi.irt_Act.4 praying to set aside the order dated' ,.7"._8.2'OD._E_3'--_Vpassed 3 in W.P.No.21608/2005. W.A. No.5065[2008 BETWEEN: V M/s. Dinesh Mining Compan:y"~Pvt. No.2, Opp: Devappa Garden; * ' 1" Main, Ngasettihalli, -~ Bar19a|ore--56O 095,-. A Represented by its'i3.i_Vr'e_:ctoii. I 'V : Sri. M. Pooba|an.7__ _ A .. APPELLANT (By Sri. mi. (:i+iii'ciA;=;i;riai;'c'i;~a.yy:--i;¥~'Adv. for Applt.) 1. M/s._ MSPL isi'rni_tec',. N.C.2_ Colony, Hospet, Diistriict:-.._Beiiary, """ V Re_pr'esented'by its Executive Dire-ctor. SrE_. "Rahui N. Baidota, .Ag'edy aibo'ts.t_38A'V'ye'ars, Bellary. A 2.Th'e__Stat'e' 0iA'}Karnata1<a, Represented by its Secretary, Departrnent of Commerce and "Ir«id.L_istries (SS1, Mines & Textiies), _ \../i>i<a"sja Soudha, Bangaiore. V;i1'1e Director of Mines and Geologvi Department of Mines and Geoiogy, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Banga|ore~56O 001. A 'V ----Geo!o 17 Sri. B. Veerappa -- Addl. Govt. Adv. for R.2 and Sri. Arvind Kumar - Asst. Solicitor General -- foHr__R.4'n_2. V Miss Anuradha -- Adv. for R5, R.6 and R.8 ' " 1- " Sri. Phanindra -- Adv. for R7. R.9 -- served) This Writ Appeal is filed under Eiectioinici of theHigh'v..CoVLggrti'.Act'~.. the order '*.dat%ed'~' 7.8~..2CQ8 gpa'ssed.,. in praying to set aside W.P.No.21608/2005. W.A. N .5066 2008 BETWEEN: M/s. Deepshika Mining Cornpany .  " . Sri. M. Poobalian._("v ' (By Sri. L;M';"Ctiidanantiayyaif-Adv«."for Applt.) 1. M/s. MsP'L._Li"miteci,_ " N.C.. Colony; ijlospet, Dis_trict§;. Bei!ary,_ V R-e_pl:'esé[Anted by itsﬁxecutive V »¥)_irer:torSri."'Rahu| N. Baldota, .»Agec_i 'a.bo'lu_t'=3,8' years, Beilary. 2. T.h.e=State rnataka, Re-p_res_ented.l=by its Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industrlwes (SS1, Mines & Textiles), "'.'§:<asa Soudha, Bangalore. .The"Director of Mines and Geology, Department of Mines and Khanija Bhavan, Race rse Road, Bangalore-560 O01. APPELLANT 20 (By Sri. Udaya Holla -- Advocate General with _ Sri. B. Veerappa -- Addl. Govt. Adv. for R.1 aD_C5' R.2._'-. V Sri. Arvind Kumar - Asst. Solicitor Generai_.+__ for This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 Court'Act"'R_ praying to set aside the order .-dated' 18.2008', pasj;.ed, in; ' W.P.No.21608/2005. W.A. N0..5077[ 2008 BETWEEN: M/s. Umiya Holdings Pvt. i..td., 10756, 10"' Main, 5*" Cross--,._ HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, ' ' Banga|ore»56O 008, Karnataka State. _ . Now represented*"oy~G_F'A Hioider A ' Premanana Kama.th,5;j ' ., , Aged about 4:4. years'. S .. APPELLANT (By Sri. K."Shastiikirain?-;She't~ty"*--~ Ad'\}'."ior:App|t.) 1. M/s. MSPiIL_in1ited, _ A N.C. Colony, "E-iospet', Dist_irict:< Bellary; Represse-nterd by its'E'xecutive 'Di_rector Sri. Rahul N. Baidota, E .Aged_a'b,out,,438gyears. 2. 'Th.e*State l<arnataka, Re--p__resevnted.'.»'by its Secretary, Department of Mines, SSI and Textiies, Department of Commerce and Industries, "MI.S'. Building, !3anga£ore--S6O 001. the Director of Mines and Geology, Department of Mines and Geoiogy, Khanija Bhavan, _ Race Course Road, 21 Banga!ore--560 001. . Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Coal & Mines, Department of Mines, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. . M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steeis Limited, P.O. Toranagaiiu, SandurTaiuk, _ Bellary District, ' Karnataka, represented by its Managing Director. . M/s. Kaiyani Steeis Limvitedig Hospet Road, Ginigera-583 Koppal Taluk andyDistrict_,... V ._ Represented by its Managing' D;ii'e'CtQ;i'~..V_ . Sri. M. Sriniv.asuEiLi;. S/o. Late"S--ri. 'wen kazaswamsy, Aged iabout 56v'yeaVrs,.y " . _' R/0. N'o.1E=8/C, 18F"=War§3,'rr..__ " _ 3"' Cros's,VVG'andhi.nagar, Beilary. " M '_ I " . IVE/ysi. 'E\iadeem M.n,¢k:;s, Nee.-4'19f,-r Ground F|ooi"',"' 6.'? 'B' Cro::s,"2_O"' Main, . :5"'i3io'c«k,"Koramangala, yBangaEore:S60V'9~95. . Vit2h'Lrtit§.igodda Mines Private Ltd., A Company registered under the Companies Act, having its Office at No.60/356--A, "H¥os_pet Road, Aliipura, BeiIary--04, -- _ Represented by its General Manager 'I.Sr'i."D.V. Mahesh Kumar, Aged: 36 years. .. RESPONDENTS " V(By Sri. Krishnan Venugopal -- Senior Advocate -- with .4: 22 Sri. M.M. Swamy -- Adv. for R1. Sri. Udaya Holla -- Advocate General - with Sri. B. Veerappa ~-- Addl. Govt. Adv. for R.2 and R.3. _ _ .V Sri. Arvind Kumar -- Asst._ Solicitor General ~-- for R.4*)---- . S ,_ ' Miss S.R. Anuradha -- Adv. for R.5, R6 and R.8 Sri. K.N. Phanindra ~-- Adv. for 131.7) This Writ Appeai is fifed under s'éEtidn«4 or t.heG:Hiig_h,VC'ourt".Act7, A '.__dated.,--i'7.'8.2008 "p,a.<_;_sed_r in " praying to set aside the order W.P.No.21608/2005. W.A.No.5145[ 2008 BETWEEN: Sri. G. Maifikarjuna Babu, ~ S/0. Sri. G. Sanjeevalu, Aged about 40 years, R/0. N.M.D.C. Colony,"-_ _, J.P. Nagar, Hospiet-5f33_,20V1',, Beiiary District; (By Sri. }(.N._ Pna'rii.nd.ra:'~: A<1:v';'-f_or.A'pp!t.) 1. M/S, . MSPL l_"imEted.,5 N, Colony, Hospet, B-el|'ary---iDisvtrict, , 'Rep. by.,itsE';<_ecutive Director, =Sri'.i rzahu: N. Baldota, . Aged 'ab:'os,;t 3%,.-'ea rs. A 2. State of Karnataka, Rep. "by. its Secretary, . Mines,__S*SI & Textiles, " Department of Commerce & industries, v.Vik'asa Soudha, D'r."Ambedkar Veedhi, ;Banga!ore-560 001. 3. The Director of Mines 8: Geoiogy, Department of Mines and Geology, APPELLANT 23 Khanija Bhavan, 5"' Floor, Race Course Road, Bangaiore--560 001. 4. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, - Ministry of Coal and Mines, 1 Shastri Bhavan, " _ , ~ New Delhi - 110 001. _ .. RE;SPONDEiN"i"S (By Sri. Krishnan Venugopalﬁzsenior Ad~-v,ocate'.= with Sri. M. M Swamy - Advifor R.1 ' _ Sri. Udaya Holla wziﬁdvocaté'Genera|_with ' Sri. B. Veerappa '~--.,A'ddi. -Go\;t.,A':i_v'.,,,fcr R2 and R3 Sri. Arvind Kumar -' 'Asst; Sr3*|i;;:itors-(3enerai -- for R.4) This Writ Appeal is filed' *a;jde'ri..sect:¢n._gi,"=5i the High Court Act praying to set"'sa.s_i.de "the: ~o'rd'erA'-da.te_c,ij 7.8.2008 passed in w.P.No.215os/.2ao5;;jV__.; ~ W.A.No.5146*,f;t2GE'§_ BETWEEN: _ _A A M/s. Tata Mines, 8: i\'!.ineifa!.s,"' (A Regd. Parmership Firm.)," , No.1235/1, "Lai<s_hmi.Niiay.a",'" J.P. Ne.gar,»Hospet, 'D V' "Bella-ry':'Di:,5trict. A """ " 'V Rep. by its .Pa.rtr.a_er APPELLANT (BySr_i. K_.N. Pb'anindra -- Adv. for Appit.) - AND M/s"."_~MSPL Limited, ..i\i;':-'<';A Coiony, Hospet, i3e||ary District, ~~Rep. by its Executive Director, Sri. Rahui N. Baiciota, Aged about 37 years. " =' - 24 2.'"State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary, Mines, SSI & Textiles, Department of Commerce & industries, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-560 001. 3. The Director of Mines 8: Geoiogy, Department of Mines and Geology, Khanija Bhavan, 5"' Floor, Race Course Road, Bangalore-560 001. 4. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, ,_ ; Ministry of Coal and Minésii _ - Shastri Bhavan, = New Delhi ~-- 110.901. . - _ .. RESPONDENTS (By"S'ri.- Kr?-shnaiii "'Jemig*opa! Senior Advocate {with Sri'.'i~'€._..M"Swa.n'iy,;» Adv. for R1 Srifudaya 'i-.|,'o!!a =-.~_Ac.|__vocate General with Sri. B. yVeerapp'a-- -- Add'!«."Govt. Adv. for R.2 and R.3 Sri."A_rvind Kumark: Asst. Soiicitor General -- for R.-4) ,,._%.T'hisi'.Writ Appeal is :'.'iied under Section 4 of the High Court Act ;_'A'xV"--prayiing* :_tr.) set asici'e'"the order dated 7.8.2008 passed in W.'P.._No.216Q3/20,05. A w._A!.: N91 .'.=:Q " 5 329.03 A BE'i'WEE!__!i':' -« 'i<.R. Krishna Gowda, ' '*5/'o.' Range Gowda, 'Aged about 55 years, _ K"a.da'b'aha||i, Mandya District. Nagamangala Taiuk, APPELLANT 25 (By Sri. K. Shashkiran Shetty -- Adv. for Appit.) AND 1. " ox . Union of India, .-it The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Mines, SS1 and Textiicas, Department of Commerce and IndUSt:lTieS;:'..( A. 3 MS. Buiiding, Banga|ore~560 001. . The Director of Mines and Geology, Department of__MEnes and Geology, Khanija Bhavan,'~~._ ' ' Race Course Road, Bangalore-560 001. Rep resented bw_,.f'--its"S'e3cretafrfy. Governmentr..of"-India, " .' Ministry' of Cyoa-I & Mfi§:'ies','--., Department oi'7Min,es«, Si'1aSt.Ifi _ ' Bhavan, New 'DeEi1.i,v..,' M V' . M/s. }inda"isVija,yanag4ar Steels Ltd., P.O, .Toranagai_iLz,w Sandor Taluk, Beétiary District, Karnatalza, Represented, by its' iViar1'agEng Director. . M'/"s Steeis Ltd., Hcspet fRoad,'G5~nigera 583 228, " §<o'ppa| Ta-iL:1<,& District, Re_presentei:i by its Managing Director . Sri. |Vi._,NSrinivasaiu, " S/.0. Late Sri Venkataswamy, .Agé_d about 56 years, R'/'o'. No.168/C, 18"' Ward, 3"" Cross, Gandhinagar, BeIIary--4. M/s. Nadeem Minerals, 27 AND 1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Mines, SSI and Textiiesp - y . Department of Commerce and Indus::ries,_ ' " Vikas Soudha, Bangaiore--560 001. 2. The Commissioner of Mines 8: Ge'o,io'gy, Department of Mines 8: Geology, Khanija Bhavan, _ Race Course Road, ' B.g._,ngaiore--560 001. 3. Union of India, _ _ , V' Represented by its Secreta ry, ~ Govt. of India,-. if ~. W _V _ . Ministry of'Co¢:i=&'Ii?i'ines,'---.).,,,, A Department..of»~M:ines, «- Shastri' Bhavar-5"}, A R' New ;'._)eihi._ ' 4. M/s. Kaiyani Steeis i._imi't*e.c_:,"~. Hospet Roayd} _ A . I Ginigera -- 583 228., . Koppal Taluq 8: District, Re__prese,nted by its" iiiii pM_ariag'ii1g Director. A irli/sdvindaviivV'ija.y:anagar Steels Ltd., "To'i*anga|iL",jP.G., Sandur Taluq, i3e|__|a ry . Dﬁstfiict, Represented by its Managing Director. .. RESPONDENTS "(By Sri. Udaya Hoiia - Adv.General with ' Sri. B. Veerappa - Addi. Govt. Adv. - for Respts. 1 and 2 Sri. Arvind Kumar -- Asst. Soiicitor Generai - for R.3 Miss S.R. Anuradha - Adv. for R.4 and R.5) "x 28 This Writ Appeai is filed under Section 4 of the High ___Court Act praying for issue of mandamus, order or direction to "the 15' respondent to grant mining lease to the appeilant company; and'-ietc. W.A.NQ.5085( 2008 BETWEEN: M/s, Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., 1 By its Managing Director, Behinhalli Village, P.O. Hitnal-583 234, ' _ . -V Koppal Taluk and District. .. ._ "=A_F'-PELLANT (By Sri. Jagdish Patil --~ Adv; for Ap.p'it.)A AND 1. The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretairi/, 2: A ' Departmentofv.Mines-;_ SS1' 8: T_exti_i'e£-I. v Department of_.Comrn'erce'=8g'-.Industrie,s,'= M.S. Building,Bara;gga|oi'e4'56C G91. 2. The Direi."to'r of Mi.nes.fand"Geol'ogy, Departmem; of Mines and Geology, Khan.i_ia Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bangaioire-S60 'G{i_1. V 3'. Llynso.-i c$f.i1.zdi'a.,_ Rep. _b'y._it's Seycreta ry, Csovern-nflent ofalridia, 'Ministry of-Coal and Mines, De-partmentyof Mines, Shastrivﬁhavan, New oeihi. .. RESPONDENTS ('By Miss S.R. Anuradha -- Adv. for R.6. " Sri. Udaya Hoila -- Adv. General with Sri. B. Veerappa ---- Addl. Govt. Adv. - for R.1 and 12.2 Sri. Arvind Kumar - Asst. Solicitor Genera! - for R.3 Sri. Krishnan Venugopai --~ Senior Advocate with Sri. M.M. Swamy -- Adv. for R.4) 29 This Writ Appeai is filed under Section 4 of Act praying to set aside directions contained in the order§'dateci~~?.E-3;;2._0{)_8 passed in W.P.No.21608/2005; and etc. " " A. V W.A.Ng.888[2009 - BETWEEN: M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons, A Registered Partnership Firm, "Prashanti Nivas', Krishnanagar, _ Sandur -- 583 119, Beiiary District,«"' v Rep. by its Partner Mr. Visiiwéiks Lad. , APPELLANT (By Sri. K.N.Phanindra - Ady_.f;'or.,AppVit.») h' A A AND 1. M/S. MSPLiLim.it'ed, , " N.R. Coionyv,.,H0s1p_.et, Beiiari/"i3"istriéi;. 'ii: Rep. by its E'x'ei:utiv'e.yDireCtQr,_ _' Sri. Rahui N. 'Baiticit-a, " Aged about 37 yea'rs,.< 2. State of Kar'natak'a,.'-- Reps. byits Secretary, " _ Mines, .551 »& Textii'e'S,"" " 1 'Department bf Commerce 8: Industries, vvikas Spyudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, A .Es~ajrigaiore:,56oV-9-01. A 3. Dir_ect0r}oAf Mines & Geoiogy, Department of Mines and Geoiogy, Khani}aV__Bhavan, 5"' Floor, "Race Course Road, i!3_arigaiore----56O 001. The Union of India, ~7Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Coai and Mines, Shastri Bhavan, 30 New Deihi -- 110 001. .. REsPo{saoVf.«:i;|4*i's (By Sri. Udaya Holla -- Advocate General with_.fW"*» in 3 Sri. B. Veerappa - Addl. Govt. Adv. for R.2 --and R3 Sri. Arvind Kumar - Asst. Solicitor Genera!»,--_T'o,r R..4)._ Tnis Writ Appeai is filed under Section 4 of the i.¥_.':|i'g--ij1v..VVCfoiJhrtV'Vi°\ct praying to set aside the order 'vdatie'd'~'i7.8._200.8 «p»a"ssedf: in W.P.NO.2l608/2005. . V' ' W.A.No.6087[2009 BETWEEN: Sri. Iqbal Baig, S/o. Sri. Usman Baig, Aged about 34 years, . R/0. No.71?'/2, 1;9'"\A[ard, Mehboob Nagar, '-Hos'pet;_, ~ Bellary District. 4' APPELLANT (By Sri. K.'N'.Pha:rﬁ,ndraf1-1+"Adv,.&"for Ap"pit.') 1. M/s. MsPi...§.inn.ited,_ " N.R.. Colony', Ijiospet, Bei_§!'aryi'District," , V _ Rap; izgy, its. Executiv'e"'Director, , 'Sari. Ranui .N}zBaEdota, Aged 'a.:;ciat"ir3,7 years. 2. State of Kat-_"Iataka, Rep. by its Secretary, Mines,"SSI & Textiles, Department of Commerce & Industries, " 'a'i3~;as Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, xE_5an_ga|ore-560 001. A "fhe Director of Mines & Geoiogy, Department of Mines and Geology, Khanija Bhavan, 5"' Floor, - Race Course Road, 31 Bangaiore-560 001. 