COMMON CAUSEversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

                                                              .   '



                     [2°'14) 7 S.C.R. 561


                     COMMON CAUSE                                     A
                              v.
                  UNION OF INDIA & ORS
            (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114 of 2014)

                        MAY 16, 2014.                                 8
  [A;K. PATNAlK, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, FAKKI~
               .                             '
         MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

     Mines and minerals:
                                                                      c
       Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
 1957 - s. 8(3) - Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - r. 24A(6)
 - Illegal mining in State of Odisha - Writ petition - Several            ...
 lessees operating without clearances under the 1986 Act and               .
                                                                      0
 the 1980 Act, and without renewal by the Government- Interim
 order- Pursuant thereto, examination of the matter by Central
 Empowered Committee (CEC) - Submission of report by
 CEG as regards the mining leases which are operational,
 which were not having requisite environmental .:;f.9arances,         E
 which are suspended, rejected or lapsed, and those under first
 renewal and deemed renewal provision - Out of these 26 iron
 ore/manganese leases being operated as second and
 subsequent deemed renewals u/r. 24A(6) of the 1960 Rules
 without any express orders of renewal passed by the State            F
 Government - Held: Directions issued that the 26 leases
.operating as second and subsequent renewals without any
 express orders of renewal passed by the State Government
 would not be allowed to operate by State Government until
 express orders are passed in terms of s.8(3) of the 1957 Act         G
 - State Government directed to consider· all renewal
 applications and dispose them of within six months from today
 - State Government further directed to consider first the

                             561                                      H
     •
     562        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A renewal applications in respect of leases granted for captive
     mining for providing iron or manganese ore as raw material
     for industries and thereafter, the renewal applications in
     respect of the other leases - Environment (Protection) Act,
     1986 - Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
B
         Goa Foundation Vs . Union of India Writ Petition (C) No.
     435 of 2012 dated 21.4.2014-referred to .

     . CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
0 114 of 2014.
             Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

