Holding

The Court upheld the continuation of the 10% levy, affirmed the district‑level production ceilings and MPAP framework, and directed the Joint Team to demarcate the seven leases and the CEC to report on all environmental and production matters.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard applications arising from the long‑standing illegal mining controversy in Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur districts of Karnataka. The petitioners sought directions for demarcating seven mining leases that straddle the Karnataka‑Andhra Pradesh boundary, for the implementation of Reclamation and Rehabilitation (R&R) Plans, and for the enforcement of Maximum Permissible Annual Production (MPAP) and district‑level production ceilings. The Court affirmed the earlier orders fixing district‑level caps, directing that MPAP for each lease be scaled down pro‑rata if the aggregate exceeds the ceiling, and reiterated that R&R Plans are a pre‑condition for resumption of mining. It ordered a Joint Team of officials from both states, assisted by NIT Karnataka, to conduct ground surveys of the seven leases within six months and to submit demarcation reports to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The Court rejected the petitioners' plea to discontinue the statutory 10% levy on iron‑ore sales transferred to the Karnataka Mining Environment Restoration Corporation (KMERC) for the Comprehensive Environment Plan for Mining Impact Zone (CEPMIZ). Finally, the Court directed the CEC, Monitoring Committee and Oversight Authority to prepare a comprehensive report on production caps, e‑auctioning, and R&R plan implementation, while dismissing several ancillary applications as infructuous.

Issues considered

The appropriate method and authority for demarcating the seven mining leases on the Karnataka‑Andhra Pradesh inter‑state boundary.
Whether the 10% levy on iron‑ore sale proceeds transferred to the SPV (KMERC) should be discontinued.
The enforcement and calculation of Maximum Permissible Annual Production (MPAP) and district‑level production ceilings for mining leases.
The necessity and scope of Reclamation and Rehabilitation (R&R) Plans as a pre‑condition for mining resumption.
The role of the Central Empowered Committee, Monitoring Committee and Oversight Authority in overseeing production caps, e‑auctioning, and environmental compliance.

Subjects

environmental lawillegal miningreclamation and rehabilitation plansmaximum permissible annual productiondistrict-level production ceilingdemarcation of mining leases10% levyspecial purpose vehicleCEPMIZcentral empowered committee

Judgment

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1291 : 2024 INSC 267

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors.
v.
State of Karnataka & Ors.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009)
14 March 2024
[Sanjiv Khanna, M.M. Sundresh and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Various applications were filed before the Hon’ble Court seeking
directions pertaining to demarcation of land for mining leases,
implementation of R & R [Reclamation and Rehabilitation] Plans,
imposition of a Maximum permissible annual production [MPAP]
and District-level production ceiling for mining leases, etc.

Headnotes
Environmental Law – Background of illegal mining in Bellary,
Chitradurga and Tumkur in Karnataka – Temporary ban on
mining in the said Districts – Subsequent imposition of
production ceiling on mining leases, enhanced from time-to-
time – Categorization of mines into Category ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’
based on severity of encroachment by the mines – Issue of
demarcation of seven mining leases.
Held: The Hon’ble Court by an Order dated 28.09.2022
had directed a Joint Team to prepare sketches of the seven
mining leases – However, the said Order was deferred till the
inter-state boundary was demarcated on the ground – The inter-
state boundaries were fixed on the ground – Thereafter, a Joint
Team was constituted comprising of Officers from the State of
Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh to render support to the CEC
in surveying the seven mining leases – Direction issued to the
National Institute of Technology, Suratkhal, Karnataka to carry
out the survey on the ground level, based on the total station
method, and satellite images of the seven mining leases – The
survey was directed to be undertaken for one mining lease at a
time – The CEC was directed to issue notice to the respective
lessees after receipt of the survey/demarcation report, and pass
appropriate orders – The exercise was directed to be undertaken,
even if the leases had expired – The Monitoring Committee
1292 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