4. Union of India, W.A.No.6086 200; Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Coai and Mines, Shastri Bhavan, New Deihi -- 110 001. (By Sri. Udaya Hoila -- Advocate Generai witinﬁ ' Sri. B. Veerappa -- Addi."C_§o-wt. Adv.» for RS2 ,and.'R..3,, Sri. Arvind Kumar -- Asst. Soliicitor General. fo'r.»R.4) This Writ Appeal Esvfiied under Section 4 oftrie Hiigh Court Act praying to set aside the] order, cfated"._7.8.2008 passed in W.P.N0.21608/2005. * V BETWEEN: Sri. E-LG. Ranga'ng:ou1§..,,y S/o. i_ate~'H.'R.*-Gyaiyiappﬁn Aged about 65. yea.rs,.,V Nehru Court Officer-op"e..rat.iye=Co':ony, Hospet, Beiiary District.--.. < " (By Sri..-K. Shashi_kiranFSh'etty"E? Adv. for Applt.) V. "A.ND~->,,.,\'~ A. H ..... .. V =54'/sw. _ Mvs:§L.:;ir;"1ited, . i\.'5'._C. Colony, .IF1c.~s'pet, " ~"Vikas Soudha, Beiiiary District, Rep. by its Executive Director, Sri. Rahu!.N~; Baldota, Aged. about 38 years. E V' A'Thce_.State of Ka rnataka, * _ Rep.}by its Secretary, '¥.Dep'artment of Commerce & Industries, ESSI, Mines & Textiles) Bangaiore. gijwl 'j§;';.., 0 . APPSLIJLRT 32 .The Director of Mines 8: Geology, Department of Mines and Geology, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bangalore--S6O O01. . Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Coal and Mines, Department of Mines, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi ---- 3.10 001. P.O. Toranagaliu_,'VSandu,r'Ta'iuk, ' Bellary District,'i{arrn'ataLt_a,g ' Representedby Ma nag?ng~ _Directer G . M/s. Kalyani'V.Steeis i_irr:i'tedx,"~VG.' .. it Hospet 'P;oa:.--d, 'Ginige;ra--S'83"--228,' Koppail Taluk 'and ,DistrEct, _' Represvented i::y_itsjrMarieargVi'ng Director. . Sri. M. Srimyawlu", _ S/o.' Late Srli'. \[enka'tas'wan'i.y, Aged about 56 ye-_ars, V R;!io."'No---468/C, 18""'i:'u'a'rd, 3"' Cross, 'Gandhinagar,,.l3eiiary. A .V|\'i,/'s. .Min'erals, No."43.9, Gro'un'tl Floor, 6"'-QB' (r_.'.ros_s,§2'20"' Main, 6"' Biock, Koramangala, Bangal.o__re~S60 095. M_/sfvibhutigudda Mines Private Ltd., T.A"Company registered under the Companies Act, having its Office at V»-No.60/3S6~A, Hospet Road, Aliipura, BeEiary--O4, represented by its General Manager Sri. D.V. . M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar SteeGis._rLirn_it€§d, 33 Mahesh Kumar, Aged: 36 years. .. REsPoN.oei,i_Ts_ (By Sri. Udaya Hoila ---- Advocate Generai «_ Sri. B. Veerappa «-- Addl. Govt. Adv. for R2 and FL3 " . Sri. Arvind Kumar -- Asst. Solicitor Genera.!..:--__'r'or P..,v4)._ " This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 {if the ,l_-uIi'g.|:]v,VV(v:'i,r_V)'i_V1Vr|;V'V,'!\g_-1; praying to set aside the order "'=date'dr~'C7.8._20O.8 'p.a'"ss.ed]: in W.P.No.21608/2005. . " ' W.A.No.6012[ 2009 Kundil Ispat Limited, _ A Pubiic Limited Company, Registered under the Indian ' ' Companies Act, 1956, Represented by its _Dir,ector" S.C. Baruah, ' 2: Having its Regi.stereci;jQ{_fice'at 2 Gogolvoril moi? Kh,andep'a.r,, , Opp. Hindustara..Fo-51:11.5, Usga--on',T ~ Ponda--Go'a "i3'ir=.. .CEjede-4i1340'Z?, Having its Plant Office at: " . _' Londa Belgaum.' ' l .. APPELLANT (By Sri. 1..M."ciqida}ne}.de'y.ya Qpidv. for Applt.) AND" it M/_?:§. Mséi. Limited, rN C"o.l,ony','iiljiospet, .oistri'ct-: f~e,eiiaj'ry.,~' P.epresentad_ by its Executive Di';-'ecto_r~Sriv Rahul N. Baldota, Aged about 38 years, Beliary. . 'The, State of Karnataka, _ Represented by its Secretary, ''.Department of Commerce & iindustries (SSI;?~M§_es & A -Textiles), Vikasa Soudha, Bangaiore. 34 . The Director of Mines and Geoiogy, Department of Mines and Geology, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bangalore. . Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Government of India, _, _ Ministry of Coal & Mines, 7 Department of Mines, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. . M/s. Sindai Vijayanagar Steels Limited, _ P.O. Toranagaliu, Sa%ndur.Taiuk,,,.------ _ " Bellary District, v _ 'V Karnataka, Represented by its Managing Director. D . M/s. Kaiyani'isteeiié,,Limited,A"'Vi-A ~- it Hospetvm:sad,,t;inig'éi;-a----5'e3228, " KoppaiiTa|u_i< and p . _' District, re'presentedi.by'-its'-.__ " _ Managin'guD'irect'or. ' ' . Sri. M.,,sranivas_uIu,..'.'-- S/o._%_ Late Sri. Venkataswamy, Aged'ai3outi»i.56 years, "" R,/_o. No. 1,68/c,.. 18"' Ward, V 3"' Cross,'G,a'ndh-E.nagar, .Beii_aFY'A'v . MA/'s..__ Nad>ee.rr§~i'ii/iinerais, No.419," Ground Fioor, 6"' 'B"'Cross, 20"' Main, 6'i"i.BIock, Koramangala, Bangaiore~S60 095. . 'M/s. Vibhutigudcia Mines Private i.td., A company registered under the Companies Act, having its Office at No.60/3S6-A, 35 Hospet Road, Allipura, Bellary ---- O4, represented By its General Manager Sri. D.V. Mahesh Kumar, Aged: 36 years. .. RESP(jNi1§E.N*§S (By Sri. Basavaraj Kareddy ~-- Govt. Adv. for R.2 and R3) C ' This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 o'f"t'he--:'if::g'h' cour:_A'c't_ praying to set aside the order dated' . 7'«._8.2'O-0.__8'-ggpyassed Y in;__ W.P.N0.21608/2005. These writ appeals having-..__been7._heard a.and'v:rveser:§ved .for judgment, coming on for pronouncement vofVj,udgrn'ent""this day, Hon'ble the Chief Justice pronouncedithe followinggéi " TheAao:we_::"oatc.h""of writ appeals are directed against the order 'dated made in writ petition |\fo.21608 of 2005," raising 'the"fo|lo'wing core issues for our consideration: .o(i)--v._VWheth_er it is proper for this Court to exercise it plovyer ofjudicial review under Article 226 of v_ - ~t:h4eAConstitution of India to adjudicate on the policy decision with respect to substantial C development of the State and quash the notification made under Rule 59(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'MC g V 36 Rules') notifying the area available for iron ore? (ii) Whether the applicationkfor lease for an area, without a'_:dnoti'fi_cat'io»ri J Rule 59(1) of the MC Rultesfiéso notifyivng said area as avai|_a'e.l.e for V:ni§.nin;3:; Be i considered for grantikoif mining ._Vt|ea:seV';under Section 11(2)~,_offthe{iii-1iV'nie_s anld" Minerals (Development 1957, (for short .'--MMDl?;"'Act') V"as»,_ :'.va'oplication is aha 'tieventertained as per P;uVIe:,.E.u"'o'f5the"--!$§-C"'R.:,iv'les;f_1960 :2 and (iii) iiii lease in consideration of Rules falls outside the pauVr\/_i'ew.of t'he"rriatters specified under Section Llx'-11(3) of"t'hevMMDR Act? _ A K!) s P F TH s '.""2.1";ﬁT'ri'e factual matrix of the case which led the first '«V"ﬂVrVespondeVnt herein (writ petitioner) to file Writ Petition No.21608 is as hereunder: 37 2.2. The first respondent herein (writ petitioner), is a public limited company, registered under the 1956. It has industries in mining, power generation conventional energy sources and,"i"nd'ustri'a| gases. ,"--:1=t alsoi'. it proposes to set up an iron and steei.ple_nAt'. it application on 24*" May, Direictor ahci Geology for grant of miriing le,aseV:..o;f-- ore'o'v=er-'an extent of 298.5 hectares, in Eddinpada', as Kumaraswamy Ra nge Fo rest, Sand ur sa:if'd"e$<*teiit o'f"'ia'n'd viz., 298.5 hectares was previously held' lease by M/s. Sandur Manganese and Eron (V)xre,%LtdV'[here:iriia'Fter referred to as 'SMIORE'] since ._.'l95Qg_'é.nd__fthereafter,stirrendered to the State. -V2.4..."AsV*per--.Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules, no area, which was previously' h'e--ld,',1=or which is being held under a reconnaissance [permit .,o'"r',aV prospecting licence or a mining lease, shall be A {ax/aiil'a.;l;>|e for grant, unless- 38 (i) an entry to that effect is made in the Register under Rule 7D(2), 21(2) and 40(2) of tjhefi/.iC,,,' Rules, and " (ii) the availability of th_e..,,a_rea _--'f'¢5r".:ig:fa'i1tV".is 2" notified in the officiail gazetéte, asl'-pr'oVvid_ec.i,e.' under Rule 59(1) ofthe MC._Ru--i.es. 2 2 " M 2.5. However, Rule e.n":powers S Central Government to relax the" pxrovisi'o'nsVe_:cfxRu_|e 5§}(1') for reasons to be recorded in writing, in 2.6. The,Sta«te'iGovernrhen't.,é:'th_ere_foTre, by its letter dated 30"' Aug'ust,"2.:(.}iT€)»1'..;;,(:2fi feceipt request made by the first respondent ..hereiVn':"":(W2I*il:.4.:lV22'i'3l§t~itioneF) dated 24"' May 2001, requested the~VCe:itral G-Qvernment to relax the conditions set out «in .':E9.:(1). of the 'Rules in favour of the first respondent herein "peti-tionéeri,"exercising the powers under Rule 59(2) of the R'ule5«.A l * 2 2;"/v"'.":. When the said recommendation was under ":2_cons2i"deration of the Central Government, one Zia Ulla Shariff, was also an applicant for grant of mining lease over a part ulélxof the same area, he. 298.5 hectares, in Kid a raswa my Range 39 Forest in Sandur Taiuk, filed W.P. I\£o.3S91S of 2001. ibiefoite this Court, seeking for a declaration that he is enti_t.!-aid"for.j',:'g..ra:1.t'of mining lease in his favour. In the said writ Petition ,i§io.3591s'oi=,""*--.. 2001, Zia Ulla Shariff impleaded the-.firs_trespicniderit 'h'ejre_ine-writ petitioner) as well as the UnionV0f.._VIndia'~as' respo:n'd.ein.tVsV.V V 2.8. However, the Centrvatg"(3overnrnent,--V-ibyfletter dated 21*" December 2001, ret:u~.;rned_«"Va'l'l. progposalsiiipevnding before it, including the application'i~tE_led"l5v the"iiiji_*st'_'..respondent herein (writ petitioner;',to_,ti--1e ﬁtate-iCoV'e:rnnw»e.llfftor resubmitting them after undertiaékirr-gv_,,aV.'i€1e.g'io.f,ia'l"'Enviironinent Impact Assessment based on the2ca'rrying.:ca.p'a--cEty of the region and the likely impact of par.ticL.ilar mVi'n_ing:."i'ease on the area. On 13A'tV""i'r-*i--a--\,i,' 2002, SMIORE filed a revision petition .V,be~fVo"re _ti'1¢'~C,ein:t'r'al Government under Rule 54 of the MC Rules cha.llénging'.v'ther:'proposal of the State Government dated 303' _ ',August,. it '~ Whiie the said revision petition was pending, SMIORE filed writ petition No.22767 of 2002 before this court idseeking a mandamus to the Central Government to consider its 40 revision petition. But the Central Government rejei:.te':l the revision petition filed by SMIORE on 29"' J_t:-!3v,"'i2Vf1'§i3',*',._ai1d therefore, the writ petition No.2276_7,,o_f 2oo2ii*ri--ieje,b«; s,M:_oRiE was also dismissecgon 4"' February, ?,OOg4'a.s' inifructiﬁious;-sc.,,. 2.3.1. In the meanwhile,_:the issued notification on 15"' March, 2Q9§,g'vwh.igeh .i's"'im,pu.gned in the present writ petition,"notify_iitg Riareas available for grant of miningieaseiofl'ironV_:oi§e_Vti.n.derV"'itu|e 59(1) of the MC Rules, the Vtolalbove viz., an extent of 298.5 hecta_re~sE"irt:;,,:A_Edd_ijno:a'da,_,::,l(urnaraswamy Range Forest, Sandur i'i7alul<;, '' 2_.3.2.'l"Th'e_fi-rst*--._lrespondent herein (writ petitioner), "'~t_here_i'ore,_:appliedxfovr----mining lease of the said area, viz. 298.5 ,'Ed:di~npada, Kumaraswamy Range Forest, Sandur Taitii§','i«Be.l|.arv..i)i§trict, of course, registering its objection for 'w.i'nciud'iri.gt'the said area in the Notification dated 15"' March, A the State Government had already recommended to "ithle Central Govegfrnment to relax the procedure contemplated 41 under Rule 59(1), by exercising the power under of the MC Rules. 2.13. Rule 26 of the MC___R.u_|_es 11reg0i}es"i'0th'e,V state"- Government to give an opportunityiof hieardjllanldwitog record the reasons in writing andV'V_cornmu'n.icate' tlfieAVv{sa..me:'3 refusing to grant or renew whole or part of the area applied"'<-iéti'r,A Director of Mines and Geology, by,proceed--in.gsa 2003, gave an opportunity Qf'__.'l1e:ard:i_t_oV théelfilrlsvti"respondent herein (writ petitioner) MC Rules. The first responde,nt*herein'lftvjrita.vpe.t_iti'oner) appeared before the Director of Mines ahagCeeiegy.,_on.:f15'=*' August, 2003 and also made a .,.,.Adetailed'vvrepresentation'. dated 16*" August, 2003 staking its ":_claimV. 2 A' Ijnlthe said representation dated 16"' August, 12003," '.ch'e,fi.rst respondent herein (writ petitioner) represented V' V' (i) it has forty years of experience in exploration of mining and marketing of minerals, viz. iron ore; 42 (ii) it is interested in banking, industrial gases, power generation, industrial financing, etc, is successfully running these businesses'*with"p_ vast investible resources; (iii) it contributes more than__Rs,3OO _-i'ak'h*ip_e.rV"ye'ar to the State Exchequer by waiygoff Rox/a,l't'y;" (iv) it earned foreign e>rcha.ngeV"to_ the V) 35 million in the year'V'2Q(Ci»3; V S V' (V) it has safe practices; and is the winner of numerous the State Goverriirnent and'Cehtra'l.:'G.overn.n9ient; (vai) it _ernp'loyees and advisors in ex_ploratior:.airidimining operation; and (vii) it requires the irhpugned mine for their captive 1 .