Holding

The 2004 environmental clearance is not retrospective; mining up to 1.4 LTPA between 2001‑2004 is lawful, and any excess production thereafter is illegal and subject to penalty.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the legality of Sarda Mines Private Limited’s (SMPL) mining operations after it received a permission on 13 July 1999 to extract 1.4 LTPA of mineral iron ore and an environmental clearance on 22 September 2004 for expanding production of iron ore (lump) to 4.0 MTPA. The Court held that the 2004 environmental clearance does not have retrospective effect and must be read in the context of the 1999 permission, which concerned mineral iron ore (run‑of‑mine) and not iron‑ore lump. Consequently, mining by SMPL from August 2001 to September 2004 was lawful only up to the originally permitted 1.4 LTPA, and any production beyond the clearance thereafter is illegal. The Court directed the Central Empowered Committee to quantify penalties for the excess mining, rejecting SMPL’s claim that the clearance should apply retrospectively. The interlocutory applications and the substantive writ petition were disposed of with these directions.

Issues considered

The environmental clearance granted on 22 September 2004 has retrospective effect?
Whether the clearance for iron‑ore (lump) is valid given the original permission for mineral iron ore under the MMDR Act?
Whether mining activity by SMPL from August 2001 to September 2004 was lawful within the 1.4 LTPA limit?
Whether production beyond the environmental clearance constitutes illegal mining liable to penalty?
Interpretation of ‘iron ore (lump)’ versus ‘mineral iron ore (ROM)’ under the MMDR Act

Legislation cited

Subjects

environmental clearancemining leaseiron oreMMDR Actretrospective effectexcess miningpenaltySupreme Courtwrit petitionmineral extractioniron ore lump

Judgment

1204 [2018] 13
SUPREME COURT S.C.R. 1204
REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.

A COMMON CAUSE
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(IN RE: SARDA MINES PVT. LTD.)
B (I.A. No. 40 of 2015, I.A.No.42 of 2015, IA No.61 of 2015 in IA
No.40 of 2015 and IA No.111989 of 2018)
In
(Writ Petition (C) No. 114 of 2014)
C NOVEMBER 12, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Environmental laws: Illegalities involved in the mining lease
of Sarda Mines Private Limited (SMPL) – In the instant case, SMPL
was granted permission on 13.7.1999 to extract 1.4 LTPA of iron
D ore – However, environmental clearance was granted to SMPL on
22.9.2004, which referred to the proposal for expansion of
production of iron ore (lump) from 1.5 LTPA to 4.0 MTPA – Validity
of environmental clearance granted to SMPL and the production
of iron ore without/in excess of the environmental clearance
E challenged – Held: Permission granted on 13.7.1999 was for
production of iron ore and not for iron ore (lump) – Even MMDR
Act referred to mineral iron ore and not to iron ore (lump) – Therefore,
the environmental clearance granted on 22.9.2004 must be
understood in the context of permission granted on 13.7.1999 and
MMDR Act – Environmental clearance does not have any
F retrospective effect – It is operational from the date it is granted –
Therefore, the mining activity carried out by SMPL from 13/
14.8.2001 till the date of environmental clearance that is 22.9.2004
is legal to extent of 1.4 LTPA and SMPL cannot be penalized for
this mining activity during this period – Since environmental
G clearance does not have retrospective effect, the first year of
production would be 2004-2005 (pro rata) based on the
environmental clearance – The records showed that there was excess
mining of iron ore from the first year of production itself – This
excess mining was clearly illegal and must be penalized – Central

