Holding

The appellant, having engaged in massive illegal mining beyond the statutory limit, has no right over the seized iron ore and the Supreme Court will not entertain the appeal under Article 136.

Summary

The appellant, B.R. Surendranath Singh, a holder of a mining lease in Karnataka, alleged that about one lakh tonnes of iron ore found on his lease area had been illegally dumped by third parties and sought to prevent the Department of Mines and Geology from auctioning the ore. The Department seized the ore, identified it as illegally mined from adjacent government land, and proceeded to auction it. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition and review, holding that he had no right over the seized ore, and the Supreme Court affirmed this view, noting that audit reports showed the appellant had extracted ore far beyond the permissible limit, indicating massive illegal mining. The Court also declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant has any legal right over the iron ore seized by the State that was allegedly illegally mined and deposited on his lease area.
Whether the audit and production figures establish that the appellant engaged in illegal mining beyond the limits prescribed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
Whether the Court Commissioner’s report is sufficient to determine the source of the ore and affect the appellant’s claim.
Whether the Supreme Court can entertain the appeal under Article 136 in these circumstances.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 379, s. 482
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957s. 21, s. 4(1)(a)

Subjects

illegal miningmining leaseseizure of mineral oreownership of mineralsArticle 136Supreme Court jurisdictionaudit reportCourt Commissionerauction of mineral oreMines and Minerals Act

Judgment

[2011) 5 S.C.R. 218

A B.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH
v.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINES &
GEOLOGY, KARNATAKA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3187-3188 of 2011)
B
APRIL 11, 2011
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]
. ,' \.
Mines and minerals:
c
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 - s. 21 read withs. 4(1)(a) - Illegal mining of iron ore - .
Department detected unauthorized mining operation in
Government land - Action taken to seize iron ore illegally
D quarried and deposited on the leased area of appellant-
mining lease holder - Department taking a decision to
auction the seized iron ore - Complaint by the appellant that
instead of the illegally mined iron ore, the department was
contemplating to sell the iron ore which was legally mined and
E accumulated by the appellant - Writ petition by the appellant
- Report of the Court Commissioner to the effect that the
dump stacked near the crusher in two lots was extracted from
the pit located in the area leased to the appellant; and that
no illegally extracted iron ore from the pit located in the
Government land was stacked on the leased area of the
F appellant - Dismissal of writ petition by High Court holding
that the appellant did not have any right over the seized iron
ore - Review petition also dismissed - On appeal, held:
Appellant could legally mine upto 5500 metric tons only in a
year which was increased to 41000 metric tons a year-Audit
G report indicates that the appellant had quarried and produced
around one lakh ton of iron ore - Theory of somebody putting
one lakh ton of iron ore of mining lease is totally untenable
and beyond comprehension - One lakh ton of iron ore cannot
be kept on any mining lease all of a sudden without the
H 218
B.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH v. DY DIRECTOR, DEPTT. 219
OF MINES & GEOLOGY.
knowledge of the appellant - It is possible only when the A
appellant had indulged in massive illegal mining - Thus, the
appellant cannot claim any right over seized iron ore -
Interference u/Art. 136 not called for - Constitution of India,
1950 - Article 136.
B
The appellant is a mining lease holder and an area
of 58 acres was leased in favour of the appellant. The
·appellant is continuing with the quarrying operation and
is also filing monthly reports with respondent No. 1-
Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology. The
appellant wrote to the respondents that adjacent to the C
property leased in favour of the appellant, certain person
had illegally conducted mining operations and extracted
iron ore. The respondents found that about one lakh ton
of iron ore had been illegally quarried and was kept in the
appellant's land and the appellant was directed to protect D
the said one lakh ton of iron ore. Action was taken to
seize the unauthorized mining iron ore which was
deposited on the leased area of the petitioner. The
respondent No. 1 took a decision to auction the seized
iron ore. Thereafter, the appellant made a complaint that E
instead of illegally mined iron ore, respondent No. 1 was
contemplating to sell the iron ore which was legally mined
and acc~mulated by the appellant. The appellant filed a
·writ petitio" seeking a prayer to restrain the respondents
from auctioning the iron ore fines stacked in Survey No. F
\ 130,<and direct the respondents to conduct an inspection
and determine the iron ore fines, legally extracted by the
appellant, and the iron ore fines, illegally dumped in the
area of the appellant. The High Court directed
respondent No. 1 not to confirm the auction, however, G
respondent No. 1 invited bids for auctioning the iron ore
legally quarried by the appellant. Thereafter, respondent
No. 1 issued a letter in pursuance to the complaint of
. illegal mining activity that the Joint Director had visited
H
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A the site and had found that in an area adjacent to the
lease of appellant, 'BP' and contractor 'S' of 'B' Company
were involved in the act of committing illegal quarrying.
Respondent No. 1 then filed a criminal complaint against
'KM' Company; 'B' Company and their contractor 'S'; and
B the appellant alleging that they were involved in
committing the act of illegal quarrying. Thereafter, the
respondents filed an application before the High Court for
appointment of a Court Commissioner to identify and
submit a report as to whether the iron ore stacked in the
c leased area of the appellant was extracted by the
appellant from the land leased to him or was illegally
extracted from the abutting government lands. The Court
Commissioner submitted a report that after analyzing the
chemical qualities of the iron ore it was found that the
dump stacked near the crusher in two lots was extracted
0
from the 'K' pit (appellant) located in the area leased to
the appellant; and that no illegally extracted iron ore from
the 'Biscuit Pit' located in the Government land was
stacked on the leased area of the appellant. The High
Court directed the Court Commissioner to go to the spot
E and collect the samples from three points in the Biscuit
Pit, which were to be identified by the respondents. The
Court Commissioner submitted a report that material from
the Biscuit Pit was distinctly different from the material
in the dump. Thereafter, the High Court dismissed the writ
F petition holding that the appellant did not have any right
over the seized iron ore fines and the report of the
Commissioner was not helpful to the appellant to
substantiate the contention that the seized iron ore fines
are legally extracted by the appellant from his lease. The
G appellant filed Review Petition and the same was also
dismissed. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant
appeals.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court
H
B.R. SURENDRANATH SING.H v. DY DIRECTOR,pEPTT. 221
OF MINES & GEOLOGY.