__,(V'c9nsu'Erup?.:£o;vz for the steel plant which it iisproposes to set up. the first respondent herein (writ petitioner) igsatisties thaehrhatters specified under Section 11(3) of the MMDR "(Actiiv_iz.,Nspecia| knowledge, financial resources, technically -.l,'_-qu-allifiled staff etc., and Section 11(5) empowers the State Gox/errimerit, for any special reasons to be recorded, to grant 43 reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to an applicant whose application wasfreceived later in preference to an applicant whose appi'4i'caVtio'n"'«-iyas received earlier, of course, with the prior approvallofjgtohe Centrai. Government, in respect of the mines"speycifiedgiiri the Schedule, the first respondent hereiri2(w'ifiVt pet»itvi_one.r)'. r'eAe'u.eVsteVd the State Government to exercise-igthey.power under Section 11(5) of the MMD3 Acti"to=Sgi-aVn't_the "l'l'il'i'iil'igV: lease in its favour for the reasons stated, al5e.v7e," State Govern'ment't_'he Director to hear the applicants as requiredxistnderfl of the MC Rules; and thus the .-v.."Directt3_rvV'of 'lViinesV.a__nd, Geology, by proceedings dated 18"' A"x_VNov'er_ni:e'_r,«.,2.ti(3v3_, required the first respondent herein (writ p'etixtioneVr)'%.i;j0. "ahpspear and represent in person regarding its --Vapplicatidnfforffmining lease of the area applied for. "-11.16. While 50, the writ petition filed by Zia Ulla Shariff, \ No.35915 of 2001, in which the first respondent herein /.. z;'::i?:_'-i f. \ t{,_...,,_ 44 (writ petitioner) was also a party respondent, was disvposed of by order dated 29"' March, 2004 as hereunder: "9. In View of the subsequent notification. issuéed by State Government dated 15.3.2003'not.ifying=.tha.t' f 'area is available for grant', the Si';a_te'-Governmerit is htqizy " éﬁ; expected not only to consider, the A'applicationsQpendlhg before it and also the applications that ('may be ﬁled pursuant to the aforesaid no'tltic_ai;'on"notwithstanding the earlier recommendation' made th'e;'se:cu--nd respondent." 2.17. Pursuant_ to tih'é"se}id 'o.-ije_r_ dat.-,§d,,'--29'" March, 2004 in writ petition,.N'o';v3_S§:I_S of:,:2__C.)i0.,1, t'he',»first"respondent herein (writ petitione'r)Ww'asiifagait};'(directed t'o"apVpear before the Director on 315' Mai/,'.,2'0.04 and:..t~h,e'vfirs-tjibrespondent herein (writ petitioner) thus appeared on.,3,15E=,i\bila~*/bib 2004 before the Director and ﬁled «.aAnothjt--:~r re:presentati'o--n--«dated 315' May, 2004, similar to the one bl'-:da.teTci" v16'i,,'Azig[§st,., 2003. it there were more than one applications for the T"-.l.._'s,ame a're_a~, an opportunity was given to all the applicants to 'repres'ent before the Hon'b|e Chief Minister on 12"' October, 45 2.18.2. The first reppondent herein (writ petitioner) appeared before the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 12"' O_c;to_:be'r~,._2004 and made a representation dated 12"' October, to the reasons stated in the earlierreprese--i"1tavt.i'o*ns"clated__li6"l' August, 2003 and 31" May, 2004 :;;_tal<_iAng3itscltailrn'over =2,f}3.5"n~-- hectares in Eddinpada, Kum.3'ra.swan4§=,r,_'RangeV":M'F,ore'st,Sand:u;r Taluk, Bellary District applied forlvmining pf iron ore, claiming that--- A . it i (E) it is willing Ito»ﬁnal<*e,g;r§ore,,."'i'n'vestments in Ka rri'ata§,:a'V S.t:ate?vdesp'ite fa"v'--ourab|e conditions lTa:fnil,Vn:a.du,.;.Mavha_rash'tra, Orfssa and Andhra _(_ii__) it hm; developed" the best iron ore mine in the State b"y«d._e.p!oying the best practice; V * "{i,ii")~v.,_'th,e=pre-sources available in the existing area V'<«:'"oul'AC-Vlnot support its future investment plan in 'tE~':e' State; it * it proposes to invest Rs.1000 Crore in a one million MT spe"'cia|ty steel plant in the State; (v) it also proposes to invest a five million MT integrated steel plant in the State over a span ..........46
of five years for Rs.10,000 Crore and th'e.,Vsaid.,_ project could be undertaken only if assured by granting of mining lease -- it
(vi) it proposes to invest "':CroreVf--o,r conventional energ'y'«-..genera.tion ii*f¥jtvhe..,_,,ne.Xt three yea rs;
(vii) it proposes --i_Vnves,t Crore for generating of 160 power in the next_si.>:<A' m_ont;_hs;yi '
(viii) ore from the mining 'a.p°p,li'ed"'--for'the"'~p--roposed steel plant as captive'foon$uri1pt'ion, which would result in " value 'addIti,on:_'in__':ti:é State; and _§;i><),.,its case,' therefore would be considered under "vsections "1"1'(3) and 11(5) of the MMDR Act the mining lease for the special '' ' iufeasonis mentioned above.
'Vin continuation of the said hearings and in "..jcorn'ip-!.i.anc'e of Rule 26(1) of the MC Rules, the Government, by '-«i.'-'proceedings dated 6" December,2004, impugned herein, after "'«.:eVx"amining the merits oiﬁall the applicants in accordance with .-/ 47 Section 11 of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC _R'U.IE«S_.'~found two appiicants, viz. the appeiiants herein in the writ petition) i.e. M/s. Jindai;,Vij_ayanag'a"r.::Ste'e!s"Lim:ited:"'~ (JSVL) and M/s. Kalyani Steeis Linwvittedgftoi'iéliif-i--fO'D.rfi:s'te for grant of mining iease oveVrV_'a-n_are'a-of 2Q0'."7'3.j._'he.cHta'res 179.70 hectares respectiveiy years and requested the approval Voftfae under Section 5(1) of the MMDR.Act. i 2 V' V 3.2. The §c.a:Vrde&;::fr'i't."ate'tJ 6::Fh.:V:DQ#F§:¥'Ti'b'émm20O4 reads hereunder: " v .5 _ It7'§.'fVGo:VE}§rJMEzii*r'oF KARNA TAKA No."C.'I/1.11/MMM,'.20.04 Karnataka Government Secretariat V. i ' ' M.S. Building Bangalore, dt.6. 12.2004 .. _ A ' V. ., isecretarif-to Government T " { Mines,.. SS1 'Sf Textiles) ._ Co'mn:=erce_'a-2nd Industries Department A V 'Banga'iore.# 560 001
-«-r-
rot' A' ' ._The Secretary to Government of India . _ Ministry of Coal and Mines ' 'Departments of Mines Shastri Bha van New Defhi Sir, 48 Sub: Mining lease applications filed by M/s. 0 0 Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Limited and _ '~ M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited in Kumaraj' » swamy range of Sandur Taluk of .
Bellary District.
With reference to the abot-'e"'sub_1'ect, I am'-directed to state that in Notiﬁcation No;.CI 1.60 h.=MM f'2,oa3'--.-med... f 15.3.2003, certain "held/surrené!ered"" areas '(in wh_ich_ sufﬂcient ore reserves are _availa'blej~ werenotitied i'or'< information of mining-interested public that th_e~--.sarne were available for grant of mining lease under: Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules,"-196.0. In response to this notification, 11.1 applicationsa-.were received in respect of Si. No.1 ofiiihe 'said .notification. All the ap'plications..f--were, "examined in accordance with Se-c;11 of-7 Mines & Minerals (Development_ 8: Regulatio-n)f,Act,,1957, and Rule 35 of Mineral-Concessions R:I,les,'=,1960. All other aspects of scrutiny 'i'ﬁ<e_.arrears of royalty, _ietc., if any, limitation of areab'tiiat,'c;an b7i:<'lea'sed- to ariapplicant were also looked into. _ The..'vHon«?ble..,nCh__ief Minister, who is also in charge Minister '-for, Mines heard the applicants under 'Rule»._2é3('1)"-of*Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 "cni2,5.1o.2~004._.and 4.11.2004. A copy of the entire proceedings 'of the hearing taken by the , ..il-lon~'ble Chief Minister is enclosed for reference. if Based on the above hearing and after examination ~ "of"o.the.l'*provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and .R*e,gu.la'tion) Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, "'1960,'thj_e.lollowing two applications are found to be most __approp.ri3te: -
" ._(__t) M/s. Jindal Vijiayanagar Steels Limited --- for grant of mining lease over an area of 200.73 hectares of iron ore; and (2) M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited -- over an area of 179. 70 hectares.
49 (*Application for mining lease is filed in thevna'me~._ of M/s. Kalyani Ferrous Industries Limited. In tlleir letter " dated 28.5.2004, they have intimated that_.§_the Court, Mumbai, vide order dated 15.1.2004,~-_has« permitted Kalyani Ferrous Industries Limited merge V 0 with M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited----.witn effect frorin 5.2.2004. Hence, mining lease recom_mended"in'favourgof, M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited. A "copy or' the High Court_ order is also enclosed) Both these compan'ies'=have their own steel plants and at the time of'-setting up._their% steel plants, the Government haiimadea-a commitment of giving mining leasesfto ;meet their "requirements of raw material i.e. iron_7ore,_7' ,Copies"of"the orders are also enclosed for readygreference. * " * . The! application fee' and ' p"re.lirninary charges of Rs.3,50_0--.V00 (l?s._l,00,0_+* Rs. .2500) have been credited to Governrnen.t"a,ccoun.t both,the=_applicants. The applied area for mining falls under 'forest area. The' -i:3ppiica'nt"'-companies have to submit Mining, Plan ~dzily~,,approved by Indian Bureau of Mines, Conse.nt'»of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, clearan_cev..._ from Karnataka Forest Department' ia'nd'- Environmental Certificate from ..«Ministry ofmﬁnvironment and Forests, Government
-- of India, 0'*»,_l'The..,_following documents are enclosed for sanction of niining lease in favour of two applications as above. ' ( 0 Mining lease applications dated 16.4.2003 . (ii) Income tax clearance certificate " (iii) Sketch showing the area recommended. In view of the above, it is requested to obtain and communicate the approval of Government of India as per Sec.5(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 for the grant of mining leases in favour of M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Limited for over an area of < I 50
200. 73 hectares and M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited' (M/s. Kalyani Ferrous Industries Limited) for over an area of 179.70 hectares in Kumaraswanjryﬂange _.__ of Sandur Taluk of Bellary District for a period.pf'20 _ " years each respectively as per the sketch_e'n.close~cl. Yours faithl'u.lly"._ -I' (K:l\i.' ..rishna_ lirlurthygl 0 0' 2 _. Addl. Secretaryto Governm--ent_.( Mines) Department of Commerce al.*d_ln'dustri'es" 3.3. The details ofzV:."cor§.sid;erat'ioniilangd evaluation of the inter se merits of the appiicatior1'sirna*de.' the first respondent herein (writ peti.riori-er) herein(respon'dents No.4 and 5 ;:e_ti_ti0.n),-._<'uhjderSlection 11 of the MMRD Act and Ruie 3V57.o'f_the' .VECxiF!.lL1!.e:s;l-- asfwleighed in the proceedings dated 655 Deciernber, hereunder:
"No.'CJ_. 1 11 . ' ' The 'Sandur "Manganese and Iron Ore Limited, fCC~'.andurevg held "avumining lease over an extent of 29.20 _ ""Sq.'Miles for Manganese and Iron ore for a period of 20 _ ..yea.rs~f'mVmv 01.01.1954. At the time of renewal in the yea.r"«._19721,V_,.~the lease was renewed for only 18.20
-- '-sq.m'iles--,._ "the balance of area being mostly Iron ore was A delevtedifor reservation for Public sector mining in terms "of Government of India letter No.7(57):73.M. VI dated 19.311973. Out of 18.20 Sq.Miles, an area of 770.00 . hectares was left with M/s. the Sandur Manganese and V "Iron Ore Limited and the balance of area was taken over
-by the Government. Some individuals and Companies were applying for grant of mining lease in the surrendered area. The State Government also sent recommendations to Government of India for grant of Mining lease by relaxation of Rule 59(1) of MCR, 1960 as /" \§ 52 Minister of Karnataka on 12"' October, 2004 at 4.00 pim. to make presentation for sanction of mining lease in. tr'a.eir_V favour. Due to unavoidable circumstances the hea.'*ing could not be held on that day and was adjourned*to,V'~1 ;_ October 2004. Again on 16"', the proposed hearing.co'ul'o' _ " not be held due to unforeseen circumstances.'-.fThe applicants were again issued notice. to appear: 'before' the Hon 'bie Chief Minister on 25*" October,' 2004 at 4,00. p_.m.' Again a hearing notice was issuedor; 29.10._2004"ito"'i(_' such of those applicants who1__did not attend the; ' hearing on 25"' October,'i20__O4 toattend hthhegh-earin%g on 4.11.2004 at 11.30 '.--a_.i.'n. The Honvfblev Chief Minister heard the applicants_ who" attendegl the hearing in person.
On 12.10.2004, the h--eai?in.g was adjourned. Out of 111 applicants, 85 applicants' atten.dedj~the hearing and 75 applicants gave,tiieirfwritten representations. On 16.10.2004,'a_tiie hearing wasjagaine' adjourned, 72 applicants attended, '9 ap_olicants'"submitted their written' representations... The hearing was held on 25.10.2004, 76 ' applicants attended and 27 applicants sdbm-itted'«their---written representations.
A 1 Out ' applications, 55 are companies/firms a'nd_;3O are individuals. out of 1 11 applications, _ 5-11'. have given more than one _,application-- in the name of their sister V-€on2_panies/parhmer firms etc. All applications were examined under Section 11(5) of MM(D&R) Act, " =19547*y_vith ---a View to provide an opportunity to all the. applicants who have filed their applications on . "'subse:§juei:t days, i.e. after 16.4.2003. The specified =._in Section 11( 3) for grant of mining lease are:-- "(a)i- any special knowledge of, or experience in reconnaissance operations, prospecting operations, mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant;
(b) The financial resources of the applicant; 53 (C) the nature and quality of the technicalvstaff'-V. employed or to be employed by the applicant.' . V '2.