H
1204
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1205

Empowered Committee (CEC) is directed to quantify the penalty to A
be imposed on SMPL from 22.9.2004 and based on the terms of the
environmental clearance – Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957.
Iron ore: Environmental clearance – Extraction of mineral
iron ore is extraction of iron ore Run of Mine (ROM) – Lumps of B
iron ore are by-product of ROM – In the instant case, permission
was granted to SMPL on 13.7.1999 to extract mineral iron ore –
This had no reference at all to the sub-category or by-product called
iron ore (lump) but has to be understood as permission to extract
mineral iron ore ROM – It was this permission that was sought to be
proposed for expansion of production – The environmental C
clearance on 22.9.2004 was only with reference to iron ore ROM –
This must be read in the context of the MMDR Act which refers to
mineral iron ore and does not refer to iron ore (lump) – There is no
merit in objections raised by SMPL to the report of the CEC with
regard to the validity of the environmental clearance or the excess D
or illegal mining of iron ore by SMPL.
Disposing of the IAs, the Court
HELD: The concept of extraction or production of iron ore
(lump) introduced in the environmental clearance was alien to
the permission granted on 13th July, 1999 and the MMDR Act. E
Therefore, the environmental clearance granted on 22 nd
September, 2004 must be understood in the context of the
permission granted on 13th July, 1999 and the MMDR Act. The
mining activity carried out by SMPL from 13/14 august 2001 till
the date of environmental clearance that is 22nd September, 2004 F
is legal to the extent of 1.4 LTPA and SMPL cannot be penalised
for this mining activity during this period. [Paras 8, 10][1209-H;
1210-A-B; 1211-B]
National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. State
of M.P. (2004) 6 SCC 281 : [2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 1; G
Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India (2015) 6 SCC 193:
[2015] 6 SCR 29 – relied on.
Common Cause v. State of Orissa. (2017) 9 SCC 499 –
referred to.
H
1206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.

A Case Law Reference
(2017) 9 SCC 499 referred to Para 2
[2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 1 relied on Para 16
[2015] 6 SCR 29 relied on Para 17
B
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 40 of 2015, I.A.
No. 42 of 2015, I.A. No. 61 of 2015 in I.A. No. 40 of 2015 and I. A. No.
111989 of 2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 114 of 2014
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
C Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv., A. D. N. Rao, Sudipto Sircar, Siddhartha
Chowdhury, Ms. Aparajita Singh, Advs. with him (A.Cs.)
Rakesh Dwivedi, Mukul Rohatgi, Ms. V. Mohana, A. K. Panda,
Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advs., Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Rahul
Gupta, Shibashish Misra, Sridhar Potaraju, Ms. Sindoora VNL, Ms.
D Shiwani Tushir, Ms. Kirti R. Mishra, Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Ms. Apurva
Upmanyu, Eklavya Dwivedi, Naveen Kumar, Saurabh Kirpal, Mrs.
Nandini Gore, Ms. Khushboo Bari, Ms. Natasha Sahrawat, Ms. Neha
Khandelwal, Ms. Sushil Jethmalani, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Ms. Akanksha
Kaul, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Balendu Shekhar, P. K. Mullick, Atulesh
E Kumar, Raj Bahadur, B. K. Prasad, Sunil Dogra, Vivek Vishnoi, Abhishek
Sharma, Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Sheena Taqui, Anil Kumar, Ms. Mansi
Kapur, Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Baij Nath Patel, Ms. Pratyusha Priyadarshini
for M/s Parekh & Co. Manoj K. Singh, Anurag Abhishek, Prem Prakash,
Raj Kumar Mehta, Ms. Himanshi Andley, Advs. for the appearing parties.

F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
1. In this batch of substantive applications, we are concerned
with what is described as “Illegalities involved in the mining lease of
Sarda Mines Private Limited”by the Central Empowered Committee in
G its report of 16th October, 2014.
2. It is not necessary to repeat all the facts leading up to these
applications since the background has already been detailed by us in
Common Cause v. State of Orissa.1
1
(2017) 9 SCC499
H
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1207
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

3. While dealing with the mining lease of Sarda Mines Private A
Limited, the Central Empowered Committee or the CEC concerned itself
with seven issues. They are:
1. Regarding renewal of the mining lease.
2. Regarding validity of the Environmental Clearance.
B
3. Regarding sale of iron ore in the form of ROM by Sarda Mines
Private Limited.
4. Regarding diversion of additional land for mining and allied
activities
C
5. Regarding production of iron ore without/in excess of the
Environmental clearance.
6. Regarding enquiry done by the State Government for alleged
violation of Rule 37, MCR, 1960 [Mineral Concession Rules of
D
1960].
7. Regarding alleged ownership of the mining lease actually being
with Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.
4. For the present, we are concerned only with the validity of the
E
environmental clearance granted to Sarda Mines Private Limited or SMPL
and the production of iron ore without/in excess of the environmental
clearance. The concern relates to a mining lease granted to SMPL over
947.046 hectares of land for 20 years from 14th August, 2001 to 13th
August, 2021.The mining lease is of Thakurani Mines, Block B, Village
Soyabali, District Keonjhar in Odisha. We are not concerned with the F
validity or otherwise of the grant or renewal of the mining lease to SMPL.
Grant of permission to mine
5. It has been pointed out to us and this is not disputed, that SMPL
was granted permission on 13th July, 1999 to extract 1,40,000 MT of iron
ore per annum.The permission granted clearly indicates that it is in the G
context of reopening (to the extent of broken up area of 94.024 acres)
the existing mine where the highest production was 1,39,802.00 MT
during 1966 as certified by the Deputy Director (Mines). The said
extraction or production was of iron ore and the permissiongranted in
1999 was also for extraction or production of iron ore. This was in accord H
1208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.