        K. V. Vishwanathan, Rakesh Kumar Khanna, ASG., Dr.
   Abhishek Man Singhvi, Mukul Rohtagi, Pinaki Mishra, F. S.
D Nariman,Gopal Jain, Gopal Subramanium, Ashok Parija, K. K.
   Venugopal, Manas Mahapatra, P.P. Rao, Ajit Kumar Sinha,
   Anil B. Dewan, Raj Panjawani, Prashant Bhushan, Ramesh K.
   Mishra, Shyam Singh Chauhan, Ramesh Singh, R.M. Patnaik,
E Kedar Nath Tripathi, Sunil K. Jain, Madhur Jain, Jagmohan
   Sharma, Rajat Jeriwal, Aakash Bajaj, Sanjeev Kumar, R.N.
   Karanjawala, Manik Karanjawala, Nandini Gore, Devina
   Sehgal; Tahira Karanjawala, Neha Khandelwal (for Karanjawal
   & Co.,) Anand Varma, ·P. M. Patnaik, Shiv Mangal Sharma,
F :Nishit Agrawal, Shrey K.aRoor (For AURA & Co.,) D. L.
   Chidananda, Seema Rao, Mohit Nagar, Syed Tanweer Ahmad,
   Sudarshan Singh Rawat, D.S. Mahta, Tanveer Ahmad,
   Sukhbeer Kaur Bajwa, Kirlt Renu Mishra, Apurva Upmanyu,
   Dheeraj Nair for the Appearing Parties.
G.
             The Order of the Court was delivered by
              A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This writ petition relates to mining
         in the State of Odisha. When the writ petition was heard on the
         preliminary point on 21.04.2014, we found from the averments
H
          COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA                      563
                [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
   in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that several le;;sees were    A
   operating without clearances under the Environment
   (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Forest (Conservation) Act,
   1980, and without renewal by .the Government and we were of
   the opinion that an. interim order needs to be passed in respect
   of the lessees who are operatin!J the leases in violation of the   B
   law. On 21.04.2014, therefore, while issuing notice in the writ
   petition, we directed that the matter be listed on ~8.04.2014
   for consideration of the Interim order that should be passed in
   the writ petitioh. On 21.04.2014, we also directed that the CEC,   C
 . in the meanwhile, will make out a iist of such lessee.s who are
   operating the leases in violation of the law and granted liberty
   to the parties to produce t.heir papers before the CEC and
   directed that the State of Odisha and the Union of India will
. cooperate with the CEC to prepare the list.                         D
        2. Pursuant to the order passed on 21.04.2014, the cec
. examined the matter during a meeting held on 24.04,2014 with
·the Chief Secretary, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Mines),
  the Principal Secretary (Forest), the Principal Chief Conservator
  of Forests and other senior officers of the Government of E
  Odisha as well as Dr. V.P. Upadhyay, Director IA(Non-Coal
  Mining) and Mrs. Bharati, Director (AOHQ), of the Ministry of
  Environment and Forests and the Secretary General,
  Federation of Indian Mining Industries (FIMI) and also examined· F
  th.e representations received by the CEC on behalf of the lease
  holders, and has submitted a report dated 25.4.2014.
        3. We have considered the report dated 25.4.2014 of the
 CEC, and the submissions made by learned counsel appearing
.for- ~ifferent parties, and we find that 102 mining leases'do not    G
 have requisite environmental clearances, approvals under the
 Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, approved Mining Plan and/
 or Consent to Operate. A list of these 102 mining leases is
 annexed to the report of the CEC as Annexure R-2. The CEC            H
    564     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A has, however, stated in the report that mining operations in
  these 102 mining leases have been suspended and these 102
  mining leases have been classified as non-working leases. We
  direct that mining operations in these 102 mining leases listed
  in Annexure R-2 of th,e report of the CEC shall remain
B suspended, but it will be open to such lessees to move the
  concerned authorities for environmental clearances, approval
  under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, approval of Mining
  Plan or Consent to Operate and as and when the mining
  lessees are able to obtain all the clearances/approval/consent,
c they may move this Court for modification of this interim order
  in relation to their cases.
        4. We further find that 29 mining leases listed in Annexure
  R-3 to the report of the CEC have been determined or have
o been rejected or have lapsed. We direct that mining operations
  in these 29 mining leasei> will also remain suspended, but it
  will be open for the lessees of these 29 mining leases to move
  the concerned authorities or the Court or the Tribunal for
  necessary relief and as and when they get appropriate relief
E from the concerned authorities or the Court or the Tribunal, they
  may move this Court for modification of this interim order in
  relation to their cases.
        5. We also find that 53 iron ore/manganese mining leases
F listed in Annexure R-4 to the report of the CEC are operating
  and all of them are having approvals under the Forest
  .(Conservation) Act, 1980, Consent to Operate granted by the
  Odisha State Pollution Control Board and approved Mining
  Plans and 3 more mining leases listed in Annexure R-5 are
G located in forest as well as in non-forest land and those located
  In non-forest area do not have approval under the Forest
   (Conservation) Act, 1980. Hence, a total of 56 iron ore/
   manganese mining leases are presently operating in the State
  <;>f Odisha, but out of these 56 operating mining leases, lease
H
         COMMON' CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA                      565
                [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
                              '
 deeds in respeet of 16 mining leases listed in Annexure R-6          A
to the report of the CEC have been executed and the balance
140 mining leases are operating under the deemed renewal
1
 provision in Rule 24A(6) of the Mineral Cohcession Rules,
1
 1960. Out of these 40 mining leases, 14 leases are operating
1
 as first renewal and 26 leases are "operating a. s second and        B
1subsequent renewals and the renewal applications are at
1

 various stages of examination and in some cases 'in principle'
 decision to grant the renewals have been taken and the follow
 up actions are under process.
                                                                      c
       6. The 16 mining leases listed in Annexure R-6 to the report
  of the CEC in respect of which the lease deeds for grant or
  the renewal 'of mining leases have been executed may be
  allowed to be operated for the time being as they have valid
  lease deeds in their favour. Out of the remaining 40 mining         D
  leases, 14 leases are under the first renewal. As the lessees
  have a right of first renewal for a period not exceeding 20 years
  under Section 8(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development
  and Regulation) Act, 1957 and as under Rule 24A(6) of the
  Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the leases are deemed to            E
  have been extended by a further period till the State Goveroment
  passes orders thereon, these 14 leases under the first renewal
I
  may be allowed to be operated. The 'remaining 26 leases are
  being operated as second and subsequent deemed renewals
  under Rule 24A(6} of the Min.era! Concession Rules, 1960            F
  without any express orders of renewal passed by the State
  Government. We have 'already taken a view in our judgment
  dated 21.4.2014 in Writ Petition (C) No. 435 of 2012 (Goa
  Foundation Vs. Union of India) that the provision of deemed         G
  renewal in Rule 24A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rule, 1. 960
  is not available for the second and subsequent renewals of a
  mining lease considering the language of Section 8 (3) of the
·Mining and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
'Hence, these 26 leases cannot be allowed to be operated until        H
    566     SUPREME COUl~T REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A the State Government passes express orders in terms of
  Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
  Regulation) Act, 1957 after it forms an opinion that in the
  interests of mineral development it is necessary to renew the
  leases and after it records reasons for renewal of the leases
B in respect of the minerals.