(d) the investment which the applicant proposed V' make in the mines and in the industry.Vbas'ed onthe minerals. f i ' . =
(e) such other matters as may be prescvribied. The Particulars/details of the applicants :is"furnishe§d below: .
Name ofthe «. L --
Sl.No individuals/~._ E _ . " ~ "~,Details COmpanl'eS/Fl'fll'1s_~ ' V " "
:Individuals: * _ .
Si'-?rl7Smt."' - ,5 .. xxx xxx xxx 1 -18 xx'x3'5jxMx__>gxx; .. "
19 .... 'Zla"Uil.3__5hariff:V"
~ I local supply.
._ Thefapplicant does not have a
-, mining lease in Karnataka. The ' .applicant proposed to invest R's;1~.'.'r.00 lakhs. The applicant desires to export the ore for 20*. y to 30. yr xxx xxx xxx. 4' xxx xxx xxx
8. trout the 30 individuals who have for mining lease only 3 applicants hold 3 "minjn'g_"'iwlease in the state. The remaining 27 Vh'i.--..applic_ant.~:;"do not hold any mining lease. The '-~.._det_ails_Afurnished by the applicants in their written submission and oral submissions have been V " considered. Some of the individuals are local " people and have past experience in mining. some of them are qualified engineers. They requested for consideration of their application for grant of mining lease. Most applicants have» indicated that 54 they would be exporting are or would be supplying it to the local market. None of them have iirdicatedi _.__ is any proposals for the value addition to.'__theA..ore; L Even applicants who are already holding"lea.'seV'haVVe also indicated that they would be_exportin_g'--the f or would be supplying the ore:to"--the local mairket.' these Therefore, applicants do. j n.otVr..._'v«-merit consideration for grant of mining lease-.i ' "L
9. A total--.._n}:mher.V- of " 'companies/firms have applied for mining lease. _.The."i?5ér%uiars/details E _ west mining of the company,./__firms:- " ' V.
M/s.'"South-
Limited .i'-M/s. Euro Ikons Iron and Steels (P) Ltd.
M/s. Vijaya-
nagar Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
N _ Si.No Vin'divid:ial.s/"v.' .. A " Details """ -- ..Cs9mpa;f;j.g=s)'Firms "
69 V 29.-x_»xx.x>x;xx ._ xxx xxx xxx 70' TV ' M/s.Jinda--.' They do not hold any mining Vijayanagar'Steel leases in Karnataka. They 'Limited'.' ' have established a steel plant in Toranagallu and have invested about Rs. 7000 crores already. The Company has requested mining lease for its captive consumption. The JVSL has filed in all four applications for this area. Three of the applications were filed prior to the issue of notiﬁcation and one application after the issue of the notiﬁcation. A separate application in the name of M/s. Euro Ikons Iron and Steels (P) Ltd. has been filed for this area. M/s. Vijayanagar Minerals Pvt. Ltd. is a joint 55 venture company with Ni/.S§'».7VSL and M/s. MML. The MiViL._holds a lease over an extenty' »of"-8117,50 hectares.
compan y is mining ._thisfareat ' 71 M/S. MSPL Ltd.
: " hectares
-.recommended to Government of ._ ' Kumaraswamy
- Company has earned foreign The" company .;h_olds imining lease cover an, "extent gel' 722.34 '--hectares_ in its" mma and in._the name- of Ramgghadh ' , .,l|iFines and M.inera'ls"Pvt". Ltd} which is its Vhsister, concern.
,M/_s.__L'.=R_, Industriesfis also a sister concern of M/s. MSPL Ltd.
3 They company has been awarded . 'ISO 90_0i.andt'w_:I4001 certiﬁcates 'for; scievntii'ic' 'mining done by them--..._ Ville Government letter No.._CI.1's.~~ww'* MMM.04 dated '-"..'»3.,2004 an area of 218.20 has been India in favour of M/s. MSPL in Range.
exchange of more than USD 70 million during 2003-04. The company has been awarded 'State award for excellence in exports' by the Government of Karnataka and 'Indira Priyadarshini Vrikshamitra award' for exemplary work in the ﬁeld of afforestation and waste land development by the Government of India in September 2004. The compan y gr"-gggsgs to establish 1 million MT speciality steel plant immediately in the state with an investment of Rs.1000 The = ijoint ffseC£'or , 56 The compan_y'«._.»aiso Cl''Oi''€'. ' V i>_r922§eg in vestm'en'i*- '01' five years in a'F5' million MT Government M is ~.i'ett'e.r No. CI. 5'9,AMii_%lM; " .2801». '~.__da.,t,e0" 30.8."-[;?0(}_1 " an "area off2«98;--5 hectares in Swanéimaiai range,"
"wasl.recomm_ended in favour of M/s.. MSPL l_td.._in relaxation of .i'Rule.j'59'(z_) of MCR 1960 and a ; pr;opo'sa'i was sent to >Governrr;en.t " -. of India ._ =.i§ccordingly;~..j --.
Rs. 10000 crores. {in 'the-.. next' integrated steeipiairt. «. Videv.
72. M/s.. : Kalyani Rérrogis 'Industries' This--.Compa'ny do not have a mining lease in Karnataka.
They propose to invest Rs.5'_75 crores. The application A A * .subnriitted for grant of mining lease is in the name of M/s.
-- Kaiyani Ferrous Industries Ltd.
_ The company has subsequently merged with M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited. The company is already having a steel plant in Glnigera, Koppal Taluk and District. The Company has already invested about Rs.600 crores and put up a 3.5 iakh tones steel plant at Ginigera. The company proposes to commission and MW power plant at Ginigera with investment of Rs. 35 crores. The company proposes to commission a Coke Oven Plant which is under construction at Dharwad with an investment of Rs.-45 crores. The company proposes to increase the l 'T Sandur '0-Taluk, '.Bel'lar'y....l3istrict'». 58 lease. But these applicants have not yet established their units for value addition. Some of the compariieys have already established their units in the State have requested for sanction of mining lease forjusfngthef ;__ ore for captive purpose for value addition to the__orej.f.'l'he " interest of such companies; »~wh4o ha've"se..alrea,d'y established their units linked =_to theselanchorunitsx:T f and are in need of raw materialu.fo'r_their u_sé,=needsp b' to be considered. also helps' T;ne..;""§tate Government to earn more Krevenyue there is} value addition to the oré.'~.._'The"emp--loyn1ent opportunities will be increased knot' - V byte employment offered by ,_the companies, also" by way of indirect "employment.i~': "fa'"ciiities:f' caused by establishing pkpaucuan un_its'.'V ' who are willing to invest huge 'amountin 'inAir:.ing.cVindustry have also indicated that they require the mines for export and for supplying it to local market;..._.Some of the companies have already A bestalalishtedv their units in Karnataka by investing huge if - Vamount. %VfA.t}~present they are depending upon local '"market'j_fdr their raw materials i.e. iron-ore. They behave reouested that since they have invested huge amount and established their units in the state, "they be given preference over others for allotment lb of mining leases. Since the request of such of the companies is for captive consumption and for value addition, they deserve consideration over others.
12. 59 In Karnataka, the following industries established steel plantsh (1) (2) they 'last four' years.
'v...installed capacity of the plant, about 2.8 XXX XXX XXX M/s. Jindal Vijayanapar*Steels They have estab'l_ish:ed.. an » . _ integra 1; ' steel plant at Toraﬂ_a§§llu 3t_"-Tcost 'of; ' about Rs.70.5)6..O0 crores anda .p_ow_er and oxygengplant at --.a cost of Rs.2000.00 crores. It is a -public limited company in wh.ich. the Government of Karnatalta holds Rs.50,00 crores as equity. While apgprovingi the project of M/s. JVS'L,'- Governme_n't-have committed to allot""iro*n "ore mines within the . "reserves of_yaboutv1'~Q0 million tones per a;nnum.X The ptlanti isunder production For the toiitlmillion tone-svof iron ore per annum " required. _ --
halve also commissioned the beneficiation plant to treat low grade high alumina iron ore fines. In view of ' this the larger quantum of ore is required for the sustainable working of the plant for another 50 years. They are
-planning to invest around Rs.100.00 °'-.f:'rores for systematic and scientific '>mmmg M/s. Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Limited has entered into a joint venture with Mysore Minerals Limited, a Government of Karnataka undertaking. The joint venture company M/s. Vijayanagar Minerals Limited is mining over an area of 87.50 hectares. ..
(3) ' producing' 'pig_ iron.
60 Ferrous Kalyani Kalyani M/s.
M/s.
Limited:-
M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited.
iron and special» steel manufacturing unit at Ginigera, Koppel Dist." _ They'are,__ T The 'insltailetl -.
capacity of the plant is'0.4 million tones? manufacturing pig g iron."
per annum 'ancl._have' plans to enhanlce this to abou"t«_'G..5 million» tones per annum. They'-ha---s;_e invested Eabout Rs.55(!-29.0 crores ._for"'the plant and the annual ----.. turn '_ over " about Rs. 700. 00 crores. The plant _ was 'commissioned during H_1_9'98 qand ""atV'~~;jresent, it is ~ for the captive cpnsumptiori, they'-need» about 1 million teenne"of_iron oare_jper,annum. They have _.-"plans .toCinvest about Rs.10.00 crores for system'atic__andgscientific mining. ~ Atlpreseiat, they do not have any ' HoweveR;._ "M/s.
miningv lease in the State for iron ore. Kalyani Ferrous l _ Industries' Limited has been given a raising contract by M/s Mysore Minerals 'Limiter! (a Government of Karnataka Undertaking) over an extent of 80 ha for a period of 20 years commencing from 21999 in Subbarayanahalli area for the fvrinining of iron ore.
M/s. Euro Ikons and Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd:~ This company is a sister-concern of M/s. Jindal The company has already commissioned a blast Vij'ayanagar- Steel Limited.
furnace at Torangailu with a capacity of 9 iakh tones per annum. They have already in vested about Rs.230 Crores in the plant. Indus.t_ries~._ emf!-=rr0='S ..
Industries Limited has merged"~wj;'--th x-._'l'l:e --
company has established anintegrated _ é
13. | i Hi 61 At present, they do not mining lease in the State for iron ore.'*-- . .. _._ (5) Rule XXX XXX XXX 35 of Mineral Cc«'ncess'ion provides for preferential ri'_t;.lo7ts1'_l°or':certairi _person's...7i.A The Rule states as folioyys:-- V "Where two or*;_nore persons have applied for. reconnaissance permit or a prospecting" licence .or<..a.n1ining lease in respect of Jsamje la'no}.V "the State Government "shall, .=?or«"'thel..'._l3urposes of subsection "{2}: of $e.ction..1I£, consider, besides "the «matters V. Vnientioned in ...c'lau'ses (3) to (d) of sub section 3 of V section--w._11;--.itfthé' .end7--use of the mineral by the applicant. o"" ' desirableuto allot the mining areas to A 'applicants. vvhoi'<-have already established their uplantsii' State by investing huge 1 amounts; The Ore requirement for production steel is about 1.6 tones of iron ore.
of the provisions of Rule 35 of the it -lffinleral Concession Rules, .1960, and taking ' into consideration all the documentary evidence submitted by the applicants, their representations during the oral hearing, their existing investments and their proposed investments, mining lease under "Section 62 11(5) of the MM (D&R) Act, 1957, in raven.-Qr-.§r~V_v the following applicants is recommenegiecifj. __ is ' (1) Part A of Sketch measuring .
of 200. 73 hectares infaikour pi: .; _ « ' ' ,-.1i.H.§!.«?£.!£ﬁ€!K€££!§9§.li;§t§€29£.!=.t£€-,'V511 " ' (2) Part B of Sketeh..n1easurlh£'r_Ven':extent of 179.70, lieptaresiiln ra«-my of " ' ,.I...t¢.=.'-
" _ "-(N».._l§.1HARAM SINGH) ' V . Chief Minister -------- it {emphasis supplied}
.I;.;I;;£.1.;1§HALii;;ieN§r iesairui 'THE _w_RI1' PETITION _4._Aggri'e\ied..byhi:he"':notification dated 15"' March, 2903 'Si'and"theLipro-eeedings""'dated 6"' December, 2004 referred to respondent herein (writ petitioner) fiied W.P. No'.'2_;tV€308V.0ii:_0{::)5 seeking:
1. (i)* ii a writ of certiorari to quash the communication No.C.I/111/MMM/2094 dated 6"' December, 2004 issued by the State Government in so far as it recommends the grant of)/ﬂqjining lease to
(ii) 63 appeliants herein (Respondents No.4 and 5 in the writ petition);
Issue a Writ, Order or Direction.§'_:"toC.'_'the. Respondent No.1 to grant mining_lVea_"se. forthe T' area mentioned in :Se'ria-cl. l\io.1.f'of' th Notification No.CI.16 M'MM1'_"2t003',._ dated 15"' March, .20-O__3 to'th_e" first ,i'*e'suponcie_nt " herein (writ petition'e'tr):."'t.o theV'*e_>:<tentr hectares as ,.-soughti-'--*b§/',_'*--tlie__ first' 'respondent herein (writ?Vpetitiori_er)u'kin No.99"/f AML 2AQQv3;.,ancl ' ,:"its application in,..tir1,,e €§ilite._i*native.,._:Vdirect Vtlraeiliiespondent Union _of1it'iridi.a7.to'«..:co,nsider and dispose of the petitionerfs._repreSe'ntations dated 16"' August, 2003' and A3_1s"=...'i?lay, 2004 before passing any i l' orde'r-on Vtheiproposai of the State of Karnataka . contained in its communication No.CI/111/ ""v.,,:"i~ti'»1is_/i/;é,004 dated 6th December, 2004. M Hgkgm [W311 P§T1TIQN§R) A' According to the first respondent herein (writ petitioner)- the area applied for by the first respondent herein (writ petitioner) in application No.96/2001 ought not to have been included in ,--~.;"---., _ lfxlgestl lVliif;irng"--.l:?.'--..Ltd ._l_td,., Eu-fro Ikon Iron and Steel (P) 64 the notification dated 15"' March, 2003 State Government itself had recommen'd'ed,'_~the. said area to the Central Governrnentitoirevvlafr T' the procedure contempiat'ed----und'er by exercising their power u:;Tcle--r Re.Lie'~ the MC Rules;
the impugned procee.cl_i.ngs." 6"' December, is_'co'ntr'a:,r_y.v..t'o.the directions of this Court in4'W_.;P. dated 29"' March' 2004," -- :":whe,reun.derT' the State <3o:+ljeﬁ~;a;:r;.§;:~::l1»«;a;:, efxplecteldl ltowconsider only the .a*'ppa_e$;a,£i'¢5iis, Zia -tuna Shariff, South "'--~Vi*'ayanagar Minerals (P) ., -~~._;
_L"td_., ' 'pr:ese"r*.«t"' petitioner and any other a"pplicati(-->ns'--._filed pursuant to the Notification V datet:l"'15l'__'f'___March 2003, but not that of the first respondent herein (writ petitioner) who applied issuance of the notification dated 15"' fvariééerféh, 2003;
as per Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act, where the State Government has not notified the area for grant, and two or more persons have the whose applied for grant, applicant application was received earlier, shall have the /,...u V
vi) 66 such applications have been received on fine same day, in the light of the matters under Section 11(3) of the MMDR-7l\Qct;"'V«'ti'ae applications filed prior to .ofl»V"' notification under Section 1'('~l)y_ read' Rule 59(1) of the MC Rules o;(£ght.'_An'oVt considered, as they'4-are premature"a..rid.__shall d not be entertained as,_per_ RuVle..€'{(}--of MC the State Governr_ne'ntl'lto~,appreciate the meryitsrdof the _:resp.oride;nt herein (writ p.e2ti'tionfer)_ »vv«hi'teV c_onjsideri'nc] the matters ss»r§ie.'<?i'hf'ié1&i1ri,;\in'd.ér._"séc't~ion511(3) of the MMDR "cl_adusexV'(d.')4V'.of éection 11(3) of the MMDR Act enab!e_s"to take into account the investment ' which theappiicant proposes to make and not "v..:"iinvest_ment already made by the applicant; "éV"_a--nd~,.th.erefore the State Government ought not ' ' to?' have taken into consideration the investment already made$ by the appellants herein (respondents 4 and 5 in the writ the recommendation dated 6"' December, 2004; petition) while making impugned
vii) 67 the matters referred to under Section MMDR Act for evaluating preferential consideration would .p_rev;aiiif_iov'erf' -- Rule 35 of MC Rules anci"'th-e.refo4re,_,.th'e',_State. Government erred in app|yi:n'gA.'Ru'ie_ of :l"2--C"<1" Rules for giving pr'ef,erenc'e_to the=ap.pelAlani;s"'l herein (respondent's*vm«t,V:Vé'<il. and "writ petition) as 3.-gainst,,t--he,.'first»..respo'nde(nt.V'herein (writ petition'e.r:)', _ Awthiluaag' passearjgl the impugned proceedings date'd..,6'h__VDecemhbelr, .2004 ; as_sé,l.*ni:;1i1rmg'_,thwe;t Ruble "of"l'~'lC Rules is also appl_lca,b.|Ve",'---- th'e'TjgS"tat,e '(Government failed to rapply itsigmin-dig that 'thennining of iron ore and
-_exportingV'the'-.sa~me to gain foreign exchange, '' .__b4eing' a_'sta'nd%-a_l'on'e industry by itself, satisfies the ("ends-.us'e_' tlieory contemplated under Rule 35 of"-lV.lC_____Ru|es and therefore, the impugned .A_p,r"oceedings dated 6"' December, 2004 suffers or ,:,:"'*«..,bfi'orn,:n~on~application of mind; ' ' similarly, assuming that the application filed by the first respondent herein (writ petitioner) prior to the notification issued under Rule 59(1) of MC Rules could also be considered, the State Government ought to have given preference to the first respondent herein (writ and is « 68 petitioner) in View of the merits submitte~d_(:'by'~._Vv the first respondent herein (writ peti_t;i'onerj}.'._ir1' 16"' ' _' 315* May, 2004 and 12'?-tﬁctobeifi 2oy0'é;'(\.&h:t¢h1 '' satisfy the requirements, ccg'ntter'mAplated' Section 11(3) of the.4_MME5R._l'°ict, and7preferré;d."'1 V its representations dated the first Respondent,'Therein '(wr'i1t_"'pet'itioner) under Section. 11(Sp).--of"the--.MME§R' -Act the said merits Vasu:'sp'e'cia?.j_>'reas't;.a1:s~,l__and failure to prefer' the herein (writ petitioner.) viitiatesithye"'~:iin_pug'heVd proceedings begr, ;
and '--._recommending the appellants ._h-ereinc*1-(Resp'ond--.ents 4 and 5 in the Writ _petition_)A' Central Government for 'g'"ran'ting}_mi-niﬁgff lease, by proceedings dated V 6"' De-cevmbyer, 2004 is in gross violation of ;"".f:.S_'i'ctvion 11(3) of the MMDR Act as the first VV"1-.._y%.rtespor.adent herein (writ petitioner) possess 'sipeéial knowledge of, experience in mining operation and financial resources and also if employed fully qualified technical staff and propose to invest in the industry based on ..',,z ,,,,, "V_W\ .2 tr .... . .. .