was also directed to be associated with the aforesaid exercise
undertaken by the CEC, after the submission of the survey /
demarcation reports. [Paras 5-14]
Environmental law – Maximum permissible annual production
[MPAP] and District-level production ceiling for mining
leases – CEC fixed implementation of a Reclamation
and Rehabilitation (R & R) Plan as a pre-condition for
resumption of mining – Object of R & R Plan – CEC proposed
implementation of MPAP for each mining lease, accepted
by the Court – If total lease-wise annual production from
all the leases in the District exceeds the ceiling limit fixed,
then the MPAP for each mining lease to be scaled down on
a pro-rata basis.
Held: The Hon’ble Court reiterated the object of R & R Plans,
and directed implementation of MPAP for mining leases – It was
held that the objective of the R & R Plans is to (a) carry out the
time-bound reclamation and rehabilitation of the areas found to
be under illegal mining; (b) ensure scientific and environmentally
sustainable mining; (c) ensure compliance with the various stands
stipulated under the environment/mining statutes; and (d) regular and
effective motoring, evaluation and corrective measures – The R & R
Plans, with specifying actions to be undertaken for reclamation and
rehabilitation works provided for an MPAP [i.e. Maximum Permissible
Annual Production] restriction for each mining lease – The upper
cap fixed at the district level is mandatory and binding – For the
purpose of feasible annual production, the following factors would
be kept in mind (a) mineral reserves in the lease area; (b) area
available for overburden/waste dumps and subgrade dumps; (c)
existing transport facilities vis-à-vis the traffic load of the mining lease
and adjoining mining leases – The MPAP [Maximum Permissible
Annual Production] is the minimum of the quantity that may be
feasible based on the above three parameters – If the total of the
lease-wise annual production from all the leases in the district
exceeds the ceiling limit fixed for a specific District, then the MPAP
for each mining lease is to be scaled down on a pro-rata basis, to
ensure that the District level production ceiling is not breached –
The CEC, with the Monitoring Committee was requested to aid and
advice the Oversight Authority to undertake a complete exercise in
the three districts, and submit a Report to the Court – The Report
shall also examine whether sub-caps in particular areas should be
fixed, or caps should be increased or decreased – The CEC, the
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1293

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

Monitoring Committee and the Oversight Authority will examine
whether any regulation like e-auctioning is required for the sale of
the mined material – They will also consider the date with regard
to which royalty and other cess is to be required when e-auctioning
was mandatory. [Paras 19-29]
Environmental Law – Special Purpose Vehicle viz. Karnataka
Mining Environment Restoration Corporation constituted
to facilitate ameliorative and mitigative measures for
mining – Plea for discontinuation of transfer of 10% levy
imposed on sale of iron ore to the SPV i.e. Karnataka Mining
Environment Restoration Corporation for implementing the
Comprehensive Environment Plan for Mining Impact Zone
[CEPMIZ], rejected by the Court.
Held: Reference made to earlier Judgment in Samaj Parivartana
Samudaya v. State of Karnataka [2017] 6 SCR 577 : (2017) 5 SCC
434 : 2017 INSC 241, dated 21.03.2017 wherein the Court rejected
a plea for discontinuation of transfer of 10% levy imposed on the
sale of iron to the SPV observing that the CEPMIZ is a scheme
which can be divided into two broad categories (i) socio-economic
development; and (ii) integrated mining and railway infrastructure,
industrial infrastructure and medical infrastructure – Reference
also made to an earlier Order dated 21.03.2018, whereby the
Court rejected a similar prayer – The CEPMIZ Plan stated that
a tentative expenditure of nearly Rs.25,000 crores is likely to be
incurred in various sectors – Thus, at this stage, it will not be
appropriate to withdraw the 10% levy imposed, as the CEPMIZ
Plan is still at the initial stage of execution – The Hon’ble Court
accordingly dismissed applications seeking discontinuation of
transfer of 10% levy imposed on sale of iron ore to the SPV
i.e. Karnataka Mining Environment Restoration Corporation for
implementing the Comprehensive Environment Plan for Mining
Impact Zone [CEPMIZ]. [Paras 86-96]

Case Law Cited
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Obulapuram Mining Company
(P) Ltd. (2011) 12 SCC 491; Samaj Parivartana
Samudaya v. State of Karnataka (2013) 8 SCC 209;
State of A.P. v. Obulapuram Mining Co. (P) Ltd. (2013)
8 SCC 213; Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of
Karnataka [2017] 6 SCR 577 : (2017) 5 SCC 434 :
2017 INSC 241 – referred to.
1294 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

List of Keywords
Environmental laws; Illegal Mining; Maximum permissible annual
production [MPAP] and District-level production ceiling for mining
leases; Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plans.

Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
With
W.P.(C) Nos. 505 of 2020 and 768 of 2013
Appearances for Parties
K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Nishanth Patil, A.A.G., Shyam Divan, A.D.N.
Rao, Kapil Sibal, Vikas Singh, Mukul Rohtagi, Arvind Datar, Dr.
S. Muralidhar, Dhruv Mehta, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, V. Giri, R
Balasubramanian, Gopal Jain, S. N. Bhat, Sr. Advs., Siddharth
Chowdhary, Prashant Bhushan, G.S. Makkar, Shubhranshu Padhi,
Kumar Dushyant Singh, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Ms. Surbhi Mehta,
Sanjay Kapur, B.V. Balram Das, Rakesh K. Sharma, E.C. Agrawala,
O.P. Badani, Sridhar Potaraju, N. Ganapathy, K.V. Sreekumar,
Jayant Mohan, D. L. Chidananda, Ishaan George, Gaichangpou
Gangmei, M/S. Khaitan & Co., Anantha Narayana M.G., M/S. Aura
& Co., Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Deepika Kalia, Ms.
Manisha Singh, Ms. Adya Shree Datta, Anurag Tiwary, Debadutta
Kanungo, S. Hari Haran, Rajarajeshwaran S., Amaan Shreyas,
Ms. Mannat Tipnis, Vikash Singh, Ms. Aparna Bhat, P. S. Sudheer,
Rishi Maheshwari, Ms. Anne Mathew, Bharat Sood, Ms. Miranda
Solaman, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, M/S. Parekh & Co.,
Adarsh Upadhyay, Mrs. Sudha Gupta, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli,
Bhargava V. Desai, Munawwar Naseem, Arvind Kumar Sharma,
S. K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Ms.
Shalaka Srivastava, Nishant Sharma, Anil Kumar Mishra-I, M/S.
Ap & J Chambers, Sunil Dogra, Vivek Vishnoi, Abhishek Sharma,
K. Raghavacharyulu, Kailash Pandey, Ranjeet Singh, Krishna
Yadav, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, T.L.V. Ramachari, Hitesh Kumar
Sharma, Sandeep Singh Dingra, Akhileshwar Jha, Amit Kumar
Chawla, T.N. Rao, S.S. Reddy, G. N. Reddy, Samir Ali Khan,
Vikas Mehta, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Balaji Srinivasan, Dr. Sushil
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1295

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

Balwada, Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Srilok Nath Rath, Ms. Reena
Rao, M/S. Karanjawala & Co., Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, P. V.
Dinesh, A. Raghunath, V. N. Raghupathy, Omkar Kambi, Manendra
Pal Gupta, Ayush P. Shah, Vignesh Adithiya S, Akhil Anand,
Ms. Manjula Gupta, Prashant Kumar, Merusagar Samantaray,
Yashraj Singh Deora, Niroop Sukirthy V., Joy Nirupam, Girish
Kumar, Pranav Giri, Snehasish Mukherjee, Rohit Sharma, Aditya
Narayan, Nikhil Purohit, Jatin Lalwani, Ms. Pratiksha Nagayach,
Vishal Sinha, Ishan George, Archit Jain, Mrs. Dr. Rukma George,
Prakash Kumar Singh, Ms. Pooja Singh, Ms. Poornima Jauhari,
Brij Bhushan Jauhari, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Ms. Indira Bhakar,
Shubranshu Padhi, Rajat Nair, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Rajeeva Ranjan
Rajesh, B K Satija, Pranay Ranjan, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Neeraj
Shekhar, Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Ms. Baby Rajput, Nirnimesh Dube,
Susheel Joseph Cyriac, Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Varun Kanwal, M/S.
Lex Regis Law Offices, Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, Rajesh Mahale,
Kunal Verma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Mrs. Shraddha Deshmukh,
Shailesh Madiyal, T. S. Sabarish, Chandra Prakash, Ms. A. Sumathi,
Sanjeev Kapoor, Aakash Bajaj, Avirat Kumar, Ms. Aarushi Yadav,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Kanu Agrawal, Ms. Suhasini Sen, S.K.
Singhania, Ms. Bina Madhavan, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Eeshan
D Khaire, M/s. Lawyers Knit & Co, S. S. Shroff, Ms. Hetu Arora
Sethi, Pulkit Tare, Rituraj Biswas, Sameer Rohatgi, Ms. Nidhi
Jaswal, Ms. Sonali Gaur, Ashwin Garg, Kartikey, Ms. Rohini Musa,
Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, Mahesh Thakur, Mrs. Anuparna Bordoloi,
Ms. Anusha R, Ms. Mythili Srinivasamurthy, Shivamm Sharrma,
Amrish Kumar, Ashwin Kumar D. S., Ishan Roy Chowdhury, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Order
1. The present applications relate to mining activities being undertaken
in Districts - Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur in Karnataka.
2. In 2009, the petitioner - Samaj Parivartana Samudaya had filed a
writ petition praying for this Court’s intervention on grounds of the
illegality of such mining activities and consequent harm caused to
the environment. This Court intervened and has passed several
directions and orders.
1296 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