HELD: 1.1 The respondents submitted that at that A
point of time the appellant could legally mine upto to 5500
metric tons only in a year. That limit was increased to
41000 metric tons a year. It is beyond comprehension
how illegal iron or(! could be found on the Mining Lease
No.2187 to the tune of about one lakh ton legally mined B
by the appeHant. This was possible only when the
appellant had indulged in massive illegal mining. The
audit report clearly indicate that the appellant had
quarried an·d produced iron ore several times more than
its permissible limit' particularly in the years from 2003 to c
' .
2006. [Paras 35 and 36] [242·A·C]
.· ' .

·1.2 The theory of somebody had put one lakh ton of
iron ore of mining lease is totally untenable and beyond
comprehension. One lakh ton of iron ore cannot be kept
on any mining lease all of a sudden without the D
knowledge of the appellant. Thousands of trucks have to
transport the said quantity of iron ore and if it did not
belong to the appellant he ought to have complained
immediately after someone started dumping iron ore on
his mining lease. According to the respondent-State, this E
is a clear case of illegal mining on a massive scale by the
appellant. [Para 37] [242-D] ·

1.3 This Court ought not to exercise its extra-ordinary
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution in a F
matter of this nature. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
[Para 39] [242-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3187-3188 of 2011. ·
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.06.2009 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.P. No. 418 of 2009
& W.P. No. 27521 of 2005.

H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R.

A WITH

C.A. No.: 3189of2011.

Shanti Bhushan, A. Raghunath, Hemant Raj, A.O. Sikri,
Anitha Shenoy, Ravi B. Naik, Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Rajshekhar
B and Suvidutt Sundram (for Debasis Misra) for the appearing
parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted.
c
2. Since the common questions of law arise in these
appeals, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

3. These appeals emanate from the order dated
o 25.06.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 27521 of 2005, order
dated 12.04.2010 passed in Review Petition No. 418 of 2009
in Writ Petition No. 27521 of 2005 and interim order dated
29.04.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 15079 of 2010 by
Division Bench of the High Court of Karnatka at Bangalore.
E 4. The appellant aggrieved by the said orders passed by
the High Court of Karnataka has preferred these appeals.

5. For the sake of convenience the facts of Civil Appeal
Nos. 3187-3188 of 2011 arising out of Special Leave Petition
F (Civil) Nos. 22023-22024 of 2010 entitled B.R. Surendranath
Singh v. Deputy Director Department of Mines & Geology &
Ors. are recapitulated as under.

6. Brief facts according to the appellant are as under:
G A mining lease was granted during the year 1958 in favour
of B.K.R.N. Singh, the father of the appellant herein, with
respect of a land measuring 58 acres situated at Honnebagi
and Bellenahalli village, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur
District, Karnataka. The lease was initially for a period of 20
H
B.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH v. DY DIRECTOR, DEPTI. 223
OF MINES & GEOLOGY. [OALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

years and the said period expired in the year 1978. Thereafter, A
the mining lease was renewed for a further period of 1O years
upto 19-10-1988, in the name of Smt. Kamalabai, wife of
B.K.R.N. Singh. After the death of Smt. Kamalabai, the
appellant is continuing as the lessee and an application for
renewal has also been made by the appellant. e
7. The appellant is continuing with the quarrying operations
and accordingly the appellant has been filing monthly reports
with the first respondent - Deputy Director, Department of
Mines and Geology, Railway Station Road, Tumkur.
c
8. Adjacent to the property leased in favour of the
appellant, certain persons have illegally conducted mining
operations and extracted iron ore. According to the appellant
he immediately wrote a letter-cum-undertaking to the
respondents that this iron ore of approximately one lakh ton can D
be taken away by the respondents and the appellant herein has.
no claim whatsoever over it. The letter/undertaking·dated 20-
12-2004 of the appellant is setout as under:

"20-12-2004 E
From
B.R. Surendranath Singh,
194, 4th Main Road,
Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 18.
F
To
The Director,
Dept of Mines and Geology,
Division Road, G
Bangalore.
I would like to bring to your kind notice that
approximately about 1 lakh ton of iron ore fines has been
dumped in my ML area No.2187 and the same material
H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A you can take possession and do whatever you deem for
and further I have no claim on the above stock.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,
I B
Sd/-
B.R. Surendranath Singh"

9. During the month of January, 2005, the respondents
C found that about one lakh ton of iron ore has been illegally
quarried and this illegal material was kept in the appellant's land
and the appellant was directed to protect the said one lakh ton
'of iron ore. The appellant immediately acknowledged the
approximate stock of one lakh ton of iron ore for which the
appellant gave an undertaking to protect the same. The relevant
D portion of the undertaking is reproduced as under:

"AFFIDAVIT

I, B.R. Surendranath Singh son of late Kamalabai,
E aged about 70 years, residing at No. 195, 4th Main Road,
Chamarajpet, Bangalore 560 019, do hereby solemnly
affirm and declare the following:

Whereas the Department of Mines and Geology is
having a stock of approximately one lakh ton of iron ore
F lying at Survey No. 130 of Honnebagi Village,
Chikkanaikanahalli Taluk.

We undertake to protect, safeguard and keep safe
the said stocks.
G
BANGALORE
DATED 10/012005

B.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH"

H 10. It is the case of the appellant that after extracting the
B.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH v. DY DIRECTOR, DEPTI. 225
OF MINES & GEOLOGY. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
iron ore the appellant is required to submit a monthly report and ·A
the monthly report indicates the production and dispatch and
remaining balance iron ore on the mining lease.

11 . It is also the case ·of the appellant \hat he was in
possession of iron ore which have been legally extracted by him 8
from his leased area and also he is in possession of another
one lakh ton of iron ore which is seized by the State
Government.

12. According to the appellant, the Deputy Director - the
first respondent brought some people on 22.12.2005 who were C
interested in purchasing the iron ore, for which the first
respondent herein actually showed the iron ore legally quarried
and stacked by the appellant instead of showing the illegally
· mined iron ore lying within the borders of the appellant's leased ·
land. ·o
13. The appellant submitted a representation to the
respondent No. 1 stating that the error has been rectified and
appropriate action be taken in this regard. The appellant made
a complaint that instead of illegally mined iron ore, the E
respondent no. 1 was contemplating to sell the iron ore which
was legally mined and accumulated by the appellant.

14. The appellant wrote a letter to the Chief Minister of
Karnataka on 23.12.2005 and thereafter filed a writ petition No.
27521 of 2005 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore F
with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamous restraining the
respondents from auctioning the iron ore fines stacked in
Survey No. 130, Honnebagi and Bellenhali VHlage,
Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District and direct the
respondents to conduct an inspection, and thereafter determine G
the iron ore fines, which have been legally extracted by the
appellant, and the iron ore fines, which are illegally dumped in
the area of the appellant.

15. The High Court by the o,rder dated 27 .12.2005 directed H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R.

A respondent No. 1 not to confirm the auction till 30.12.2005. In
spite of the interim order granted by the High Court, respondent
No. 1 issued another notification dated 21.01.2006, inviting bids
for auctioning the iron ore legally quarried by the appellant. The
appellant also filed a contempt petition in the High Court that
B when the matter was pending, the respondents had no authority
to issue subsequent notification for auctioning the iron ore.
16. A letter dated 25.02.2006 was issued by the
respondent - Deputy Director, Department of Mines and
Geology, Tumkur, stating that on a complaint of illegal mining
C activity and on a visit to the site by the Joint Director, Mysore,
it was found that in an area adjacent to the lease of appellant,
one Basanth Poddar was doing illegal mining in the area using
sophisticated mining machineries and the said Basanth Poddar
transported the iron ore, illegally removed it, by using permits
D of Mining Lease No. 2187 which belongs to the appellant. The
letter further states that after inspecting the stock of iron ore
unauthorisedly piled by the accused persons the same was
quantified at about one lakh metric ton. The letter further states
that froi:n the preliminary enquiry it was learnt that one M/s. Balaji
E Producing Company has been granted the mining lease under
Mining Lease No. 2208 covering Survey No. 130 of Honnebagi
Village and in Survey No. 12 of Gollarahalli Village and he had
given the raising contract for extraction of iron ore to Selvaraj
of Sun Minerals and the said Selvaraj claims to have dug a pit
F at 'Biscuit Pit' and removed the iron ore and stacked the ore
in the area of Mining Lease No. 2187, which is adjacent and
owned by the appellant herein. The first respondent thereafter
submitted the complaint for prosecution of M/s. Karnataka
Mining Company, M/s. Balaji Produce Company, Chennai and
G their contractor Selvaraj of Mis. Sun Minerals and the appellant
herein, who are involved in committing the act of illegal
quarrying. The above complaint was registered as Crime No.
52/2006 before the Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station.
17. The appellant filed an application for amendment in the
H
B.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH v. DY DIRECTOR, DEPTI. 227
OF MINES & GEOLOGY. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.)
High Court praying for a writ of certiorari and to quash the FIR A
dated 25.02.2006 registered as Crime NO. 52/2006.