minerals.
UV) (V) 70 the appellants recommended (respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petiftio'n-.)V'_~f:or7 grant of mining lease, by proceedingHs"'-ziated. V6" 0' December, 2004.
the State Government hasiiérightiv con's:}.;.jer.ed appiication fiied first" appe3f'ifa_nt;._;'herein (respondent No.4 in petition), aﬁpplied prior to the A:n.otifiﬁat'i_on:__dated 15th "xMarch, 2003; and G' the pr'ocj_e:e-dines €d'atedi..A'6;"i_'-.December, 2004 is only fa..__pAro:i_osa{_V--.an-doltlirnately, the decision of __t_he"e.,uC:en'tra| either to accept or V1, cm 93 T.§NT1'OVhAl§u"QVF"7fﬁ" QENIRAL §gv§Ri_gM§N1' LN .
reje'ctIjt_.,he recommendation is final. WE rr ggurlgu _i§'3iccvor(:ff§n"g«t.Q...t|'ie Centrai Government, it has examined ":__theV"p.roposais_Sof__the State Government on merits and found th'at\;~--.; "
the State Government has selected the appiicants, in terms of Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Ruie 35 of the MC )/ /m\= ~.
Rules;
71
(ii) the State Government has righ:tlv:'f«..f_f'~~--V considered all the applications rec'eivedV---.1: prior to the date of notification_d_at'e.d i March,2003 issued u:nd"er»Rul~'e the MC Rules; and i F'
(iii) the Central Government has_ prior approval to tjhe-,:pro,posa|'received in favour fi'rst_ 'a_p.pe-!.|.ant Hffheyrein (respondent l'sj'o.«--='ii~--if1 ::the':writLV'petition) on 27f"'J_une,"'2U'G?S:: of second (_rés_pon'de'nt No.5 in the vie"-'it,«ziiétitio'h§.'jvveo"n'--.Sthdone, 2006 and the """ . of t'hVe'=f:efnt'ra!»-Government has not V .EV>Ve"'e.n=-ichallengeci' by the first respondent " he rein =j(Av.r rit---..petiti one r). vu. lfcrgtsitgnitxgi N§ QF mg APP§LLANT§_ RE NDENT"$""4'AND 5 IN 1':-cg wan 9E11'r1gN) V "-.fFi:e"iva:'ppe||ants herein (respondents No.4 and 5 in the writ 'jcoeihtended that:
ti.) the writ petition is not maintainable in view of if efficacious alternate remedy of filing revision petition under Section 30 of the MMDR Act read with Rule 54 of the MC Rules;
74
(ix) viewed from any angle, the appellants (respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petifci'o'n.),,'_~a._fe7 more deserving, meritorious than""-t:hef_t~fiVrsl%' respondent herein (writpetitiognerél impugned mining lease.
VIII. Issues Dg ALT BY Tu, EARNED ,§it1_li_\l;gg;:.la=,.;1;gu§i'gs.io 9.1. In the light of the ,a__l_3uove'wrival..claimAs;,.ithe learned single Judge framed '-.,fo,l'lovvinvg::"questions for his consideration: V V i
(i) Whethe.'f,__ can consider an applicat:ion_,,Vg wlhiic-h"éia.s:'"notfiled in response to the Ivnotifiloa'ti*on,_'i'ssu'ed""u_nde_I' Rule 59 of the M C Rules, inVrespe'ct"o'fV~.l_an--d:"n.oVtified as available for grant of minding vlease?AI_ it ' iwheither th'e""State Government acted legally and :"fid_e while considering the applications for "gra_nt 'ofivmpugned mining lease?
The learned Single Judge, by his order dated 7"' Atlegust, 2008 held the first question in negative, in favour of the Lllfirst respondent herein (writ petitioner) and against the 75 appellants herein (respondents No.4 and 5), and with .,re:fe.rence to the second question, it is held that the Gove_rn.m'e:nVt.1',:faliledto act legally and bona fide in considering the a_-p'p'|'ica,tio'ns for gra'r'it_V' of impugned mining lease and "~:,acco1-ding»!y,'~ llquash-ed'ii.c_:theit impugned proceedings dated 65 "ﬁe-cem'b.e'r, 20t3'§l', 9.3. That apart, the |earned:'Sln'g--»!.e 3udg'e-.also§ framed yet another se|f--posed question,--vii,___§f} 4. it 9
(iii) Whet.h;e:r---.theftnot'i?icaVti~on.._dated 15"' March, 20903,, iﬁ:_ot.ifyin:g_'_.th.e a'r€5jas all/llailable for mining lle.g.3Vsé,V;§i,s opp«ose_d. interest, viz. the V wealth, protected by the V,provisionsjwo'f'--~Eor-est (Conservation) Act, 1980 'and Rules ﬁ~'a:me'd thereunder?
The |earn'ed'VSing|e Judge, by order dated 7"' August ,.4an:sw..ering the said question related to the public interest referhred to above, held that the issuance of the ".notificativon, dated 15"' March, 2003 itself is contrary to the public ":i'rateVre's_t viz., the conservation of forest wealth. 9.5. The learned single Judge also held that the permission ,'for grant of mining lease by the Central Government under 76 Section 2 of the FC Act is definitely neither an answefnor a substitute for the requirement of the State protect and conserve the forest wealigh... 9.6. Accordingly, the |earned:".Sili*:gie in dated 7th August, 2008 issued theenifoinlowivng. d'irec'tioenseV:"' "(a) The State Gove"rnmentl'should always rnal<e'"a clear distinction between --foi--'esi:-. Va rea 'non-forest area while granting "?.in.ing«.lease-s; '
(b) The_ 3-.,VState (3eo.ver.nment=. should always show awareneesshto*--the'*éXisti.og~ forest whether declared as reseryed otherwise and if there is an existing 'ft§i*est»,in'i'.3nVy'---- area, the first and the foremost effort shouldv.be_etoconserve the forest;
c) Jf the'"area has already been declared as reserved l igforest areafiteshould normally be retained without n disturbed and only if the State Government is A fully vs;ait'isﬁed that there is inevitable need justifying ,.de¥reservation and to permit a non--forest activity, that should be examined keeping in view the nature of non--forest activity proposed to be carried out in the forest area, the impact and consequence of such non--forest activity in the forest area, the extent of actual forest being damaged or destroyed, as to the duration over which such forest has developed in the (0') ( e) 77 area, whether the forest is in a unique and endangered biosphere, whether there is an imminent. need to conserve such forest, if it is a unique t;/pe--of_ forest or an endangered type of biosphere_._= Mining activity being, undisputedly, veryhvdelfetenous activity for preserving and conse-rving forest,=. mining, f activity should be totally avoidedlin forest areas: Conserving forest canhhvalso» achieve object of conserving the,» _mineral" embedded iri-.the'§ earth beneath the forest,"growth;_ano"itnot as though the mineral is lost and'7therefore Government to bestow-.atte-:ntion'*:to.::this,__aspe3ct of conserving mineral a§lEs'o._. . ' The Sytatc-'=.Govelnment should make a very scientiﬁc and yco'nscio,us Vevaluation of the consequences of losing 'vprecioAu.s forest as to whether it is so very G V or .immin'en_tV and inevitable for exploiting the mineral for ;,,,''''being usedumin the production of the mineral for purpose and development and such related ,§sp__e'c:t_"s'V.should always be examined and only if it is that the benefits of exploiting mineral far "outweigh the losses due to the destruction of forest and there is imminent need for the mineral, then alone, the State Government should think of notifying even a forest area owned by the state Government as one available for lease to carry out mining operations in the area.
( 9) (17) 78 Mining operation being undisputedly capable_:"-of-._ causing immense pollution, ecological imbalan--ce;a_nd' _._ A' the .-State to even environmentally disastrous, Government should always .un,derta._l¢e" a" -iscientiﬁc study of ways and means to; avoid such possibiliwes.' ,_ T The mineral if can be obtained.by--non mining »activity~ " or can be obtained by ari~y other meansb..tha:t'vshQ:.i~ld be explored and not to resort to miri-ingioperagtion in forest areas.
As there is an imminent"n:eed._bto.x_'conserve existing forest, ,'_3tat_e Government-is-dire-cted* to put an hold on alifgmining activities in forestareas, undertake a scienti_fic, study4'"o'f.tAVeff,.:,Cts=._ and consequences of
--. contin,ued*3minin.g' in 'suchforest areas, the impact of mlning'v.'vga.gtivity'«.._on__ the entire forest, need for xﬁconserving» 'forest__bgrowth, need for protecting forest growth, and if theI."'forest growth comprises of any h ' _endan'gered flora or fauna or comprises of a rare 1,'-sbiotspherewithvkinds of flora and fauna found only 'the.._a'iv'e_a, the impact of mining on such flora and if only after such an evaluation and on being v.satiisfied that all precautions are followed, permit a .non~forest activity on the land.
All the mining leases granted during the pendency of the above writ petition before this Court and under the notification dated 15.3.2003 (Annexure--B to the writ petition) being leases granted during the / ""."/w:.-
.r ' ) n (J) 79 pendency of the writ petition and as it is dispute that the State Government has not _._ he awareness to the need or necessity tolheconserve -- ' forest in the notified areas,__, .par_ticula'rly" largﬁ tracts of forest coming under_«tjl7e'._ ca,tegoryv._gof reserved forest, these leases.__cannot be-,,sustained*--., and are quashed hereby." by issue. of, a{_wru.it.. or Certiorari.
In respect of Va-llﬁotheir min.ing'».le'ases not covered under the notiﬁcation but in forest areas, reservedforest or'«.no_n--reserved forest, the State 1: is be regeuired be t'o"follow the above directions and till"aj.scien:£iﬂc=_'evaluation is made and ..th.eA e"'~imnii:r;Aent --»._'ne_ed' =~.Fo,r_.5e carrying out mining operatio.ns,_in,the_efores_t area is established and only ex'-if it is eshtabiished_:e'that-~ it is inevitable for carrying on the._4 mining operations even at the cost of losing ' ' _forest,'= then alone, leases can be permitted to work, ;,.\---otherwise,' 'th'e"State Government is directed to take s'teps'fo_r cancellation of such leases by following the be "-fmr¢c¢au.+e envisaged under the Act and the Rules in terms of the conditions stipulated for resumption of the lease under the mining lease itself. The State Government should always bear in mind that the larger public interest will overweigh the smaller individual or personal interest or business interest of the lessees who would have taken mining '' <;:*~ '-
'- . .~' ' . ,5 Q; _ (U 80 leases of the areas for commercial production and from the business angle and the prospects""of existing lessees incurring losses or losing cannot come in the way of State Gofve'rnme.nt :_. pursuing rightful action for protecting v forest ' wealth, for conserving and ~re.t_ainirig endangered species of flora and fauna=.,_and.eiren, to, retain-sc,__a biosphere of unique nature".de'veloped,_"_~_in' "natu're"~_ a' developed in nature Vo.vér..v_millions of, years"vvhi'ch once interfered or destroyed will belost to mankind for ever.