A with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) that permits mining of the mineral
iron ore.
The permission granted on 13th July, 1999reads as follows:
“Subject : Reopening of iron ore mines in Block-B in village
B Soyabali of Thakurani iron ore mines in District
Keonjhar, Orissa - clarifications reg.
Sir,
This has reference to letter of 10th June, 1999 jointly from you
C and Shri M.L. Sarda seeking clarification on applicability of
the provisions of the EIA Notification of 1994. We have noted
the following:
(i) The Department of Steel and Mines, Government of Orissa
has agreed to renew mining lease in respect of Block-B
D covering an area of 2340.20 acres in village Soyabali of
the Thakurani iron ore mines in favour of Shri S.L. Sarda
and Shri M.L. Sarda.
(ii) The entire lease area is in reserve forest for whichde-
reservation proposal has been forwarded by the DFO,
Keonjhar to the PCCF, Bhubaneswar.
E
(iii) Already broken up area is 94.024 acres.
(iv) Highest production from Block-B mines was 1,39,802.00
MT during 1966 as certified by Dy. Director (Mines),
Joda, Keonjhar in his letter No. 7892 dated 26.5.99.
F (v) Applications have been submitted to Orissa State Pollution
Control Board for obtaining “consent to operate” and IBM
for approval of mining plan.
Further, it has been noted that you are planning to reopen the
mine sometimes by the end of 1999 without change in broken
G up area and production level. Also there is no plan to modernise
the mine. It has also been noted that wet drilling will be adopted
on working phases. Besides management of surface run off,
mine water discharge and plantation of OB dumps, water
spraying on haul roads, transfer points and crushing plant will
H be done regularly.
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1209
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

The provisions of EIA Notification of 1994 are not applicable A
to the renewal of mining lease proposals that do not involve
expansion or modernisation. However, you should confine
excavation only to already broken up area of 94.024 acres as
per mining plan approved and limit production to 1,40,000 MTPA
[TPA?]. You are also advised to obtain other statutory
B
approvals from the concerned authorities including the forestry
clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and ensure
compliance with the general environmental conditions as
indicated in Annexure-I. In case, you plan any expansion or
modernisation then prior approval under the provisions of the
EIA Notification of 1994 as amended subsequently should be C
obtained from the Ministry.”
6. Again, the admitted position is that SMPL did not act upon the
permission granted on 13th July, 1999 till 13/14 August, 2001. The apparent
reason is that the mining lease in favour of SMPL was renewed only on
13/14 August, 2001. It is only after the mining lease was renewed that D
SMPL started mining or extracting iron ore on the basis of the permission
granted on 13th July, 1999.
Grant of environmental clearance
7. The next important date that we are concerned with is 22nd
September, 2004 that is the date on which SMPL was granted E
environmental clearance for the extraction of iron ore. The environmental
clearance granted to SMPL was for expansion of production of iron ore
(lump) from 1.5 lakh tonnes per annum (LTPA) to 4.0 million tonnes per
annum (MTPA). There was a progressive gradation in the production
capacity inasmuch as during the first year the increase in production F
was permitted from 1.5 LTPA to 0.5 MTPA; 3.0 MTPA by the third
year and 3.750 MTPA from the fifth year to achieve the rated capacity
in production of 4.0 MTPA during the 17th year.
8. However, what is strange about the environmental clearance
granted to SMPL on 22nd September, 2004 is that it referred to the G
“proposalfor expansion of production of iron ore (lump)” from 1.5 LTPA
to 4.0 MTPA. In fact, the permission granted on 13th July, 1999 was for
production of iron ore and not for iron ore (lump). It is not even the case
of SMPL that it was granted the permission on 13th July, 1999 for the
extraction or production of iron ore (lump), Moreover, the MMDR Act
refers to the mineral iron ore and not to iron ore (lump).The concept of H
1210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.