18. The appellant submitted that the respondents filed an
application for appointment of a Court Commissioner to identify
the iron ore extracted from the area covered by the lease of
8
the appellant. The High Court on 12.10.2006 passed the
following order:

"The respondents have filed a memo dated 15.4.2006 for
appointment of a Court Commissioner, which reads as
follows:- C

The petitioner is a mining lease holder and out of
large extent of area in Survey No. 130 of Honnebagi
Village an area of 58 acres is leased in favour of
the petitioner. Apart from the petitioner, others also D
leased certain extent of land in the same Survey
Number. The remaining extent of land in the same
survey number continued to be the Government
holding, which is rich in mineral deposit. The
petitioner who is granted the lease is adjoins by the E
land retained by the State Government.

It is submitted that unauthorized mining operation in the
Government land was detected by the department
authorities. Immediately, action has been taken to seize
the unauthorized mining iron ore which was deposited on F
the leased area of the petitioner. After holding mahazar
same was handed over to the petitioner for safe custody.
The respondent has taken decision to auction the seized
iron ore, same was questioned by the petitioner claiming
right over the same. G
It is humbly submitted that, there is a claim and counter
claim in regard to the iron ore stocked on the petitioner's
leased area. This can be identified by appointing a
Commissioner. The Commissioner requires certain
H
228 SUPR~ME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S~C.R

A knowledge to ascertain the area by examining the field
condition.

It is further submitted that, the iron ore deposited which is
illegally mined in the Government land is fine in nature, but
iron ore deposited in petitioner's lease area is lumps and
B
fine in nature. The material stocked by the petitioner is
nothing but waste and low grade material.

Wherefore, it is requested to appoint any one the
following as a commissioner, in the interest of justice and
c equity.
1. S. Ray Chaudri,
Regional Controller of Mines,
No.29, Industrial Suburb,11 Stage,
Tumkur Road, Goraguntepalya,
D Bangalore-560 072.
2. Dr. S.K. Bhushan,
Deputy Director General,
Geology Survey of India,
Goa and Karnataka Circle,
E
Vasudha Bhavan,
Kumaraswamy Layout,
Bangalore - 560 078 .
. 2. As could be seen from the above, there is claim and
F counterclaim with regard to certain iron ore stacked on the
petitioner's leased area. To determine the controversy, Shri
Ashok haranahalli, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Shri B.N. Prasad, learned H.C.G.P. submit
that Dr. S.K. Bhushan, named in the memo may be
appointed as a Court Commissioner.
G
3. In view of the joint submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, I deem it appropriate
to appoint Dr. S.K. Bhushan as the Court Commissioner
to submit his report to this court relating to the aforesaid
H
B"R. SURENDRANATH SINGH v. DY DIRECIOR, DEPTI. 229
OF MINES &GEOLOGY. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

controversy between parties, namely as to whether the iron A
stacked on the petitioner's leased area was extracted by
the petitioner from the land leased to him or was illegally
extracted from the abutting Government lands. In other
words, the Commissioner shall have to identify the illegally
extracted iron ore, if any, stacked on the petitioner's B·
leased area after holding spot inspection by issuing notice
to the petitioner and R1. This shall be done within three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by
the Commissioner. The parties shall serve a copy of this
order on the commissioner to enable him to do· the c
commission work.

4. The memo filed by the respondents & I.A. 4/2006 filed
by the petitioner for appointment ofa Court Commissioner
stand disposed of in the above terms.
D.
(H.G, Ramesh)
Judge"

19. The High Court appointed Dr. SK Bhushan, Deputy
Director General, Geological Survey of India, as the Court E
Commissioner to inspect and submit a report relating to the
controversy between the parties namely, as to whether the iron
ore stacked in the leased area of the appellant was extracted
by the appellant from the land leased to him or was illegally
extracted from the abutting government lands.
F
20. On 10.01.2007 report was submitted by the Court
· Commissioner after inspecting and verifying the iron ore found
in the area of the lease of the appellant. The Commissioner,
· after analyzing the chemical qualities of the iron ore found that
the dump-in dispute stacked near the crusher in two lots was G
extracted from the Kamalabai pit (appellant) located in the area
leased to the appellant i.e. M.L. No. 2187. The Commissioner
further found that no illegally extracted iron ore from the 'Biscuit
Pit' located in the Government land is stacked on the leased
area of the appellant. H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R.

A 21. On 21.08.2007 the High Court of Karnataka passed
the following order:

"Shri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, learned
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents
submits that adequate number of samples are not
B
extracted from the Biscuit Pit. He, therefore, submits that
the same Court Commissioner be directed to go to the
spot and collect the samples from 3 points in the Biscuit
Pit, which are to be identified by the respondents. In this
regard, he undertakes to file the memo of instructions for
c the Court Commissioner.