The State Governm-e_nt'."is ibherebyf directed not to ernbark. on grangtingb any mining leases in forest areas as a. i*natter._of.rule1:and _only asan; exception, forest areas"bmayV"be '.-notified for grant of mining leases, vhf'-afterfully the imminent and inevitable nee_d"for e'/.ploiti'ng_"..the mineral and if it is found such ' ' _explol'ta,tion' isiin the national interest for making 2,;-savailable 'm'in'eral which otherwise cannot be o.bta_ined for the nation building activities including A de,fen:ce,~i"research or other scientiﬁc activities. 1 'rm "l'i7é7State and the Central Governments may also " _ consider the possibilities of nationalization of mining industry so that the private profit motive does not come in the way of protecting environment, conserving forests and to avoid ecological disasters, so that the Government once becomes aware that 81 the mining operations are deleterious to this cause, it can without any hassle, straightaway stop activities. "
9.7. The learned Single Judge, thus, by__ August, 2008:
(i) held that the State,.Go_vern'm_ent oug'htiV..not to.' have considered the a'v;5p.lications" are not filed in res@gné¢~~..,,to the dated 15"' March, 2003 issueci Rule of the MC Rulesﬂ,"
(iij'v..,qu'ashedl'the:'ln.otifi:c'a.tion dated 15"' March, 2003 as' well,» as of the State Government it dated tS*'"V--.lt)ecen1ber, 2004 on the ground that the _,':AGA.ov.ernrhent failed to act legally and bona fide. '' . H further held that mining activity should be tot_al|y Uavoided. forest land and directed the State Government to it "..fp=.iAt 'a'n._hold on all mining activities in the forest land. 9.9. The learned single Judge also held that all the mining Ldleases granted during the pendency of the writ petition, pursuant 9;' /V -- --
82 to the notification dated 15"' March, 2003 could not be sustained, and therefore directed the State Governm'e..nt-_to_V_take steps for cancellation of all other mining lease_s:Wno'ti_'V-~:::o\.'e_red under the notification dated 15"' March, 2003» the forest area -- (reserved or non-Freservevdjgloéyl 'foll'o'wai_ng,the '' procedure under the Act; and .not__ to elrnlpark ongranétilngifrniyriinigh. leases in the forest land as a of"ru|ei'and:'gonly as an exception, forest land be granting the mining lease. 'V dated 7"? State Government and Central Governmentxgto v.cor1s4ider~.:t'he possibility of nationalizing the ,_mining.,.industries,'"s0..Fhet, private profit motive would not come "rain the_,way'of«pr0tecting environment. 'i0.1. The order and directions of the learned single 3udge T --«'.,V"da'ted 7"' August, 2008, therefore, stirredwthe entire mining K"/M,--/7;N"\= I , 83 industry, as, not only the mining leases recommendeclin favour of the appellants herein (respondents 4 and 5 ~i_'r"'r«i:.the'*.V'writ petition) and all the mining leases granted notification dated 15"' March, 2003,;»bLI.t_alsii"the:niin'i'ng;|ea_se's1 granted in the forest land before":.«the_'iiissiitance"of :'ti_'i=..e'''?1.,i;:aid ' notification were all directed tcfbex canceiled._ ...t!*-re order of the learned Single Judge date_d__VVV":/'»"i'__Au_»gust} gave way for filing of above batch of w'ri'r:7a.ppeai;s.:v '4 10.2. i-lear::i:«"i~4..r. 'ieia.rne'di$enior Counsel for the appel|an.tsi*--here'ijn' S in the writ petition), Mr. Krishnan"-._Veno'gopa:'i'*,i.t<:iSe4n'ior"' counsel for the first respondent herein Udaya Holla, learned Advocate .-vi.'_Gener5al the.Stat.e__._3°.d Mr. Aravind Kumar, learned Assistant Soli'citor..Qene.rai for the Central Government. '.'--'\J'g_!ei1'Vaiso heard Mrs. Nalini Chidambararn, learned Usenior counsel and other learned counsel for the appellants in if '{_trhe'liot«her connected appeals supporting the contentions of o;L.N. Rao.
84 11.1. All the learned senior counsel appearivn.g:'-«._fo~rVv the appellants as well as the respondents argued reasons and findings of the learned Single Judge"'iii'_':qu'asi'iiVng. notification dated 15"' March, 2003 and iss.ui'rig"directions to the State Government to cance_I'a_ll the-.rniniVngflea.s*esVthat granted in the forest lands, whether pursuantltlo or before the issuance of the impugnednlotiAfi'cat;i_on "d-agjte;d*l1_5"' March, 2003. 11.2. According .thel"_fi_ndirigVV'Vand decision on the self~posed questi_oVn';- vv1Vi_V._"_z..l,
(iii) lViih~a:theArV5d3tl:rue.:jnatiﬁtatidd dated 15"' March, 2003, nVo.tify.ing for mining lease, is opposed to" _p'uhlI'c:':'_'i.nterest, viz. the conservation of 'forest aw'ea_lth', protected by the provisions of Forest 1' 'C'(Conggi-vation")""'itAct, 1980 and Rules framed 1" --- _th.ere'_unAd'er?
is'o._p'poseVd doctrine of sustainable development. 11.113; It is also contended that --
it the learned Single Judge ought not to have quashed the mining leases in the forest land merely on the ground that the said mining area that --
85 available for lease is located in the forest land, as the same were not challenged by whomsoevver~;'_:'_'~.._
(ii) the learned single Judge erred in the policy decision of the..Sta.te nu respect to sustainable deyeilopmelntl mining leases in the"fVo:Vrest l i
(iii) the finding thlat the..l'p'er"rnis's~ison for"g.ranEting the mining lease .st'hes..Ce:ntr'arl:_'Government under Section.::2v.._of definitely neither an s.ub--stitute»Vfo'r the requirement of the State protect and conserve the foreVst.wea_|th,_ 'is,a'lso illogical as the FC Act and the _lA?Li|eS.Vl'l"<?.[T_l_¢_Clv thereunder empowers the Central Gov_éi*nment to decide such issues.
it * ssggns MAQE on BEHALF QF we . APEELLANT§:
12V.1l.'i Mr. D.L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel for appellants g""rV§_ereirif.-'(respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition) reiterating the it"'--'.l:su_bmissions made before the learned single Judge, contends
(i) 86 the applications applied for the grant of lease before the issuance of notificat-ion"ijliidjer ~ Rule 59(1) of the MC Ru,ies,_dated''''1''5ll''.';h!\'iVa:rc'h,V '4 2003, are entitled to be:V.cora'sidered_1in first proviso to Sectwio'r=._11(a2') of t as the same shall be-deeV.rned."to.have? been received puvrsiiant"--.to{_'thlefnotification under Rule 59(1) of.tl".-e..IjV:'fC'¥2d'les,"V_ * the t'o:.:_i.s_su.e 'notification, notifying the areas a'v§aVilab--|.e'---.for'mining lease and inviting same is traceable to VxS4e_ctionV'1_1V(?,)'ofthe MMDR Act, and therefore, V the ap"p!i,c_ati.ons made before issuance of such "~no_tific_ation, but not considered, are deemed to been made after the issuance of notification, and are entitled to be considered ' along with the applications received pursuant
iii) 87 specified under Section 11(3) of the Act ;
merely because the first"respondent'-.herein (writ petitioner) applied fort:ie.eA'i:mpu'g.Aned iease~.,Tf: and the State Goyerrrrnent .recomrn'enVdled"'thje same for reiaxzationl-oft.'Rullle-»c,_59('1/S)"of the MC Rules by Rule 59(2) of the Rulesgwby' a bar for the the same area asa_ajvailVabie for"-miniriglezase under Rule 59(1) of "invite the applications for llm..i_nlng ('lease Section 11(2) of the MMDR : Act; a ),),.__lrr;erei"yi because there was no notification under 59(1) of the MC Rules, the appellants herein (respondents 4 and S in the writ petition) are not barred to apply before the issuance of the notification; but the moment the notification was issued, notifying the area .' VA» .__ _)_s .
88 available for mining lease under Rule 59(1)-"of the MC Rules and the applications for the same under Section 11(2) of A it Act, even though applications the issuance of the s'ai_c:l"-notification«. premature and shalll'-n:ote»be entertained'~--;a's"per Rule 60 of the. MC..l'Rules,'u"a.re entit~led-dito be considered 'Carter of the noti_f,"It:;g*J:§iC:>_flr lithe matters p-réstribe-d:7_V__uln«dVer'section ;1(3) of the MMDR '";;~:e_;":tsonV" 1_1Vof MMDR Act and Rules 59 and ".lha_r"moniously and 60 the MC Rules are to be read therefore, there is no l'é--'i'n.consistency or conflict whatsoever between
vi) Section 11(2) of MMDR Act and Rules 59 and 60 of the MC Rules;
as per the order of this Court dated 29"' March, 2004 in Writ Petition No. 35915 of 2001, the /¢-<--__\
vii) 89 applications pending before the Government and also the applicat_ioins'4':fi--le'd.f pursuant to the notification...a_re ex'pe'cte'_cl .to*b'e. considered by the State Cvﬁiové-rh:'z'iient.;l the finding of the single were the Government . haveVgg...._fno--t G'v.._consi"dered_.E the applications in"aiconi':pVrei.,e4n'sive;manner, is not correct," ,l_:)eca:Lise" to the first resplendent 'ne:re'in.(wr_i'tifpetitioner) they have .--'i"beeri,"'g'i'v'§e~n "s.ti'fficiée'rn'tv.~--o'pportunity of being i*:ear'dV,:V"afs-.1contemplated under Rule 26(1) of VtV'i':«:--.:-aiii~'.l,Cx'Ru4lesja.n.d the State Government have _"considerec_l___th-e rival claims of the appellants as consideration, the first respondent herein (writ 'iVp'etit'i:o'ner) as per Section 11(3) of the MMDR 'L.Act.Vand Rule 35 of the MC Rules and after due recommended to the Central Government to grant mining lease in favour of the appel|ants,viz.,M/s.Jindal \{i"j'ayanagar Steel /«(E » 2
xi) 91 ore for running their existing steel plants with an investment of Rs.7000 Crore and respectively;
the appellants herein having established _4_huge';_lstee| alfe" entitled for preferenceV.y:.iVn grant' o_f':m'iVhin'g§ lease as against first gr'e'spo.noe.nt herein (writ petitioner) asWper._se'tt:fen.--191(3)__'c.r the MMDR Act;'arid5l?{'u|e:=35§of"the~ and the State eG.overn'm:ent"policy isalso in favour of granting into consideration the end-
vofVv'the't.rnin:_u.e'ra|s by the applicants and its va|ue"avddgi_tio-in; and Rao also invited our attention to glgatraeindments brought in to Section 11 by the Amendment Act 38 of 1999 which came into effect from 18"' December, 1999 and the amendment brought to Rule 60 of the MC 'x 55-» Rules, with effect from 17*" January, 2000, 92 wherein the words«- "and the fee, if any, paid in respect of any such application shall refunded" alone were omitted from R_tj'ie- the MC Rules.
5;; suguxssxgus MADE QN 1,3 §!;l3-.'__A~E.;.E Q 1=t1.'ﬁ gm' l$_1g;rg_ GOVERNMENT IN R1': Apia-gl_e._,@ . C 13.1. Mr Udaya, I-lolla,,....u:le.ar'n_ed .Adv,oAca_tfe General, appearing for the State G'oyern'me{-ni:,ur'é.itera--ti_ng the submissions made before the__ le,ar'ned:f': Sin_g|_e' supported the contentior'rs~ behalf of the appellants herein (responde:n'tsV"4l:%and'twSVV"I'n_.'the writ petition). _13.2. Tfhe-lear'ned:Advocate General submits that even .H""befot'--e:'th'e first prtM'so"to Section 11(2) of the MMDR Act was year 1999, the premature applications, viz., appl.Tcation.s'l'lfn'ade before publication of the notification under
99.".-«.__"~Rule 59¢: the MC Rules and before the expiry of the period "ls_pe_cifiA_ed in the notification, were considered under Rule 60 of the MC Rules as premature and they shall not be entertained. Therefore, the Legislature was conscious of Rule" 60 of the MC 5 "kw zftx I 5.-
lw"
93 Rules, but stiil introduced the first proviso to Secti.o*n.i:'f1.1'(_g) of the MMDR Act to enable the Government toiV--. applications that were applied, be_fo.re__the-"pu"bl:ication'_'.of«._th'e1 notification inviting the applications for for::"ithé<:a:rea notified as available for minir:gc'v'l-ease,"'-but not'i,:dAisiposed.:'3of,i are deemed to have been receivedp__ﬁpurs_uant to't-hevinotification and shail be considered in ti':e:"|igl'Ai_t ._11(3) of the MMDR 13.3. Advocate General submits ﬁre'cei--ved before publication of the notification were also considered under Section 11V(V"3«)aiof the Act and the State Government has .---.é_right»l3i.i.examined"'an.d___gconsidered the inter se relative merits of "'._:a!|;theV pi.ai"'(T5E$.:V'l"i'i terms of Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act as weil as--gx'R--s.:lex.V MC Ruies, and, by proceedings dated 'V 6"' Duecerribe'r'.V2004, recommended for grant of 200.73 hectares fiavuour' of M/s. Jindai Vijayanagar Steei Ltd., and 179.70
-.ii'.--h'e--ctares in favour of M/s. Kaiyani Ferrous Industries Ltd. / .. . ..
94 respectiveiy, for the approvai of the Central Governrneia..ti'~L;vnder Section 5 of the MMDR Act.
13.4. The learned Advocate "General _furth'er';vsubrnits--th'at_ apart from the fact that the mining3.ope'ra~tioni».is"~a:"'stiainidjalone' industry, the State is aiso comrnitted to'vencour'a.geV.ithveHutilizatiori of iron ore mined for use in th_e_ii:r':"ovvryuindustriies evéétabiished in the State and for vatue a't;ir...i:ii'tiori_ 13.5. Hen_ce,_ there"is- rfi'oVii!.e'g_a"Ei.ty orviriregutarity either in issuing the n_o.ti§'f.icatioi1 da:;ted~ notifying the area ieaselor in the proceedings dated 6"' Decerriher', 31:11; suaivsggggi N5 MADE QN BEHALF QF THE " V' A. . V ENT Kumar, learned Assistant Soiicitor Gerierai, aptievavring for the Centrai Government, reiterating the "submissivons made before the learned singie Judge, submits that- " the State Government has seiected the appiicants, in terms of Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC Rules;
E 95
(ii) the State Government has rightiy conside;"e_dfa_ii~~.Vv the applications received prior to notification dated 15"' March,2003Hissu.ed' Ruie 59(1) of the MC Rules';'' and V' M
(iii) the Centrai Government h'»asi1'conve»yg.;iA"its approvai to the proiposai received' 'of first appeiiant hereink(«respondeiieNo.4viin the writ petition)':o'n_ 27'"""ti_orie., andimi favour of second appei_i_ant=..(i'esponden't~;No.5 in the writ peti§.iDn):-o'n"SﬁT "and the action of" has not been respondent herein (writ vvvv "pe'hVt:£6ri;e:E?ﬁ';):. ~ V' f' i xrv. §VVV'&J5B'D1I_§$_iﬁ4§lS.:b_'?i.4tilE.QN g_gHAﬁI= THE F;[R§T RE§PQNDENT-- H'EAR£_I;l§| IPETITIQNER IN THE WRIT Mr. i<ris'i1nan \/enugopai, learned senior counsel iearned counsei for first respondent herein (wirithiifpetitionerij, reiterating the contentions made before the 'rl_earnedj'si;.ng|e Judge chaiienging the proceedings dated 6"" A ":i:£'3ece'r1=2:ber, 2004, contends that:
(i) the applications made prior to notification dated 15"' March, 2003 are premature and the /' /I 2» \...u
(ii) 96 same shall not be entertained as per Rule 60 of the MC Rules. ' the State recommended for relaxation of of "
the MC Rules, exercising thepoliter4.,co.nferredw.;,1uE on it under Rule 59(2) of'the'MC to have preferred th'e..._V'first res'po_ndent7,herein (writ petitioner) as appellants herein (respo_nde_nts'__VV=§ the writ petitio'r},),: considering "the '-irVte.r.:se merits under "S:ectiVon:'i1j,: MMDR Act;
lVi";:. Krishnan Velnugopal, inviting our attention ' to theV"rep~re'sentations, 16"' August, 2003, 31" 2004 and 12"' October, 2004, claims that .i.thj_e.i'irst respondent herein(Writ Petitioner):
(a) has forty years of experience in exploration of mining and marketing of minerals, viz. iron ore;
Government having __
(b) (C) (C1) (9) _ 97 industrial is interested in banking, gases, power generation, industri--al financing, etc, and is success.'ui'i-yl'-.. running these businesses investibie resources;
contributes more _ year to the State lExc:ie.eg'uer"b.y way Royalty;
earned. foreigyn---e$§cha"n.ge tothe. tune of List) ssrnsiryicyn in th"efye:a'r__2003; has sa fe" an sc'ienetificV '.min'i ng practices; a"riidV'.is"*t.h'e wiri'i'.er°of numerous awards Government and Central <6 has experienced ' Gov.e'rnri1entj"
employees and advisers in exploration and mining
---operation; and
(h) requires the impugned mine for their captive consumption for the steel plant which it proposes to set up.
is willing to make more investments in Karnataka State despite favourable .«
(i) (;i) not 98 conditions in Tamilnadu, Maharas.htra«i,,;_i'~»._ Orissa and Andhra Pradesh;
has developed the pest iron 'o're-rniyne: in the State by ;fJeployy'Irjg"__ 1 practice;
proposes to in'v.e'st Rs.10£)VO'niCVrore_iVnVVa one mi.ilion MT*"s.o_ec'i'a»|;ty steei-..pl.alnt in the Sta'i:e.;" _ V V' A p'roposesV"to:1iniv-est' miilion MT ir§te_grated€,stee|;_4pJa'r:'t'i'n"the State over span for Rs.10,000 Crore sa"id~-;":project could be V""u'ndeirta'i<.eri--~..only if iron ore is assured _ y mining lease applied by proﬂposyes to invest Rs.15O Crore for ii'--.non~--conventional energy generation in "tithe next three years;
(0) proposes to invest Rs.750 Crore for generating of 160 MW of wind power in the next six months;
it proposes to use the iron ore from the mining iease applied for the proposed 5'. .
