NDLI: Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Maximum permissible annual production [MPAP] and District-level production ceiling for mining leases Environmental laws Illegal Mining Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plans
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Order
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	Environmental Law – Background of illegal mining in Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur in Karnataka – Temporary ban on mining in the said Districts – Subsequent imposition of production ceiling on mining leases, enhanced from time-to- time – Categorization of mines into Category ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ based on severity of encroachment by the mines – Issue of demarcation of seven mining leases. Held: The Hon’ble Court by an Order dated 28.09.2022 had directed a Joint Team to prepare sketches of the seven mining leases – However, the said Order was deferred till the inter-state boundary was demarcated on the ground – The inter- state boundaries were fixed on the ground – Thereafter, a Joint Team was constituted comprising of Officers from the State of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh to render support to the CEC in surveying the seven mining leases – Direction issued to the National Institute of Technology, Suratkhal, Karnataka to carry out the survey on the ground level, based on the total station method, and satellite images of the seven mining leases – The survey was directed to be undertaken for one mining lease at a time – The CEC was directed to issue notice to the respective lessees after receipt of the survey/demarcation report, and pass appropriate orders – The exercise was directed to be undertaken, even if the leases had expired – The Monitoring Committee was also directed to be associated with the aforesaid exercise undertaken by the CEC, after the submission of the survey / demarcation reports. [Paras 5-14] Environmental law – Maximum permissible annual production [MPAP] and District-level production ceiling for mining leases – CEC fixed implementation of a Reclamation and Rehabilitation (R & R) Plan as a pre-condition for resumption of mining – Object of R & R Plan – CEC proposed implementation of MPAP for each mining lease, accepted by the Court – If total lease-wise annual production from all the leases in the District exceeds the ceiling limit fixed, then the MPAP for each mining lease to be scaled down on a pro-rata basis. Held: The Hon’ble Court reiterated the object of R & R Plans, and directed implementation of MPAP for mining leases – It was held that the objective of the R & R Plans is to (a) carry out the time-bound reclamation and rehabilitation of the areas found to be under illegal mining; (b) ensure scientific and environmentally sustainable mining; (c) ensure compliance with the various stands stipulated under the environment/mining statutes; and (d) regular and effective motoring, evaluation and corrective measures – The R & R Plans, with specifying actions to be undertaken for reclamation and rehabilitation works provided for an MPAP [i.e. Maximum Permissible Annual Production] restriction for each mining lease – The upper cap fixed at the district level is mandatory and binding – For the purpose of feasible annual production, the following factors would be kept in mind (a) mineral reserves in the lease area; (b) area available for overburden/waste dumps and subgrade dumps; (c) existing transport facilities vis-à-vis the traffic load of the mining lease and adjoining mining leases – The MPAP [Maximum Permissible Annual Production] is the minimum of the quantity that may be feasible based on the above three parameters – If the total of the lease-wise annual production from all the leases in the district exceeds the ceiling limit fixed for a specific District, then the MPAP for each mining lease is to be scaled down on a pro-rata basis, to ensure that the District level production ceiling is not breached – The CEC, with the Monitoring Committee was requested to aid and advice the Oversight Authority to undertake a complete exercise in the three districts, and submit a Report to the Court – The Report shall also examine whether sub-caps in particular areas should be fixed, or caps should be increased or decreased – The CEC, the Monitoring Committee and the Oversight Authority will examine whether any regulation like e-auctioning is required for the sale of the mined material – They will also consider the date with regard to which royalty and other cess is to be required when e-auctioning was mandatory. [Paras 19-29] Environmental Law – Special Purpose Vehicle viz. Karnataka Mining Environment Restoration Corporation constituted to facilitate ameliorative and mitigative measures for mining – Plea for discontinuation of transfer of 10% levy imposed on sale of iron ore to the SPV i.e. Karnataka Mining Environment Restoration Corporation for implementing the Comprehensive Environment Plan for Mining Impact Zone [CEPMIZ], rejected by the Court. Held: Reference made to earlier Judgment in Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka [2017] 6 SCR 577 : (2017) 5 SCC 434 : 2017 INSC 241, dated 21.03.2017 wherein the Court rejected a plea for discontinuation of transfer of 10% levy imposed on the sale of iron to the SPV observing that the CEPMIZ is a scheme which can be divided into two broad categories (i) socio-economic development; and (ii) integrated mining and railway infrastructure, industrial infrastructure and medical infrastructure – Reference also made to an earlier Order dated 21.03.2018, whereby the Court rejected a similar prayer – The CEPMIZ Plan stated that a tentative expenditure of nearly Rs.25,000 crores is likely to be incurred in various sectors – Thus, at this stage, it will not be appropriate to withdraw the 10% levy imposed, as the CEPMIZ Plan is still at the initial stage of execution – The Hon’ble Court accordingly dismissed applications seeking discontinuation of transfer of 10% levy imposed on sale of iron ore to the SPV i.e. Karnataka Mining Environment Restoration Corporation for implementing the Comprehensive Environment Plan for Mining Impact Zone [CEPMIZ]. [Paras 86-96]
Judge	N/A
Neutral Citation	2024 INSC 267
Petitioner	Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors.
Respondent	State Of Karnataka & Ors.
SCR	[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1291
Judgement Date	2024-03-14
Case Number	562

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karanataka & Ors.

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Samaj Parivartan Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka &ors

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

M.c. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Aruna Rodrigues and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karanataka & Ors.

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Samaj Parivartan Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka &ors

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

M.c. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Aruna Rodrigues and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.