A extraction or production of iron ore (lump) introduced in the environmental
clearance was alien to the permission granted on 13th July, 1999 and the
MMDR Act. Therefore, the environmental clearance granted on 22nd
September, 2004 must be understood in the context of the permission
granted on 13th July, 1999 and the MMDR Act. If so appreciated, then it
is clear that environmental clearance was granted to SMPL only related
B
to the expansion of production of iron ore from 1.5 LTPA to 4.0 MTPA.
As mentioned above, it is not even the case of SMPL that it was granted
permission to extract iron ore (lump) to the extent of 1.4 LTPA in terms
of the permission granted on 13th July, 1999. Our understanding of the
environmental clearance in this context and in this regard keeping these
C factors in mind is of considerable importance insofar as the decision in
the applications is concerned, as will be apparent a little later.
Retrospective effect of the environmental clearance
9. Learned counsel for SMPL did not contest or dispute that an
environmental clearance does not have any retrospective effect. It is
D operational from the date it is granted. In any event, this issue is no
longer res integra having been settled in the decision rendered
inCommonCause in paragraph 87 of the Report. The submission made,
however, was that the benefit of retrospectivity of the environmental
clearance should be given to SMPL from the date on which the mining
E lease was renewed, that is, with effect from 13/14 August, 2001. The
reason for claiming this benefit is that the expanded permissible production
would then commence from August 2001 and SMPL would be entitled
to extract a larger quantity of iron ore with the progressive gradation
given in the environmental clearance with the result that the 3rd year of
production would be 2004 and the 5thyear of production would be 2006
F and not 2009. Similarly, the 17th year of production would be 2018 and
not 2021.
10. We simply cannot accept this submission since it is plainly
contrary to the decision of this Court in Common Cause. Moreover and
additionally, accepting the submission would mean that for the period
G from 13/14 August, 2001 till 22nd September, 2004 SMPL would have
the benefit of the permission granted on 13thJuly, 1999 as well as the
retrospective benefit of the environmental clearance dated 22nd
September, 2004 meaning thereby that SMPL would have two mining
permissions, which is obviously not possible. However, we cannot deny
H
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1211
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

to SMPL the benefit of the permission granted on 13th July, 1999 on the A
basis of which SMPL carried out mining activities from the date of renewal
of the mining lease that is 13/14 August, 2001 till 22nd September, 2004.
Even learned Amicus does not have any objection to granting the benefit
of the permission to SMPL for this period, to the extent that SMPL
extracted or produced 1.4 LTPA of iron ore during this period. Therefore,
B
the mining activity carried out by SMPL from 13/14 August, 2001 till the
date of the environmental clearance, that is, 22nd September, 2004 is
legal to the extent of 1.4 LTPA and SMPL cannot be penalised for this
mining activity during this period.
11. It was submitted by learned counsel for SMPL that if the
environmental clearance is not given retrospective effect then it would C
mean that its validity would not be co-extensive with the term of the
mining lease. Resultantly, theoperation of the environmental clearance
though granted for the life of the mining lease would necessarily be
curtailed to the detriment of SMPL. This submission is noted only to be
rejected. The submission made can hardly be a ground for giving D
retrospective effect to the environmental clearance. If the life of the
environmental clearance is curtailed due to operation of the law, then so
be it.
12. Learned counsel for SMPL has shown us a Summary ofthe
Project, Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental
Management Plan relating to the proposed expansion of the Thakurani E
iron ore mine, Block-B, District Keonjhar, Orissa. This document is of
February 2002 and is to be found on page 25 of volume 168 of the paper
book. He has drawn our attention to page 28 thereof which relates to
the mining proposed by open-cast method using drilling and blasting.
The production build-up is given in the form of a chart but it takes 2001- F
2002 as the first year of production. This is obviously on the assumption
that the environmental clearance relates back to the date of renewal of
the mining lease in 2001. However, since we have held that the
environmental clearance does not and cannot have any retrospective
effect, the first year of production should in fact be 2004-2005 (pro rata)
based on the environmental clearance. On the basis of the chart pointed G
out by learned counsel for SMPL, it is quite clear that there has been
excess mining of iron ore from the first year of production itself. This
excess mining is clearly illegal and must be penalised in terms of our
judgement inCommon Cause.
H
1212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.