3. To avoid prolixity, we will not be referring to the catena of orders passed
by this Court in depth and detail. However, to appreciate the present
applications, we have summarized the relevant developments below:
● The genesis of the Central Empowered Committee1 goes back
to this Court’s order dated 09.09.2002 in “T.N. Godavarman
Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors.”, where the Court was
concerned with the rampant pilferage and illegal extraction of
natural resources, particularly iron ore, and the environmental
degradation and disaster that may have resulted from unchecked
intrusion into the forest areas.
● The CEC was constituted to monitor the situation, implement
this Courts’ orders, and delineate the steps to be taken.
● On 19.11.2010, the CEC was directed by this Court to submit
a report with respect to certain mining leases granted by the
State of Karnataka in District – Bellary.
● The initial reports of CEC indicated large-scale illegal mining
being undertaken.
● On 06.05.2011, this Court constituted a ‘Joint Team’ to
determine the boundaries of the specific mines since a large
number of mining lessees were carrying out operations
beyond the lease boundaries, thereby causing environmental
degradation.
● On 29.07.2011, this Court imposed a temporary ban on mining
operations in District – Bellary.2
● On 26.08.2011, this Court extended the temporary ban on mining
operations to Districts – Chitradurga and Tumkur.3
● On 05.08.2011 and 26.08.2011, this Court directed the Indian
Council of Forest Research and Education4 to conduct a
macro-level environmental impact assessment, in collaboration
with domain experts to determine the extent of environmental
degradation due to illegal mining.

1 For short, “CEC”.
2 See State of Andhra Pradesh v. Obulapuram Mining Company (P) Ltd, 2011 (12) SCC 491.
3 See Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 8 SCC 209.
4 For short, “ICFRE”.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1297

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

● On 14.08.2011, ICFRE submitted its report wherein it inter alia
recommended: (i) imposition of district-level production ceiling;
and (ii) preparation of Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plans5
for each mining lease which apart from prescribing actions for
reclamation and rehabilitation works would also prescribe a
Maximum Permissible Annual Production6 restricting the total
quantity of iron ore that could be produced at the specific
mining lease.
● Based on ICFRE report and CEC’s recommendations, this
Court imposed differing production ceilings on mining leases
in the three districts, which have been enhanced from time
to time:
ο vide order dated 13.04.2012, production ceiling of 25 Million
Metric Tons7 was fixed on mines in the Bellary District and
5 MMT in Tumkur and Chitradurga Districts;
ο these caps were enhanced to 28 MMT for the Bellary
District and 7 MMT for Tumkar and Chitradurga Districts
vide order dated 14.12.2017; and
ο these caps were further enhanced to 35 MMT for Bellary
District and 15 MMT for the Tumkar and Chitradurga
Districts vide order dated 26.08.2022.
● Vide report dated 03.02.2012, the CEC recommended the
categorization of the mines into Categories A, B and C based
on the severity of encroachment by the mines and overburden
dumps, determined in terms of the percentage in relation to
the total lease area. In such categorization, Category A mining
leases bear no/marginal illegality and Category C mining leases
stand in flagrant violation of laws.
● To strike a balance between environmental protection and
development, a central public sector undertaking – National
Minerals Development Corporation was allowed to operate two
mining leases in District – Bellary.