_ weightage .coLiid be given to the existing ~ industriesmand investments because Section into consideration the investment which the applicants propose to make in the mines (0) (P) 99 steei piant as captive consumptiomi'-~. which wouid result in vaiue ad_c;i'it'i'o--r.i~ 5 :_. the State;
that the resources existing area c'o.L__iid--_. not.'_-visu.ppo'rtS'--~it its future' iirivestdment. _ ...in the State; and _ the case Tor the i_f'irs't=respogndent herein (writ p'et_iVtioner_V),:b th'erefore--V" wouid be : <'corjiside_red .Tundierv".S.ectio'nis 11(3) and 'Mi'~'iDR_»ACt granting the 'iv--::i3:igning_ '--.ie'a.se;_Vfor fthe speciai reasons it ' * above.' per,«S-ecti_on_:':"1i(3) of the MMDR Act, no * 3i('3)i_.d) of the MMDR Act contempiates oniy to and in the industries based on minerais; and K """
Mi} .
100
(v) in any event, the State Government have preferred the first respondent petitioner) as they have--_
1) special knowledge;-._ _
ii) experience in.th4_e mining'-operation)'; ' 3
iii)sufficient financ.i,a"i'«lresource;'and M
iv) employed quaylifiedyv-technical"stv.aff._.:§ 1.6.1. We hav_e g::iv'en':our"ctareful«ﬁconsideration to the submissions of for all the parties.
'-- eohtentions made, the following substantial uissuets consideration: proper for this Court to exercise «At.it5A.v'po_wer ofjudicial review under Article 226 of A"_t»:fte'y'.Censtitution of India to adjudicate on the policy decision with respect to substantial development of. the State and quash the notification made under Rule 59(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 19'f,;';Q___'(for short 'MC 1 L A.,..-»-"
(ii) 101 Rules') notifying the area available for iron ore?
Whether the applicationffor'grant lease for an area, without__a"--notificat.io'n. Rule 59(1) of the .3196.0'~nVo'tiryiVvn§"the said area as...V.avai.!1a'ble_:':fo'r.p'minéing;~ can be considered ret'llgre"i;t§;»r under Section "and Minerals (bel%.2%ei<$--er§~;e'nt.je%e:§ i '1~Re't;i_ui:aition'lm Act, 1957, (for ;b":"Vl*'"v*.:«'\4.Di?£j'.V> such application is "p'remVat'§£reVla.n"d»sVh*a.ll "not be entertained as per ""e1;vIle.e6o' er Rules, 1960? and ' Whethérvvg.ranting mining lease in consideration we 35 of the MC Rules falls outside the A 'pejtgriiiew of the matters specified under Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act?
Whether the proceedings dated 6"' December, 2004 suffers from --
102 i. irregularity, ii. illegality, iii. discrimination, iv. arbitrary and unreasonabI_e""e'><e'rciseof power, and ' ~ v. vioiates the principies inatuira-3.j'u.stice§*--.,»:V" (V) To what reiief the part~i.e:s~are entitied it XVI. N IDERA.'fIo_r_g_,__ Ai§ALV;s;I§A»:n'a¢INDING§:
17.1 IssuE(I): ._ "Wt_i'e4t"r§ei" it is piro'|':3er'"fo_r"thivs----.Court to exercise l"'c'its:'r::owie::r: of j'uid'icia$ire'v*ietn: under ArticEe 226 of India to adjudicate on the it ..._pio£icy respect to substantial dievevtotpn'-ien'vt of the State and quash the n_otificati.o..n_..'made under Rule 59(1) of the _ t_€V.l4i.nera| Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'MC notifying the area available for mining .'iror1:'ore?"
Article 39 of the Constitution of India y"'tantej:npIates that the State shall direct its policy towards securing that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and the means of 103 production to the common detriment. Articlelwéf-._4lofvv the Constitution refers to the duty of the Stat-site"'reise'».__tla.e level of nutrition and standard of »living'Vai:d'_v:ivmpzove the public health. As per Article._4S;Ahth'e.'C'o'n'stitui,ion, the State shall ensure to"<-protect VandV:"'Ai;rr:.g:Vro\xjeVt!:1V:e environment and they said of State Policy is meant to A"«-._R|i!'rot';ect_yv;lt'heI.:fu_ndamental rights conferred underV_Artic:§.¢a.~s.:._354 the Constitution, viz. Equaiity4_VI§.elore'__.'iavv. of life and personal liberty. duty conferred under isle?'-..,__ﬁlonlstitutiony, points out the obligatioryyélof the protect and improve the environment'. _ r _17.,A_3;.Art'i*cl__es 39, 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of' --I:n.d.ia a 's'y:=.foEiows:
V _ "39. Certain principles of policy to be followed At 'T by the State.-
' The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing»-
(a) to (b) ....... ..
E / gwg ,,,, M .
104
(b) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth means of production to the common detriment,' .,
(c) to (f)
47. Duty of the State to raise." ate»:/el of nutrition and the standard ofiglivingnandg to_'impr'o.ve:g f public health.- The State shall régard_ the raising of the '' level of nutrition and the standard of living its;'p'e.ople and the improvement of health ' 'among its primary duties and,..._A in :'particular,'._'the 'State shall endeavour to bring aébohut p.rohihitionp,V:iof:the consumption except for medlcinalgpuirposesgof lntoxieavtihg drinks and of drugs vvhic.h.,ai--'e injurious to«.h"ealth._ H ttrotection improvement of environmentfiend,'safeguarding of forests and wildlife. -* The aState.""*s.hall endeavour to protect and improve the 'en'vironmTent and to safeguard the forests 5a.nd___vvl.ldlife ol"'i'he..country. it*-_:'VS-51'~ll1."-'Fundamental duties.- It shall be the duty '-of Ci'tl2en of India-
_ ' (ail to (f)
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.
(h) to (k) .............. .."
105 17.4. Right to heaithy environment is the_.'le§4iti-ngjate expectation, an aspect protected under -ofﬂie Constitution of India. Right tohealthy'"enS)iro'nn1en.t"i's:'- aiso a part of right to life protected j;:'is::;j§eri;l_\'rtijc§e"i?;"1..gof.nthe Constitution of India.
17.5. The "first gener_ation{'_» generally political rights such as .fo:ugndg'i:n'4i'nVterna,tiona| convention on Civil and Politicalgr-ig'hts;,"t'iiat:f'th'e._i?secon'd'.vgeneration" rights are social in the International Covenanton So"cia'--l Cultural Rights; and that the "third V§--en'e'ratiVonf"..g:righ'ts.;"i--n_' today's emerging jurisprudence, encompassVVV'ra_iig.roVnp_aof"co'ilective rights demanding rights to .-v..AhealVthiy VerwironVn1e»nt____a&n.cl giving rise to the principle of State's resp'oVnsi.h_iiity«.,:tov protect the environment and this responsibility isclearlvv eingunciyayted in the United National Conference on the .q Human. Evngvironment, Stockholm 1972 (Stockholm Convention) "vvbhi.chVV"India was a party (vide IN'!'ELLECTUALS FORUM v. .' s""tAr'E or A.P., [2{}06(3) sec 549)). 106 17.6. There is no doubt about the fact that'.vt.h:e.re.Vvis a responsibility bestowed upon the Governm:-int':to.[jprote¢,t and preserve the environment, _as»_undo'u'bte'dIv;» hygeni'c:"--.,/ environment is an integral facet»A:4of::'ti:.e jto'a:"ihe'e,i_thy life and it would be imposs:i_b5!.e to':-save wi~:ho.uti..aVVVh'3uman:e and healthy environment T..N..:i_fG'OvDAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD v. uurojii or%%1r;arAl'[s2;ao_2(1) scc 606]). 17.7. Vllhiiiiejv.to~w:'.i"_;leare..«V'"environment is a 9Ua¥'a**teedJ 14 and 21 of the Coln--stittitiVonA:':*fi;*3f right to development througig5ﬁgu&,.5'§V_!j§a»£id;i~~..éqiually claims priority under fundamenital.rights;'particulariy under Articies 14, 19 and ,_&21 Voij the CoVn'stity_t'iAon of India. Therefore, there is a neVcessit'y«for:a. sustainable deveiopment harmonizing both tihegneedsV".andi;;hstriking a golden balance between the right
-to cieve--§opment and right to clean environment ---- A Ki'"4"'V.ve¢onceptV"'of Sustainable Development, an integral part: of .i;_Ai-:;'i¢'Ie;%, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India (vide JAYAL Am. i if " v.'u~1oN or mom, [2004 (9) scc 362]). """ T; .V §:_':"~ f'5i:,"'i" .. ..
107 17.8.1 Before proceeding further, a sharp and::"«d_e~tailed reference on the concept of sustainable d_eveI4o'p§ifi1--ent_g"is inevitabie.
17.8.2. As observed if A.P.POLLUTION coNTRoL'f__V"BcoARD vsgfpu éq*.4v.1vahYuoU [1992(2) scc 718 J and in VELLOR5 cirzzefivsi WELFARE FORUM vs. UNION or 71:vi3;;t' ; [i--99s'¢'5 ) scc 547 J, the concept of Sustai-nabie.iiiévelopijtenttyis:e.>kp|ained as foliows: (€i)"T"he of 1972 refers to theintesrfgenVetatio'nal'- equ'i'ty"'f5rincip|es~1 and 2, as fol'iow':'-3: V i "Principle 1.:__' Man has the fundamental _ right Atofreeydorn, equality and adequate conditi'ons____of life, in an environment of quality that permits a life of dignity and
--~._V"~lw-ell"-being, and he hears a solemn .j'-«...respon~sibi|ity to protect and improve the ' --ejnv'ls:ronment for the present and future ~ ~ generations.
Princigie 2: The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, lands, ﬂora and fauna and especialiy representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of the present and future generations through careful pianning or management, as appropriate.
108
(ii) Several international conventions and treai:i.es~.. have recognized the above principles and,;""i'ri'..',factV~, several imaginative proposals have been""s_ub»rjriiii:tedi' inciuding the locus standi of in:di»*v'»i.d,ua|s or'1'g'troLIpsi_tjo take out actions as representiatii/eés.,of" fut:i;:i.i:e"ti::,r_i generations, or appointing' an AorTibudsrn.a"ri...to"taii;§., care of the rights of the fut-ur"e,,against the_"pre's,e'n't.'
(iii) The inadec;uacies_«"i"of" r-i'scijen._ce result from identification of adverse effects o1*f3.hazard and then working baciawards-"to.iiiindithef Secondiy, ciinicai pe--rform'ed.,_"pairticulairly where toxins are inv'oive'd,:"on=._a,n'irri.ai'§. on humans, that is to,,.say._f"aire :tia,.s.ed'».jonifanimairstudies or short-term ceigl-testing';'.v-«..__::'aThirciiy,- I conclusions based on epidemioiogical':.ijVstudi,e'si.are flawed by the scientist's inability. to controi' or even accurateiy assess past ..«.ée><"posure of-..t:hve subjects. Moreover, these studies permit the scientist to isoiate the effects of V' of concern. It is the above "'uncertVé--1i;nt'y of science in environmentai context, that "has---V,|ed"int_ernationai conferences to formulate new _ iefgai' theories and rules of evidence. The "",_uncertainty" of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time has [ed to great changes in environmental concepts during the periodwbetween 109 the Stockholm Conference of 1972 and Conference of 1992.
(iv) The principle of precaution anticipation of environmentialiiiiiharmxp a,;nd_Ah"itaki'r1Ag measures to avoid it or ichoose'~. the environmentally harmful' a.ctivity._ It can 'A scientific uncertainty. Env,i:ronmental"rprotection should not only... ain1i-"'a--t'i_:'-pirotecting-A health, property and ecorion1_ic. also protect the environmen_t.,:'_=,fo.r 'its'":§j,vown sake. Precaution'ay_ry~ duties' only be triggered" .-the of » concrete danger but_also_ﬁ.-y or risk potential.
The was recommended by"'A.ui~aoEP ¢oyerni.n§,:iCouncil (1989). However, sumrriin_g" tVJpVV'th4e.'._l'e.g';:_al status of the precautionary 'ori'nciple, one commentator characterized the 5:._parin'cipi'e..as stil'l"'""evolving", for though it is accepted international customary law, "the it"T.----.con'se'C;v»t1_en;ces of its application in any potential "'««Situ.'_&.*tior5;~" will be influenced by the circumstances of each'1~case".
.1"(«_\«) The traditional concept that development 'and ecology are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable. 'Sustainable Development' is the answer. In the international sphere, 110 'Sustainable Development' as a concept came_4to_j"b.4e'~._V known for the first time in the Stockholm De;ci'ar.atl.o_iri7 of 1972. Thereafter, in 1987 the concept "w_as{gi»ven * ' a definite shape by the Vvvorld. 'Co-mmvyilssionll' Environment and Development ir_i*it:'; report" c'al:l'ed "Our Common Future".__ The (Zommis-siogn 'was'* chaired by the then Prirr3'e:.V."'M,inter G.l-E. Brundtland and as syueh:y"the'-»report"i--s,.ypo.g:}ularly known as "Brundti'azIid .
(vi) In 1991 the worlds.cren§;erv'atiae_Union, United Nations En§*i:.ro'nmentg Worldwide Fund for out with a document calyledVgV"c*aVri'ng.;for is a strategy for su.stai_nalbl'e._--.living. -.;:'F-"'ir}_a!|_y,_* came the Earth Summit held. in. which saw the largest gathering v.ofV'world~.leaders ever in the history ---- _de'llb.eratin'gi.and chalking out a blueprint for the "l'o"sur»x]i~»/a'i.._of thmeiiplanet. Among the tangible S * "ach'ieverr1ents of the Rio Conference was the signing .*-of twlojconvventions, one on biological diversity and "=ano_ther~'on climate change. These conventions were sig.n__ed by 153 nations. The delegates also approved Vl"by consensus three non--binding documents namely, 'a Statement on Forestry Principles, a declaration of principles on environmental policy and developmental initiatives and Agenda 21, a . K \ 111 programme of action into the next century in_,vare-as-._ like poverty, population and pollution.