2. Shri Ashok Haranahalli, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the earlier appointment of the Court
Commissioner was at the instance of the respondents
D only. The concerned officials of the respondents, who were
present on the spot, did not object to the Court
Commissioner collecting the samples from the two points
in the Biscuits Pit. They did not even suggest that more
samples be collected from other points in Biscuit Pit.
E Despite all these, Shri Ashok Haranahalli fairly submits that
he is agreeable to sending the same Court Commissioner
to the spot again for collecting the samples from 3 points
in Biscuit Pit to be identified by the concerned officials of
the respondents with the understanding that the
F respondents would not raise objection to the second
report of the commissioner. He submits that although there
is no need for sending the Court Commissioner for the
second time to the spot, he is conceding to the
respondent's request for the purpose of ensuring finality
in the litigation.
G
3. The Court Commissioner, Dr. SK Bhushan, Deputy
Director General, Geological Survey of India, Goa and
Karnataka Circle, Vasudha Bhavan, Kumarasamy layout,
Bangalore-560078 is hereby directed to go to the spot
H namely, Biscuit Pit situated in Surveyy. No. 130 of
B.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH v. DY DIRECTOR, DEPTI. 231
OF MINES & GEOLOGY. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
Honnebagi and Ballenahalli Village, Chikkanayakanabhalli A
Taluk, Tumkur district and collect the samples from 3 points,
to be identified by the respondents. On getting the
samples tested in authorized laboratory, he shall file his
reports as to whether the dump in dispute (SCK-1, SCK-
2 and SCK-3) is extracted from the Biscuit Pit. B

4. The office is directed to communicate this order
alongwith a copy of the terms of reference filed on behalf
of the respondents and also his earlier report, dt.
10.01.2007 to the Court Commissioner forthwith. The
office is also directed to prepare the necessary warrant C
in this regard and issue the same to the court
commissioner. The Court Commissioner is directed to go
to the spot at 10.30 a.m. on 1.9.2007 for the purpose of
collecting the samples. The parties and their respective
learned advocates are directed to co-operate with the D
Court Commissioner in executing the warrant. It is made
clear that there is no need for the Court Commissioner to
notify the parties of the time and date of inspection.
However, if the date and time specified herein does not
suit the convenience of the Court Commissioner for E
whatever reason, then he has to inform the parties of the
date and time of holding the spot inspection by him.

5. Further it is also made clear that any intimation sent by
the Court Commissioner to the learned Advocates, S/Shri F
Ashok Haranahalli and Sathayanarayana Singh shall be
deemed to have been sent to the parties to the petition.
The office shall furnish the mail address of the advocates
for the petitioner and the respondents to the Court
Commissioner.
G
6. The Court Commissioner shall submit his report within
two weeks from the date of his holding the spot inspection.
Tentatively, the Court Commissioner's fees is fixed at
Rs.15,000/-. As the Commissioner is being sent for the
H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 5 S.C.R.

A second time at the instance of the respondents and as the
Commissioner's fees were borne by the petitioner's side
on the earlier occasion, I deem it fit and necessary to
direct both the petitioner and the respondents to bear the
Commissioner's fee on 50:50 basis. Both the petitioner
B and the respondent No. 1 shall deposit Rs.7500/- each with
the Court Commissioner within 5 days from today.

7. Call the case immediately after the receipt of the Court
Commissioner's report for further submissions.

c xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(ASHOK B. HINCHIGRI)
Judge"
D
22. On 26.11.2007 a further report was submitted by the
Court Commissioner in which it is mentioned that material from
the Biscuit Pit is distinctly different from the material in the dump
in dispute. According to the material in the dump in dispute,
E the Commissioner further stated that similar inferences were
arrived at in the earlier observations also and the presently
obtained additional details confirms and compliments the
conclusions drawn in the first report.

F 23. The writ petition was heard by the Division Bench and
while dismissing the writ petition the High Court held that the
appellant does not have any right over the seized iron ore fines
and the report of the Commissioner was not helpful to the
appellant to substantiate the contention that the seized iron ore
fines are legally extracted by the appellant from his lease. The
G appellant also filed Review Petition before the High Court,
which was also dismissed.

24. The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment of the
High Court, has preferred these appeals.
H
B.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH v. DY DIRECTOR, DEPTI. 233
OF MINES & GEOLOGY. [OALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

25. In pursuance to the notice issued by this court, reply . A
has been filed on behalf of respondents - State of ~arnataka.
Learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka, Ms.
Anitha Shenoy has invited our attention to some portions of the
counter affidavit.
·B
26. She submits that the entire controversy arose after
receiving a complaint from one Selvaraju. The complaint was
sent by him to the Secretary of the Mining Dep~rtment. The
complaint reads as under:-

"From: ·, ,. c
Selvaraju,
Raising Contractor,
Hind Mercantile Corporation,
Opp. : Taluk Office,
Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, D
Timkur District,
Karnatka State
To
Smt. Latha Krishna Rao E
Secretary to Mining Department
Karnataka Government,
M.S. Building,
Bangalore.
Madam, F
Sub.:Large scale illegal Mining in Chikkanayakanahalli
encouraged and supported by Mr. Basappa Reddy,
Director Mines and Geology, Bangalore.
G
***

I am bringing to your notice large scale illegal mining
operation by Deepchand Kishanlal, Mining Lease No.2333
and late Kamalabai, Mining Lease No.2187 by. her
representative Surendra Singh, G.P.A. holder in the ,H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 5 S.C.R.