5 For short, “R&R Plans”.
6 For short, “MPAP”.
7 For short, “MMT”.
1298 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

● Further, permission to sell old stock of iron ore by e-auction
was granted through a Monitoring Committee set up by this
Court.
● Vide report dated 13.03.2012, the CEC recommended the
implementation of R&R Plans, as a precondition to resumption
of mining operations.8 In due course of time, mining was
permitted to resume in specific Category A and B mines
based on the reports of the CEC and on judgments/orders
of this Court.
● Category C mining licenses were cancelled, and the proceeds
from sale of iron ore from Category C mines were ordered to
be forfeited to the State.
● Some of the Category C mining leases have been auctioned
and have subsequently commenced production. The new
leaseholders have undertaken to implement R&R Plans as a
precondition to commence operations.
● Vide order dated 28.09.2012, this Court constituted a Special
Purpose Vehicle,9 namely, Karnataka Mining Environment
Restoration Corporation 10 to facilitate ameliorative and
mitigative measures around the mining leases in the three
districts.
● Vide order dated 21.04.2022, this Court constituted the Justice
B. Sudarshan Reddy Committee as an Oversight Authority to
oversee the work of the SPV.11
● Vide order dated 28.09.2022, this Court directed the Joint
Team to prepare sketches of 7 mining leases placed in
Category B-1.
4. The seven B-1 Category mining leases (listed below) lie between the
States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. They require demarcation
on the ground.

8 See this Court’s judgment/order dated 13.04.2012 where the Court directed the implementation of R&R
Plans in all the three categories of mines.
9 For short, “SPV”.
10 For short, “KMERC”.
11 For short, “Oversight Authority”.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1299

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

S. Lease Names ML Location Extent Village Taluka Division
No. No. in Ha.
1. T. Narayan 2527 Sy. No. 01 32.65 Thumati Sandur Bellary
Reddy
2. N. Rathnaiah 670 Sy. No.01 14.16 Thumati Sandur Bellary
3. Hind Traders 2548 Sy. No. 01 19.63 Vitalapura Sandur Bellary
4. Mehaboob 2568 Sy. No. 16.19 Thumati Sandur Bellary
Transport Co. 106 & 01 and
Vitalapura vitalapura
5. Vibhuti 2542 Sy. No. 283 137.00 Hunahalli Bellary Bellary
Gudda Mines
Private Ltd.
6. Suggallamma 2541 Sy. No. 90 10.11 Bellagala Bellary Bellary
Gudda
Mining & Co.
7. Bellary 2651 Sy.No. 465 15.80 Halakundi Bellary Bellary
Mining
Corporation

5. This Court’s order dated 28.09.2022, directing the Joint Team to
prepare sketches of these seven mining leases, was deferred till the
inter-state boundary was demarcated on the ground.
6. Vide letter dated 09.01.2023, the State of Karnataka informed the
CEC that inter-state boundaries between the states of Karnataka
and Andhra Pradesh had been fixed on the ground.
7. However, it is apparent that further work must be undertaken at the
ground level by deploying the total station survey method along with
the satellite images of the mining sites.
8. By letter dated 29.02.2024, the government of Andhra Pradesh, had
stated it would be represented by the following four officers, as a
part of the Joint Team which was directed to render support to the
CEC in surveying the seven mining leases:-
S. No. Name of the Officer Designation
1. Sri Vineeth Kumar, I.F.S. Divisional Forest Officer,
Ananthapuramu
2. Dr. Rani Sushmita Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kalyanadurgam
3. Sri Eslavath Rupla Naik Asst. Director Sruvey & Land Records,
Ananthapuramu
4. Sri Y. Nagaiah District Mines and Geology Officer,
(FACT), Ananthapuramu
1300 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

9. By letter dated 20.01.2023, the State of Karnataka stated that it
would be represented by the following three officers in the Joint
Team:

S. No. Name of the Officer Designation
1. Sri T. Heeralal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Ballari Circle Ballari (Incharge
Working Plan Ballari)
2. Dr. Bagadi Goutham IAS, Director, Mines and
Geology, Bengaluru
3. Sri Prashant Kumar Thakur IPS, Additional Director General
of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru

10. We clarify that if there is a change of the aforesaid named officers
of the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, the replacement/
designated officer would be co-opted in the Joint Team.
11. The CEC has requested the National Institute of Technology,
Suratkhal, Karnataka,12 to carry out the aforesaid survey at the
ground level, based on the total station method and satellite images
of the seven mining leases. The members of the ‘Joint Team’ will be
associated and shall cooperate with representatives of NIT Karnataka.
12. The survey will be undertaken for one mining lease at a time. The
report will be submitted with the joint signatures of the ‘Joint Team’
to the states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. A copy thereof will
be filed before this Court. The said exercise would be completed no
later than six months from today.
13. The CEC after receiving the survey/demarcation report will issue
notice to the respective lessees and pass appropriate orders. This
exercise will be undertaken even if the leases have expired in the
due course of time. Orders passed by the CEC will be communicated
to the parties, and a report will be filed before this Court within a
period of seven months from today.
14. The Monitoring Committee will also be associated with the aforesaid
exercise undertaken by the CEC, post the submission of the survey/
demarcation report(s).

12 For short, “NIT Karnataka”.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1301

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

15. The State of Karnataka will be empowered and entitled to participate
in the proceedings before the CEC and raise all objections and
contentions.
16. Re-list all pending applications in W.P.(C) no. 562/2009 and 768/2013
on 03.04.2024.
I.A. No. 225561 of 2023
MPAP and District-Level Production Ceiling
17. As noticed in the summary of developments above, this Court
had fixed a district-level production ceiling for all mining leases in
the Districts – Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga. These caps were
enhanced from time to time. The final enhancement of production
ceilings was done vide order dated 26.08.2022 whereby a production
ceiling of 35 MMT for Bellary District and 15 MMT for the Tumkar
and Chitradurga Districts was specified.
18. The district-level production ceilings apply to Category A and
Category B mining leases. Category ‘C’ mining leases were cancelled
and were thereafter e-auctioned, and hence are under a different
legal regime.
19. Parallelly, in its report dated 13.03.2012, the CEC fixed the guidelines
for the preparation and/or implementation of the R&R Plans as a
pre-condition to the resumption of mining in the three districts. This
was done given the devastation and degradation of the environment
on account of unregulated and illegal mining activities. The objective
of the R&R Plans is to:-
(a) carry out the time-bound reclamation and rehabilitation of the
areas found to be under illegal mining;
(b) ensure scientific and environmentally sustainable mining;
(c) ensure compliance with the various standards stipulated under
the environment/mining statutes; and
(d) regular and effective motoring, evaluation and corrective
measures.
20. As noticed above, the R&R Plans, together with specifying actions
to be undertaken for reclamation and rehabilitation works, provided
for an MPAP restriction for each mining lease. However, the upper
cap fixed at the district level is mandatory and binding.
1302 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

21. This Court, vide judgment/order dated 14.12.2017, directed that a
production cap of the individual mining leases will be regulated through
the MPAP limits prescribed in the R&R Plans, without reference to
the upper or general cap fixed at the district level.
22. The CEC states that the lease-wise R&R Plans have been prepared
for all mining leases, which have been submitted by the Joint Team.
It consists of two broad components: (a) R&R Plans for areas found
to be under illegal mining by the Joint Team and (b) Supplementary
Environment Management Plan. In addition, Comprehensive
Environment Plans for the Mining Impact Zone13 for the areas
surrounding the mining leases, would be prepared.
23. Accordingly, the CEC and CEPMIZ had proposed, and it was
accepted by this Court, that MPAP for each of the mining
leases should be implemented and executed. This figure may
be substantially lower than permissible limits specified under
the Environment Clearance, Approved Mining Plan, and/or the
Consent to Operate, granted for the respective mining leases. For
the purpose of feasible annual production, the following factors
would be kept in mind:-
(a) mineral reserves in the lease area;
(b) area available for overburden/waste dump(s) and subgrade
dump(s); and
(c) existing transport facilities vis-a-vis the traffic load of the mining
lease and adjoining mining leases.
24. The MPAP is the minimum of the quantity that may be feasible based
on the above three parameters. Further, if the total of the lease-
wise annual production from all the leases in the district exceeds
the ceiling limit fixed for a specific district, then the MPAP for each
mining lease was/is to be scaled down on a pro-rata basis, to ensure
that the district-level production ceiling is not breached.
25. The aforesaid parameters were accepted by this Court by the order
dated 13.04.2012. We respectfully concur and state that these
directions shall continue.