A 13. We leave it to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to
quantify the penalty to be imposed on SMPL from 22nd September, 2004
and based on the terms of the environmental clearance. The calculation
should also take into consideration our conclusion that the environmental
clearance is not retrospective and the first year of production, in view of
the environmental clearance granted to SMPL would be 2004-2005. Any
B
mining in excess of the environmental clearance by SMPL would be and
is illegal.
Extraction of iron ore (lump)
14. The main rub of the controversy before us lies in the
terminology employed in the environmental clearance granted to SMPL
C - whether it was entitled to extract iron ore (lump) or mineral iron
ore,within the limits laid down in the environmental clearance.
15. Before resolving this controversy, it must be clearly understood
that extraction of the mineral iron ore is the extraction of iron ore Run of
Mine or ROM. Lumps of iron ore are, in a sense, a by-product of ROM
D as are topsoil, mineral rejects, sub-grade ore and fines and the distinctions
made are for the purposes of payment of royalty. The submission of
learned counsel for SMPL is to the effect that SMPL was entitled to
extract iron ore (lump) in terms of the environmental clearance. If this
submission is to be taken literally, then SMPL was entitled to extract
E only iron ore (lump) without extracting iron ore ROM. This would be
much like the argument put forth by Portia enabling Shylock to extract
his pound of flesh without spilling a drop of blood. However, we need
not take a decision in this regard merely on semantics.
16. That lumps are a by-product of the extraction of iron ore
ROM is clear from the decision of this Court rendered in National
F Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. State of M.P.2 wherein this
Court noted the process of winning the mineral as described by the
appellant therein in the following words:
“Iron ore deposits occur mostly in the hill ranges and iron ore is
found on the top of the hill i.e. on the surface. The process by
G which the mineral is won has been described by the appellant as
under:
“The ore is extracted by opencast method of mining for which
mining benches are prepared. Firstly, holes are drilled on the
benches covering the entire height of the bench at regular
H 2
(2004) 6 SCC 281
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1213
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

distance depending on ore types. After charging of the holes A
with explosives this portion of the bench is blasted. The blasted
material known as ROM (run-of-mines) consists of large
boulders, fragments and fines along with other
contaminants. ROM is transported to crushing plant by
dumpers and crushed to below 150 mm sizes. This
B
crushed ROM contains lump, fines and also
contaminants such as alumina and silica. The crushed ore
is transported to screening plant through conveyor belts and is
washed with water and screened in vibrating screens. Vibrating
screens segregate ore into different sizes such as lump,
calibrated ore and fines……” (Emphasis supplied by us). C
17. Similarly, in Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India3 it was
observed that in the process of mining, iron ore is extracted (that is
ROM) and separated into ore lumps, fines and waste material which is
commonly known as slime.
18. Looked at in this light, the context in which permission was D
granted to SMPL on 13th July, 1999 is important. Permission was granted
to SMPL to extract the mineral iron ore. This had no reference at all to
the sub-category or by-product called iron ore (lump) but must be
understood as permission to extract mineral iron ore ROM. It was this
permission that was sought to be proposed for expansion of production E
and if it is looked at in this contemporaneous or historical (whichever)
background, then it is quite obvious that the environmental clearance
granted on 22nd September, 2004 was only with reference toiron ore
ROM. This must also be read in the context of the MMDR Act which
refers to the mineral iron ore and does not refer toiron ore (lump). A
combination of these two factors convinces us that the environmental F
clearance granted to SMPL was only with reference toiron ore ROM
and notiron ore (lump), notwithstanding the terminology employed in the
environmental clearance.
19. Taking the view as canvassed by learned counsel for SMPL
would lead to a rather anomalous situation wherein, for the purposes of G
extracting iron ore (lump) of a permissible quantity, SMPL could extract
as much iron ore ROM as it desired. In other words, for the purposes of
extracting iron ore (lump) of 4.0 MTPA could it be said that SMPL was
entitled to extract iron ore ROM to the extent of 6.0 MTPA or even 8.0
3
(2015) 6 SCC 193
H
1214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.