A rejected Mining lease application belonging to Ganapathi
Singh. The illegal working area is called as Biscuit pit. The
M.L. Application (earlier PL No.3317) has been rejected
by the Government. The issue and matter is pending in the
court. In the meantime, BASANT PODDAR of Deepchand
B Kishanlal and SURENDRA SINGH have engaged
themselves in large scale illegal mining and already moved
thousands of tones of iron ore power using the permit of
M.L. No.2187 and 2333. The M.L. No.2187 is under
renewal and working permission granted by the Director.
c Illegal mining is done very badly all most creating deaths.
The illegal operation is done by the support of the Director
Basappa Reddy who is getting Rs.200 per ton
commission.

I request you to stop this illegal mining. Refer this
D illegal mining to the D.C., Tumkur for stoppage. If the issue
is referred to Director, no justice will be done as he is
totally and fully involved in this illegal act. I hope justice will
be upheld at your end.

E Many thanks

Yours faithfully

SELVARAJU

F Copy to:

1. Sri. T.N. Chaturvedi, Governor of Karnataka,
Bangalore

2. Sri. N. Dharam Singh, Chief Minister of Karnataka,
G Bangalore

3. Sri. K.K. Mishra, Chief Secretary, Government of
Karnataka, Bangalore

4. Sri. Mallikarjun Dyaberi, D.C., Tumkur District
H
8.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH v. DY DIRECTOR, DEPTT. 235
OF MINES & GEOLOGY. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

5. The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of A
Mines, New Delhi."

27. In pursuance to the said complaint, the officials of the
Department of Mines and Geology visited Mining Lease
No.2187 on 17.12.2004 and found illegal mining and as such B
the same was seized and stored in Survey No.130, which is
the subject matter of the lease in Mining Lease No.2187. The
illegal mining ore which is stored is also depicted in the
mahazar dated 17.12.2004 and the same is endorsed by the
representative of the holder of Mining Lease No.2187. Perhaps, C
on the appellant fearing some action on the complaint of
Selvaraju, sent a letter dated 20.12.2004 wherein he disowned
the iron ore seized. The letter dated 20.12.2004 has been set
out earlier in which it is mentioned that 1 lakh ton of iron ore
was found lying in Mining Lease No.2187 and the department
can take possession and do whatever they deem it fit. He also D
mentioned that the appellant has no claim of the above stock.
Thereafter on 10.1.2005 the appellant submitted an affidavit
with the Government of Karnataka in which it is mentioned that
the appellant is undertaking to safeguard and safe keep the said
stocks. Respondent no.1 issued a notification on 23.12.2004 E
but the same could not be acted upon due to various reasons
resulting in another notification of 14.12.2005. It seems that the
appellant from this point wanted to take advantage of the I lakh
ton iron ore which could not be lifted by the respondent or sold
by him. The notification dated 14.12.2005 was challenged in F
writ petition No.27521/2005 by the appellant. The appellant
obtained an interim stay. The said writ petition was dismissed
on 25.06.2009. Thereafter, he filed a Review Petition No.418
of 2009 in writ petition No. 27521 of 2005 which was also
dismissed on 12.04.2010. All these orders are the subject G
matter of these appeals. Since there was no stay granted in
the review petition No.418 of 2009, the third notification
regarding public auction was issued on 09.12.2009 fixing the
date of auction on 24.02.2010. The appellant again moved an
interim application in review petition No.418 of 2009 seeking H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 5 S.C.R.

A for stay of auction. The s~me was declined by the court. From
the record of the case, it is quite evident that the appellant went
on filing writ petition, review petition and the interim application
challenging the third public notification resulting in a direction
issued by the High Court for getting an inventory of quantity of
B iron ore lifted and to be lifted by the successful bidder and
surveyed by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology. The
appellant was ready to deposit a sum of Rs.15 crores as to
the value of the material and execute an undertaking not to lift
the material. This is another new contention raised by him in
c Writ Petition No.15079 of 2010. The High Court did not grant
any interim relief at that stage resulting in filing of these appeals
against the order dated 29.04.2010 and subsequently writ
petition no. 15079 of 2010 was dismissed as withdrawn
reserving liberty to raise all contentions in Criminal Petition
No.2104 of 2010.
0
28. The respondents further submitted that the averments
in para 5.4 of the appeal are contrary to what is pleaded in para
5.1 of the appeals resulting in exposure of appellant's claim of
the dumps. Thus, according to the respondents, when the
E appellant himself is not sure of the iron ore stated to be illegally
mined by him, the appellant cannot seek any relief from this
court. The .respondents submitted that the appellant was
required to submit monthly report showing the details of the
quantity of iron ore stacked under the mining lease. It must also
F mention the total production, dispatch and the opening balance.
The respondents submitted that the appellant's lease period
having expired in the year 1998 itself and filing of renewal
application in compliance of Rule 24A of Minor Concession
Rules 1960 and failure to produce the statutory requirement like
G clearance from competent authority for availing the benefit
under Rule 24 (A)(6), the appellant has not produced
deliberately the working permissions obtained by him for the
period from 1998 to 2004 for establishing a fact that he was
legally mining. In the absence of renewed mining lease and also
H failure to produce certificates from the competent authority
B.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH v. DY DIRECTOR, DEPTI. 237
OF MINES & GEOLOGY. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

would indicate that the appellant is not a legal holder of the A
mining lease.