13 For short, “CEPMIZ”.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1303

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

26. Our attention has been drawn to the CEC report dated 14.07.2017
and the orders passed by this Court on 14.12.2017 and 26.08.2022.
27. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, we would request the CEC,
together with the Monitoring Committee and aid and advice of the
Oversight Authority, to undertake a complete exercise in the three
districts, and the respective mining leases situated therein, and submit
a report before this Court. While undertaking the said exercise, they
shall keep in mind the parameters referred to in the report dated
13.03.2012. The CEC will be entitled to take help and assistance
of the scientific domain experts who will examine data, including
environmental pollution data available/recorded in the districts from
time to time.
28. A copy of the said report will be filed before this Court within a period
of four months from today. While submitting the report, it shall also
be examined whether sub-caps in particular areas should be fixed
or caps should be increased or decreased. In other words, the CEC
will also examine whether a mining cap must be imposed in an area
for better compliance and regulation.
29. Further, the CEC, the Monitoring Committee and the Oversight
Authority will examine whether any form of regulation like
e-auctioning is required to be put in place for the sale of the
mined material. While examining this question, they will take into
consideration the data with regard to the royalty and other cess
etc., which were recovered when e-auctioning was mandatory and
post the order dated 20.05.2022, whereby private sales have been
permitted.
30. The question of whether satellite mappings/images should be
undertaken with regard to each mine for the purpose of ascertaining
the mining activities including the sale and disposal of the waste
etc., will be examined by the CEC, the Monitoring Committee and
the Oversight Authority.
31. The CEC, the Monitoring Committee and the Oversight Authority will
be entitled to examine any other aspect, which they feel is relevant
for consideration of the issues and questions referred to them.
32. In view of the directions given today, the application in I.A No. 225561
of 2023 shall await the report of the CEC. Accordingly, the application
is not finally decided.
1304 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

I.A. No.183 of 2013
33. It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that in view of
the subsequent development, the present application has become
infructuous.
34. In view of the statement made, the present application is dismissed
as infructuous.
I.A. No. 189 of 2013
35. None is present to press the present application.
36. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.
I.A. No. 191 of 2013
37. It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that the present
application, which was filed as a contempt petition, has become
infructuous, as the petitioner has filed a substantive writ petition
and other proceedings.
38. In view of the statement made and without commenting on the merits,
the present application is dismissed.
I.A. No. 203 of 2014
39. None is present to press the present application.
40. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.
I.A. No. 204 of 2014
41. None is present to press the present application.
42. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.
I.A. No. 213 of 2014
43. None is present to press the present application.
44. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.
I.A. No. 214 of 2014
45. None is present to press the present application.
46. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.
I.A. No.222 of 2014 in I.A. No. 214 of 2014
47. None is present to press the present application.
48. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1305

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

I.A. No. 226 of 2014
49. None is present to press the present application.
50. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.
I.A. No.228 of 2014
51. None is present to press the present application.
52. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.
I.A. No. 229 of 2014
53. None is present to press the present application.
54. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.
I.A. No.232 of 2014
55. The CEC, in consultation with the Monitoring Committee, will file their
report on the assertions and prayer made in the present application,
within a period of six weeks from today.
56. Liberty is granted to the State of Karnataka to file their reply/response
within six weeks to the present application.
57. Reply/response to the report will be filed within period of six weeks
from the date of service of the report.
58. The application is not disposed of today.
I.A. No. 234 of 2014
59. None is present to press the present application.
60. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.
I.A. No.124132 of 2022
61. The CEC, in consultation with the Monitoring Committee, will file
a status report to the assertions and prayer made in the present
application. The application is not disposed of today.
I.A. No. 21884 of 2020
62. The CEC, in consultation with the Monitoring Committee, will file
a status report on the assertions and prayer made in the present
application, within a period of six weeks from today.
63. The application is not disposed of today.
1306 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