A MTPA? The answer to this is certainly in the negative otherwise the
environmental clearance granted to SMPL would be devoid of any rational
meaning whatsoever. Also taking this into consideration, it does appear
to us that though the environmental clearance granted to SMPL was
unhappily worded, it must be given a realistic meaning so that it is not
rendered ineffective on the ground of vagueness and to the detriment of
B
the environment as also to the detriment of SMPL.
20. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the Summary of the
Project, Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental
Management Plan of February 2002 placed on record by SMPL in
volume 168 of the paper book. The table or chart on page 28 thereof and
C which forms a part of the document indicates that for the production ore
extraction of iron ore (lump) the total excavation of iron ore ROM
proposed is almost double the quantity. The chart is as follows:
Y ea rs Lu mp O re T o tal ROM To p M ine r al S ub gra d e Fin es,
(+ 5 1 80 m E xc av a tion S o il r e je c ts O re ( M T) 5 mm
(M T )
and 30 + (M T) (M T) (M T) (M T)
D 1 8m) (M T )

1 st ye ar 0.5 00 1 .1 51 0 .7 70 0 .0 00 0.3 4 9 0 .0 32 0. 27 0
2 00 1 2 00 2

2 nd y ear 1.1 96 2 .1 59 1 .8 40 0 .0 00 0 .2 67 0 .0 52 0 . 6 44

2 00 2 2 00 3

E 3 r d y e ar 1.9 76 3 .4 99 3 .0 40 0 .0 00 0.1 2 1 0 .3 38 1. 06 4

2 00 3 2 00 4
th
4 y ea r 2.9 90 4 .8 29 4 .6 00 0 .0 00 0 .1 83 0 .0 46 1 . 6 10

2 00 4 2 00 5

th
F 5 y ea r 3.7 50 6 .0 58 5 .7 70 0 .0 00 0 .2 31 0 .0 57 2 . 0 20

2 00 5 2 00 6

Su b Tot al 1 0.41 2 1 7 .69 6 1 6.02 0 0 .0 00 1 .1 51 0 .5 25 5 . 6 06

2 00 7 2 01 1 1 8.75 0 3 3 .57 1 2 8.85 0 0 .0 24 1 .3 42 3 .3 55 1 0 . 1 00

2 01 2 2 01 6 1 8.75 0 3 3 .54 7 2 8.85 0 0 .0 00 1.3 4 2 3 .3 55 1 0. 10 0

G 2 01 7 2 02 1 20.00 3 5 .77 9 3 0.77 0 0 .0 00 1 .4 31 3 .5 78 1 0 . 7 70

Gr an d To tal 6 7.91 2 1 20 .5 93 1 04 .9 0 0 .0 24 5 .2 66 1 0 .8 13 3 6 . 5 76

21. It is quite clear to us even from the above chart that the
interpretation sought to be given by learned counsel for SMPL to the
H environmental clearance was never intended and if it was, then the
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1215
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

unfortunate consequence would be that the environmental clearance A
must be held to be invalid and quashed, resulting in greater damage to
the interests of SMPL than envisaged. On a realistic interpretation to
the environmental clearance, for the purposes of calculating excess or
illegal production of iron ore, the entire extraction of iron ore ROM is
required to be taken into consideration.
B
22. We may note in this context that it has come on record that
the entire iron ore ROM extracted by SMPL is actually sold to Jindal
Steel and Power Ltd. or JSPL and it is not only iron ore (lump) that is
sold to JSPL. In this factual background, the issue of the relationship
between SMPL and JSPL arises but we are not concerned with this for
the present. However, what is more important is that it is the sale of iron C
ore ROM that is made by SMPL to JSPL and not the sale of iron ore
(lump). In other words, SMPL is desirous of taking full advantage of its
extraction and production of iron ore ROM but at the same time shying
away from the legal consequences that follow.
23. It was submitted by learned counsel for SMPL that the CEC D
has confused itself between extraction or production of iron ore ROM
and extraction or production of iron ore (lump) and as a consequence, it
has arrived at an incorrect figure of excess or illegal mining by SMPL.
In fact, the contention is that SMPL has neither been involved in any
excess or illegal mining and the conclusions arrived at by the CEC are E
totally incorrect. We cannot accept this submission in view of the
discussion above, including the conduct and activities of SMPL, the
provisions of the MMDR Act and the context in which the permission
and environmental clearance was granted to SMPL. Under the
circumstances, we find no merit in the objections raised by SMPL to the
report of the CEC with regard to the validity of the environmental F
clearance or the excess or illegal mining of iron ore by SMPL.
24. However, in view of our conclusion, the CEC might have to
rework the quantum of excessive or illegal mining carried out by SMPL
and the consequent penalty. For this, we grant 6 weeks’ time to the CEC
to do the needful. All records relevant for arriving at a decision should G
be made available by SMPL and the concerned authorities to the CEC.
25. The substantive applications are disposed of to the above extent
and in terms of the above directions.

Devika Gujral IAs disposed of. H