29. The respondents also submitted that the averments
regarding non-transporting the mine ore during the relevant
period on the ground of alleged agitation in the period is totally 8
false. In fact, during the years 2003-2004, the appellant has
transported huge quantity of iron ore and so also for the period
2004-05. Copy of the statement disclosing the transportation
of iron ore from the years 2001-02 to 2005-06 has also been
produced with the reply.
c
30. The respondents submitted that it is clear that the
appellant had produced 290960 tons of ore and transported
245372 tons of iron ore than what was permissible at that time
which was 5500 metric tons per annum as per IMB plan and
also this statement discloses the fact that the appellant is D
denying any illegal mining and claiming relief for which he is
· not entitled to in law. In other words, the respondents clearly
focused that the appellant had illegally mined iron ore much
more than the sanctioned capacity in a clandestine manner and
according to the respondents the appellant was not entitled to E
any relief from this court. The respondents further submitted that
the appellant has invented entirely a new story alleging that
somebody has illegally mined and stacked the iron ore in his
leased area without his knowledge. According to the
respondents it is a false statement and cannot be accepted. F
According to the respondents, to accumulate 1 lakh ton of iron
ore, one has to use thousands of vehicles for transportation and
accumulation. Failure on the part of the appellant to disclose
the same leads to the presumption that the appellant was
involved in illegal mining activity and these activities would result G
in an action to be taken under section 21 read with section
4(1 )(a) of The Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957. According to the respondents, the
. appellant is playing the game of hide and seek and trying to
justify this action without compliance of the provisions of the Act. H
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A The respondents further submitted that for the first time in the
above petition the appellant has introduced a theory of situation
of iron ore dumps in northern side and southern side of leased
area without disclosing as to where he has stacked the waste
produced during the mining activities as per the mining plan.
B This also substantiates the contentiog of the respondents, the
reason for non production of mining plan issued from the
competent authority along with the map.

31. According to the respondents, the seizure of 1 lakh ton
C of iron ore from the leased area of the appellant on 17.12.2004
and after the appellant gave a letter dated 20.12.2004 invented
new theory to claim the iron ore seized by the department taking
undue advantage of the waste dumps stored by him on the
northern side of the leased area. The appellant had also filed
an affidavit dated 10.01.2005 wherein he has undertaken to
D protect and save the seized iron ore and pursuant to the said
undertaking the appellant was permitted to lift the iron ore
produced in his own mine.

32. It may be relevant to submit that the Deputy Director
E of Mines and Geology, Tumkur, on the instructions from the
Director of Mines and Geology, had visited the leased area of
Mining Lease No.2187 on 03.01.2006 along with the technical
staff and found that the appellant had put a board on his waste
dump (stock belonging to Mines and Geology). It is also
F relevant to mention that the department has not erected any
board and this fact was also reported to the Director on
04.01.2006. The respondents further submitted that on
05.01.2006 in the presence of the persons who were present
at the time of seizure Mahazar on 17.12.2004, a detailed
G location of the seized iron ore was undertaken and in this regard
an affidavit of V. Selvaraju was also given. It may be relevant
to mention that the appellant filed an affidavit dated 15.02.2006
along with the letter addressed to the Director of Mines and
Geology in which he has sworn to the contents that he will not
transport either the material which was seized on 17.12.2004
H
B.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH v. DY DIRECTOR, DEPTT. 239
OF MINES & GEOLOGY [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
to the extent of 1 lakh ton illegally mined from biscuit pit or A
stacked illegally near the boundary of Mining Lease No.2187
located at Survey No.130 of the Honnebagi Village,
Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District for 1 lakh ton
material that was found lying near the crusher plant and which
was mined from Mining Lease No.2187. B

33. The respondents further submitted that the continuous
act of the appellant involving himself to grab the iron ore from
the seized dump resulted in the Deputy Director of Mines and
Geology to visit once again the leased area on 28.01.2006 and C
found that though the appellant was not permitted to carry out
any mining activity or using of crushing unit factually, it was seen
that the appellant was engaged in such activities resulting in a
notice issued to the appellant on 29.3.2006. The respondent
filed a criminal complaint on 25.2.2006 before the
Chikkanayakanahalli Police against six persons including the D
appellant for having indulged in illegal mining activities and
committed theft of iron ore and the same was registered in
Criminal No.20 of 2006 for an offence punishable under section
21 of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957 and under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. It E
is also mentioned in the affidavit that the auction was
completed on 24.02.2010. The respondents also mentioned
that the appellant has also filed criminal petition under section
482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court when the court directed the
Fast Track Court to dispose of the criminal revision petition F
within a stipulated period. At this juncture, the appellant
withdrew his Criminal Petition No.2104 of 201 O seeking liberty
to file criminal revision petition before the District Court, Tumkur
challenging the order of the learned Magistrate dated
30.03.2010 and he has filed criminal revision petition before G
the District Judge, Tumkur against the order of the learned
Magistrate dated 30.03.2010 alleging that the order passed by
the learned Magistrate was one behind his back. Though the
order specifically stated that the counsel for the appellal]!was
present and produced the copy of the order passed by the High H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 5 S.C.R.