        7. Learned counsel for the lessees, however, submitted
  that the lessees are not at fault inasmuch as they have
  submitted their applications for renewal in tim~ and it was for
c the State Government to consider their applications and pass
  orders in terms of Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals
  (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and, therefore, the
  lessees should not be allowed to suffer closure of their mines
  for the fault of the State Government. We cannot accept this
D submission of learned -counsel for the lessees because under
  Section 8(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
  Regulation) Act, 1957 the lessees have a statutory right of a
  first renewal for a maximum period of 20 years, but after the
  expiry of the first renewal they have right only to apply for further
E renewal of the leases under Section 8(3) of the Mines and
   Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the
  State Government has the power to renew for a further period
  only if it is of the opinion that in the interest of mineral
F development it is necessary so to do and only if reasons are
   recorded by the State Government for such renewal of the
   leases and in the case of the 26 lessees who are operating
   under the second and subse!quent renewals, this opinion has
   not been formed and the reasons have not been recorded by
G th~ State Government in te'rms of Section 8(3) of the Mines and
   Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

       8. Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned Additional Solicitor
    General, referred to the application for intervention filed on
H
          COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA                      567
                [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

  behalf of Ministry of Steel, Government of India, supported by A
                    KB.
,the affidavit of Shri      Nair, Under Secretary, Ministry of Steel,
  Government of India, and submitted that more than 50% of the
  requirement of iron ore of the country is met from the State of
  Odisha and a large number of iron ore leases in the State are
  granted for captive mining and the ore from the mines is being B
  utilized for the manufacturing of the steel in the plants of the
  lessees. He further submitted that commercial    ,. miners are also
  providing raw material to iron and steel industries not only in
  the State but also in the whole country. He submitted that while ·c
. there is a need to impose time limits by various authorities,
· closure of mining operations due to delay in decisions by the
  State Government on mining lease renewal applications, may
  adversely affect the availability of critical raw materials like iron
  ore for domestic value addition industry, including the steel 0 .
  sector and,, therefore, where t~e application for renewals have
l
. been mede within the time prescribed under the statute, th~ ·
  State Government which has to take the decision should ·be
  directed to decide the applications in a time bound manner so
  that the industry is not penalized~                                   E

       9. We find from the report of the C.EC that the Chief
 Secretary,_ Odisha, has stated before the CEC that a special
 drive has been undertaken to complete the process of renewal
 of the mining leases and for this purpose a High Level F
 Committee under the Cha•rmanship of th~ Additional Chief
 Secretary has been constituted and this Committee has met
 five.times and'in a number qf cases 'in principle' decisions                   ,_
 have been taken and efforts are on to ensure that the process
 of renewal_ of leases is completed within the next six months, G .
                                                    .      ')
      .10. After considering the report of the CEC as weH as the
 submissions on behalf of the parties! we.. direct as an interim ·
 measure that these 26 leases operating as second and.
 subsequent renewals without any express orders of re.newal H
                                                                      ~     .
   568           SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [201~] 7 S.C.R.


A passed by the State Government will not be allowed to operate
  by the State Government until express orders are passed in
  terms of Section 8(3) of the Mines arid Minerals (Development
  and Regulation) Act, 195,7 and we  .  also direct. that
                                                       . all renewal
  applications under Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals
B (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 will be considered and '
  disposed of by the State Government within six months from
  today. We furthet direct that the ~tate Government will-consider
  first the renewal applications in respect of leases which were
C granted for captive mining for providing iron or manganese or~
  as raw material for industries and only thereafter consider the
  renewal applications in respec~ of the other leases. In any ca1e.
  the State Government wi.11 ensure that the entire process of
  consideration and disposal of renewal applications under
0 Section 8(3) of the Act is completed within six months from
  today. With the aforesaid interim directions, the interim matter
  stand disposed of.

    Nidhi Jain                               Writ Petition disposed of.