(vii) Earlier, the concept was basedﬂj'-..or§.A.l.::'the "assimilative capacity" rules" as i_r'eve;aled._fron3.~ Principle 6 of the Stockholm Us-cla_'ra'*tionl'of"the Conference on Human Enivir_onmer1_t," 3.9721" 'j§heHsa_id Vb principle assumed that sciuénce could' ~provi'de.':policy~ makers with the information a'n'd'n1eanstnecessjary to avoid enczroaching :iau--po--fi_ ff.'t.he"-Vf,':ica'pacity of the environmentto assi.rnil_ate' i.rin:.pa'ctrs' 'Lit presumed that relev~a'r'i'tg:.'technical would be available when predicted and there order to avoid such '_'Bujt_-.VinV Principle of the U.N. General Assembly World Charter for Nature, 1982,°the..emphe.sis.:shifted to the "precautionary __pr'inciple",.,__Vand this was reiterated in the Rio Coinfefence oVfmii992 in its Principie 15. 1S.~ In order to protect the V ' ."e--nv'i;ronment, the precautionary approach .sih.,a'l| be widely applied by States A according to their capabilities. Where 3 there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for proposing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." 1122
(viii) During the two decades from Stockholm to Rio "Sustainable Development" has come to be accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and im"p..ro--ve~_ the quality of human life while living carrying capacity of the supportingH__ecosysterns."*5 'Sustainable Development? 'és'-idefineciovbyi: the Brundtland Report means:A"!Zéeiveioip_n1e:nt'u tl1at*1.T meets the needs of,__.the"'._pi~eser:t*jgalvithogutvi compromising the a"i3.i:Vlity of._'the "'v,f&i:ure generations to meet thejiivown née'ds'f~.'E The 'Sustainable DeveJdop:rI1ejnt.',"'--sglthierefore, is a baiancing V concept' bet{gve~en2"i~:'..'ecology and development',-. has bieen a part of the custorn'aif§,;vi,' in:tfei'n:a't.l,o'nal though its salient features have"-*,r,et».t4o=.b'e' finalized by the international law jurists." "S:ome~--._ of the salient principles of ','S.ustainab,le'~Development", as culled out from v.':,_j;E3rLg_n,dt!.,and Re 'io--rt'and other international documents, are i~nter¥'G__enerational Equity, Use and Conservation "£\latura.l_'-Resources, Environmental Protection, the ',__,4'Preca.u_ti'Eonary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, Obligation to Assist and Cooperate, Eradication of O " =»,Poverty and Financial Assistance to the developing V' countries.
(ix) in VELLORE CITIZENS' WELFARE FORUM V. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1996 SC 2715), a three- / 113 Judge Bench of the Apex Court referred to.-=t_he 'Precautionary principle' in environmental Kuldip Singh, J. after referring to evolved in various international confer.ence:s to the concept of 'sustainableV-dev'elop4me'n:ti,',stated that the precautionary principle, ;tiare polI'ut:er¥'p,a-y;$?i.' principle and the spe'ci4a§ concept of proof have now emerged"'vaVnd governlthelalvtf our country too, as is clear from VA';*tic'i-eis 47l,"48.eA..a§nd 51- A(g) of our Const§tt,:tEon_ atrial fact, in the various envivronmen'tal' as the Water Act, 1974$,;end othe.r' -.s;te'tutes,'; including the Envérorirnent5,§.P;'rote_cti.on) Act, these concepts arellilalreatly These" principles have now become Thus, it was held that 'The Precautiiona:-y"' and 'The Polluter Pays :Pr.inAcil2l'l'e5,lAai<e' esseintial features of 'Sustainable i*)e,veiopmeVnt'~--. -------- -« * l " "_'_.Precautionary Principle'- In the context of "the mtih__icé'pal law --means:
(i) Environmental measures -- by the 'State Government and the statutory authorities -- must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.
114
(ii) Where there are threats of serious»~,"'- it and irreversible damage, lack of scien_t;if'i*c«'..',V*.._1__l' » it certainly should not be used as a re'asonjV'r~e. % for postponing measu.res»._to .'_prevverlt' ' environmental degradation. ..
(iii) The "onus of*proof" is._o"r'.
or the developer/industrialist'~.to'es-hovxﬁ that his actionis envi'ron,_rne'ritally ber'l'ign'.V4
(xi) "The Polluteryp r=rirlejp_,I'e" has been held to Apex Court, in INDIAN |_=o__R §N5fvtR6¥'LEGAL ACTION v. uniowiseyr iwblirix, ,Z'1996i; (3) scc 212, The V' p the opinion that any "princ,iple_evol'ved in this behalf should be sirilple,v.v"practical and suited to the conditi--ons__ot:taining this country". ..'l'he_ Ap:e.>f"Court further observed: A "'T';_ ...5'once the activity carried on is hazardous ."or i'-nhefently dangerous, the person carrying on such _ activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on Q 115 his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on....." Consequently the polluting 'industr:iesV'r'.:a"i'e absolutely liable to compensat.e~for4the*_'harnrifcauseci by them to villagers in the aflfectede e§.'ree., n and to the undergroundyywater'and-hence;.L aife"~ bound to take all necessailryiymeasugresgto Premlove sludge and other;__polluta_n.ts"v.ly'i'ng "the affected areas. The 'Pollu'teii"Pa'ys gﬁrliri-c'i»pl'ei'_}as interpreted by this Court means liability for harm to_ not only to compensate ..pofllLJtionWbut also the cost of " i're'st.oring': xiii envir'o'n me ntal degradation. Remediatiiovn'of.,g:tlhie:'lda'maged environment is part of the process 'of 'SA'us:i:a.iiinabie Development' and as $*.i_6h the ..i30ll»u'ter"-isvliable to pay the cost to the ﬂilndiiviidual sui'fe--rers as well as the cost of reversing the: vda-ma-ged ecology. The Precautionary Principle . '«.i'__aynci.':'t-hf: Po!-i'uter Pays Principle have been accepted W._as partyioll' the law of the land; Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection of life it * :.__and"personal liberty."
(5:11) Apart from these constitutional mandates under Articles 14, 21 of the fundamental rights, 47, 48A of the directive principles of State Policy and S1A(g) of :"""..-'~'"?':":«,g 13.6 the Fundamental Duty, to protect and improve the environment there are plenty of post--independence legislations on the subject but more relevant enactments for our purpose are: the _4W,aft.elr~.,_ (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, Water Act), the Air (Prevention and H Pollution) Act, 1981 (the ,Air_nAc:t)"lvV"'aricl Environment (Protection) ﬁnvéronment Act). The_Water'Ac't. provnideslnfor t|*ije."rt A constitution of the Central'--Po'l!ution Cont.ro_'l_, by the Central Government a_n.d:'the.,constltution_of the State Pollution Conltrol --'_VlBqard's.__'»l;,iy.,various State Governments in the function under' golﬁgroi the 'Clovernments concerned. The._Wante'r Actproehilvbitsthe use of streams and wells for disposal of p"oVl'lutni"ng 'matters. It also provides for restrictionshotnvl' outlets and discharge of effluents otJxta'in--i--ng consent from the Board. .,Prosecutio'n__and penalties have been provided which sen'tence of imprisonment. The Air Act A »..,4_prov~idels..--that the Central Pollution Control Board and thv.eState Pollution Control Boards constituted under " mtnheﬂlwater Act shall also perform the powers and V' functions under the Air Act. The main function of the Boards, under the Air Act, is to improve the quality of the air and to prevent, control anﬂdﬁabate air 2'/+/iv \, 117 poiiution in the country. The Environm§er_i_t~._v (Protection) Act, 1986 was also ena;ited'u'_~..for environmentai protection, regulation of di'sc:harg»eVl'o--lf= environmental pollutants andv.h'a'nd.ling-Iotlha.-iardoiJi5 substances, speedy response :i'r1e..:'the._' accidents threatening eenvironrnent and7-i.de'te"rrei;1t"* punishment to those ersdarigaet environment, safety. and 17.9. The question of economy or protection a sustainable developmeajat' _ if' i conlcept,misvustainable development' differs '8evelopment' is not synonymous"vvith.VGrowtl1'. 'Growth' implies expansion or "Vi"-quant'i'tativezchang"e'"but the 'development' includes the »co.n1"ponent along with quantity. That is why 'Sustaina_bIe'?..V_ bevelopment' is preferred to economic '<growth.,'i{)f course, economic growth also contributes to ":iin.prove the quality of life; but the true development ..._1"sl1V'«,::u!d aim to provide quality well-being of the people and inhuman dignity, unaffected by globalization, which plays a " »»»»»»» 118 major role in globai economy, transferring goodsrainyd raw materials from one place to another for industi-.ia'li.saVtion, unconcerned with local economy of 'Sustainable development', the:-i"etore,,_ n1e;aris"«.su_stain'i.ng7_ it human deveiopment worldwide.
economic growth is the the.' 'aim lot sustainable development is the 'need of quality iife for not only today's for the future generation.
globaliﬁatiohhV'uWi1i:|'e»..Vétlhe"-eiconomic growth aims at the quantitywbasedy _ iéicohslumerism, the sustainable _._deve!o:pm~ent aims_ ____ at the quality-based consumerism. '=_Wh'§!.e excessive consumption leads to environmental d'eg'rada'tiron.__arid" enabies only the rich to have a quality V life, iimeipooir are unable to meet the basic needs, the it it Sustainable Development and consumption ensures equity the people.
&"V--.,cl'evfe.l,o'pment; and 17.12.
quality lifestyle of the human being also requires irnprovjement; otherwise, there will be set---back in the quality_.i'_iiFes*tyie human being. Until recently, the economig:~"gv--roojtnrti1twasgiltheék---. only measu growth inte the economicedevelopment r.e,ed':ofV'fthe present without compromising the}-abi-lvAity,V--.Aot'«..t_he"«future generations to meet their own needs; a,nd,:"suchV.,economicjyvdevelopment, which ta kes ca re 119 re to decide the qua|ity=..,of,_li.fe§' Vetcoeorhic"'-- nds only the needs' of the"present."geVneratio;nlVlbut, of ihéA,:1i,fL1tu.té,Q¢n'era'tion"'"is-called as sustainable developmentca-rry_iVn.g th,ree__ components viz. U) A V"-{iii,'«..': ' V"conc.ern .for.t'he:_"..environment while framing the economic policies;
uriderstanding the true meaning of the commitment to equity viz. reducing the gap * between the have's and have not's, not oniy the equity among the people living contemporarily in various parts of the world; but also the equity among generations with reference to the use of natural resources, Like maintenance of environmental protection, the 120 which has to be achieved by strict liabi|_it~y_:"for-..v pollution control, applying 'preca'utior'la__l:y7 principle', 'polluter-pays' theory arid, '_l;'>_tlb'li:fi' -- trust doctrine'. ' V' l 17.13 Traditionally, the econom1i'c..growthi, only pr;o'mot'es consumerism, whereas sustainatiie deve.lo'pn"§ent,VVas coined by World Commission onilinvironnment 'land Devel'opment, which is also known as 'Brundtiancl1Co'in'mis.s.io*nf,.eiiisures to preserve the natural resou'rc_e's also. While economic of environment are considevréd A"_"'n'a'ture, the sustainable developl"nen_t together for the benefit of the_manki.nd -vg_:ia'st,"piresent and future, reminding the ..f_act._':,_"'<'.t¢;J(V!a3,/_ is "'yes..t-c-rday's tomorrow and tomorrow's V."yesferda.y'; i"'_' ' ----.
1?T'§14..«:"" Sustainable development, therefore, aims at human well-being along with the protection of .'e'a_vii--'onment. Sustainable development would meet social, economic and political challenges, such as: 121
(i) lack of environmental ethics, lack of basic services like sanitation, drinking water, healithé. care, etc. as social challenges; "
(ii) unequal consumption of r,e:source.s,i * environmental hazards caused by____4indu»strial sectors, displacement of.traditiorial and local economy by the global ones;as'7'econQmi'c',__ ' challenges; and "
(iii) the policies of the'«_,§ove'rvnrne,ntﬂiinvterstgate relationship and "'=internatio'nal-s business competition as politicagl__chal|e.n_ges.' ~ 5 17.15. The sustaina-hi'e.,development"and the sustainable consumption would vensu.r'e"rfai'r d~istribution".va'mong the present and futiire°'g'enerati'on's pre_ve'nt excessive exploitation of natural re-,sources.V'«The"~conCe-pt of sustainable development/ sustainable iconsu.m'pti'c~.n,"~~--"emphasizes the views of natural «reso=.-ic_i':€:~es,--;._cl)e..,_at eciuavl-------rate which can be substituted or replaced. V'=.Sustainab.le'development means not only economic growth, but alsoglcoversaa broad spectrum of peoplesf education, health, 'gnutrition,'gorganization of discipline and honest labour. w.i3evel'opment through science and technology, that "covmmensurate with environmental resources, is an ideal goal for 'Kalli societies. Of course, the transformation of the natural 122 resources would bring the benefits of the economic development and enhance the quality of life, but if the _.$.aJI)jé-.":ca'u«ses incalculable harm to the natural environment, be harmful to human life. Therefore,mecono.mi.c 7. it and environmental protection co{r,..§§AI'eme'ri,;£'~..yyith each other. Such sustain--al5»!e deveio.bjine'nt""can be achieved by industry' arid i,n'd'us_:triua"l,.i.;;ztion'"through eco- friendly science and 'lEheV"eco.ffriendiy science and technoIo:gy'::,lS-.oyizoosetl dollar-friendiy approach.
17:16; 4' Sustaj'iy'n,aibleh"development, thus, in the course of economic dVVev,e%|o,pme_nVti._thiro.ugh industrialization by eco~friend|y 'science; and techn"o-!og__y,,takes environment also intoaccount and V'v__yn*iir1im_izes'ti1e_en_vironmenta| damage. Sustainable development in\;=oxlve'sH' methods not only in production and ~Vconsurn.pt*ion"'to suit the sustainability of the environment, but §"xca,|so*c,_hange in the attitude and value system. It balances the
-.l,'_-economic growth and environmental ethics, viz. shouldering ffgreater responsibility to safeguard the natural resources and
-4...
§ 'A '\:
/ 123 prospects of the future generation. Sustainable development can be achieved only when equilibrium is .,!Tiaiia~ta.lVned, with the economic, social and environmenta'l__"ne:eds§" the uninterrupted and unfetter,e'd"'developnieintldespite'? overlapping economic, social and "e,nv~§_ronm'en.ta.I 17.17. A State, therefore,~:V.:iVs eocpelcteud 'to cautious of these socio-economi§~..:;,o|if}cja,lvl'c«havl'Ie.n'gesv'while framing policies for Sustainable development political and administrative dynamic and flexible policies7-to' meetthe of world-wide economic activities, lN.IfllC.h Vi's._oth'er:_wise called as 'Globalization'. As ; statlcw'ill orxrigiid____policy would hamper the development ":_Vor;'damagsav.the_ environment, the State should have a dynamic'V'p_o.li't;lc'al or administrative will and flexible
-Vpolicles for'afbroad--based sustainable development. A_l"i7.18. Now, turning to the other side of the coin of V.___"""Su:5l:ainabEe Development', we must never overlook the ,M,e--'=2--M."
1.! ,2" '\ a £5".
:;' ;
23$, 124 basic aim of our country, viz., to make India._:"in_to a powerful model industrial country.
17.19. The industrialization, which is.-i'nten:d~ed'~.:fo--rV izfass, production of goods, changes the ofbusiness"end'::thevvery l' lifestyle. While globalization tai<e.s_ overithe vlocali'a:n:d_tra'clitViionai. economy slowly disappears.
17.20. The socio¥'politic.a| %.i_,rea4s'o:ris:'contribute much for economic policies reVlatin:g"'to-.industr_iaEization'land globalization. In the process.4oftechnological! development and economic growth,.V'iVhotVhAi't.he arivcllllllthe developing nations are exploiting'vthe-- nati_iVrav!A._:resources and damaging the environment. While _the und'er_deVve'lop'ed""and developing countries propose to 'xi'meet...;t'he;---..Abai.sic neetisyof the people, the developed nations better living and standard of their people. In eithe,r"icase,"theire is depletion of non--renewab!e resources and . 'd_estruct~ion':. of environment. it 17.21. 'Industrialization' means conversion of raw v."l--msrnaﬁterials into finished products for domestic consumption as fwell as a source of foreign exchange. It provides for local 125 employment and increases the connectivity and imp.ro.vEes the standard of lifestyle. Such improvement has to only for contemporary generation, but ._futLire generation; and the environmental na,tujr;e"._a'is_o'--._has.,_to,_iJe' protected as a stock of physical and'p_so::ial reusourcie 'f;or*th'e' future human need.