A Court of Karnataka in Review Petition No.418 of 2009, the
respondent also mentioned that the appellant is venturing all
kinds of petitions suppressing the facts. The appellant has an
evil desire to grab the iron ore seized and auctioned. According
to the respondent, filing of this petition is an ultimate result of
s abuse of the process of law.

34. The respondents also mentioned that the seizure
mahazar drawn on 17.12.2004 shows that the iron ore were
lying within the boundaries mentioned in the said mahazar. This
is the very same boundary mentioned in mahazar drawn by the
C police in the year 2006 and the mahazar drawn at the time of
handing over of the iron ore to the possession of the highest·
bidder also reveals the same boundaries. Thus, boundaries in
all the three mahazars are one and the same, thereby,
establishing that the stand of the respondent regarding the
D place where actually iron ore auctioned is situated also negates
the stand taken by the appellant in regard to his claim. The
respondents further submitted that even the prayer sought in
these appeals was never a subject matter in Writ Petition No.
27521 of 2005 and thus the appellant is estopped from seeking
E · this claim as the auction process dated 24.2.2010 is completed
and further he had challenged the auction proceedings in writ
petition No.15079 of 2010 wherein the High Court refused to
interfere with the auction proceedings and the appellant having
withdrawn the writ petition No.15079 of 2010. It is mentioned
F by the respondents that auction of 24.2.2010 was in
consonance with the rules and regulations. The respondents
also submitted that the appellant having failed in all attempts
to stop the public auction, came forward with a plea to deposit
Rs.15 crores in Writ Petition No.15079 of 2010, spent some
G time and allowed the successful bidder to commence lifting of
iron ore after depositing the entire amount of Rs.10.10 crores
and allowing the bidder to transport the iron ore. The
respondents relied on the Audit Report of Kamalabai, Mining
Lease No.2187 from 2000-01 to 2005-06. The same is
H reproduced as under :
0 OJ
AUDIT REPORT OF SMT. KAMALA BAI, ML N0.2187 FROM 2000-01 TO 2005-06 IS AS BELOW ~ ~

Year Production Dispatch Opening Balance Current Year Demand Total Recovery Closing Balance z (/)
me
en ::u
Balance Inter- Fixed Royalty Interest Royalty/ Interest Royalty/ Interest !20 m
est Rent Fixed Fixed G.> z
Rent Rent
~~
5z
il000.01 21600 22160 37055 40388 0 145300 8893 231.636 107579 49261 74776 0 G.> ~
:< J:
2001-02 8900 8900 74776 0 0 79400 17946 172122 61406 17946 92770 0 Ci en
)>Z
2002-0:t 9725
2003-04 t50340
9925 92770
121865 19563
0
0
0
0
81475 4745
1319807 3393
178990 154682
1342763 1337863
4745
3393
19563
1507
0
0
<
m:x:
Ci)

m:<::
2004-05 290960 245372 45582 0 0 2786598 262 2788367 5674011 262 1507 22.85906 ::JJ 0
Excess OJ-<
paid Io
)>_

l2005-06 50201 49436 0 0 0 619425 0 619425 3207972 0 0
z ::JJ
2588547 om
)> ()
Exce:;s
paid ~b
..t: ;a
Deputy Director O
Mines and Geology Department ~ ':a
Tumkur .... ;:I
P.S. : In the years 2004-05, the balance indicated in this Chart is 1507, but it should be 45582.
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A 35. The respondents submitted that at that point of time
the appellant could legally mine upto to 5500 metric tons only
in a year. That limit was increased to 41000 metric tons a year.
It is beyond comprehension how illegal iron ore could be found
on the Mining Lease No.2187 to the tune of about 1 lakh ton
8 legally mined by the appellant. This was possible only when the
appellant had indulged in massive illegal mining.
36. The audit report extracted above clearly indicate that
the appellant had quarried and produced iron ore several times
more than its permissible limit particularly in the years from
c 2003 to 2006.
37. The theory of somebody had put 1 lakh ton of iron ore
of mining lease is totally untenable and beyond comprehension.
1 lakh ton of iron ore cannot be kept on any mining lease all of
a sudden without the knowledge of the appellant. Thousands
D of trucks have to transport the said quantity of iron ore and if it
did not belong to the appellant he ought to have complained
immediately after someone started dumping iron ore on his
mining lease. According to the respondent - State, this is a clear
case of illegal mining on a massive scale by the appellant.
E 38. Mr. Ram Naik, learned senior advocate appearing for
the auction purchaser contended that the appellant has not
approached this court with clean hands:'He submitted that the
auction purchaser had purchased the entire iron ore and also
lifted part of it and has already paid huge money to the
F respondent. The auction purchaser cannot be denied right to
lift the remaining iron ore.
39. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length and examined these appeals from various angles. In our
considered view, this court ought not to exercise its
G extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution
in a matter of this nature. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
These appeals are totally devoid of any merit and are
accordingly dismissed with costs.

H N.J. Appeals dismissed.