I.A. No.149994 of 2018
64. We are not inclined to accept the prayer(s) made in the present
application by the applicant – National Mineral Development
Corporation Limited14 in view of specific orders passed by this Court
on 23.09.2011, and subsequent order dated 28.09.2012.
65. It is to be noted that the applicant – NMDC, by a subsequent
order dated 22.02.2023, was directed a refund of 10% of the sale
proceeds, deposited towards SPV w.e.f 01.01.2019 onwards. This
order, according to us, balances out the equities and hence, the
prayer for reducing the amount to be deposited towards the SPV
from 10% for the period prior to 31.12.2018, is rejected. We clarify
that the applicant – NMDC will be liable to pay contribution to the
SPV at the rate of 10% of the sale proceeds w.e.f 01.01.2019
and thereafter. Any excess amount above 10%, collected/paid by
the applicant – NMDC, on and with effect from 01.01.2019 will be
refunded to them by the Monitoring Committee within a period of
six weeks from today.
66. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.
I.A. Nos. 43677/2024 and 52570/2024
67. I.A. no. 52570/2024 seeking permission to file application for directions
is allowed.
68. I.A. no. 43677/2024 has been filed seeking certain directions.
69. We are not inclined to grant any relief to the applicant(s) and hence,
the application is disposed of.
I.A. No. 233 of 2014 and I.A. No. 235 of 2014 in I.A. No. 233 of 2014
70. Learned counsel for the applicant(s) states that the present
applications have become infructuous.
71. In view of the statement made, the applications are dismissed as
infructuous.
I.A. No. 217 of 2014
72. Learned counsel for the applicant(s) seeks permission to withdraw
the present application.

14 For short, “NDMC”.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1307

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

73. In view of the statement made, the application is dismissed as
withdrawn.
I.A. No. 190 of 2013
74. Learned counsel for the applicant(s) states that he is satisfied with
the orders dated 09.12.2013 and 06.01.2014. He states that in view
of the said orders, the application may be disposed of.
75. In view of the statement made, the application will be treated as
disposed of.
I.A. No. 212 of 2014
76. We are not inclined to examine the merits of the said application in
view of the notification/corrigendum dated 04.08.2014. In case the
said notification/corrigendum is set aside or modified, it will be open
to the applicant(s) to raise pleas and contentions before this Court
or before the High Court.
77. All pending applications in I.A. no. 212/2014 shall stand disposed of.
I.A. No. 208 of 2014
78. We are not inclined to examine the merits of the assertions made
in the application, as the issue involved is rather secondary to
the issue pending consideration in W.P.(C) no. 562/2009. In case
the applicant(s) has any grievance or issue, it will be open to the
applicant(s) to file appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional
High Court or any other authority.
79. The stay order passed by this order on 10.02.2014 will continue for
a further period of two months in order to enable the applicant(s) to
take steps in accordance with law.
80. We clarify that we have not made any comments either way on the
merits.
81. The application is disposed of.
I.A. No. 197 of 2013
82. This application has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.
83. It will be open for the applicant(s) to press for hearing of SLP(C)
nos. 1684/2017 titled “Dhruvdesh Metasteel Pvt. Ltd. v. Kiocl Ltd. &
Ors.” and 6854/2017 titled “M. Babanna v. Kiocl Ltd. & Ors.”, before
the appropriate Bench.
1308 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

I.A. No. 160407 of 2022
84. Arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the
applicants. The issue is whether a 10% levy imposed on the sale of
the iron ore and transferred to the SPV for implementing the CEPMIZ,
in terms of the judgment/order of this Court dated 13.04.2012,15
should be discontinued.
85. It has been pointed out that Rs.24,464 crores are available to the
SPV, namely, KMERC, which is to prepare and implement the CEPMIZ
to mitigate the environmental damage in the Mining Impact Zone16
in the three districts.
86. Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of this Court dated
21.03.2017, 17 wherein a similar plea upon being raised, was
considered, but rejected by this Court, observing that CEPMIZ
is a scheme, which can be divided into two broad categories: (i)
socio-economic development; and (ii) integrated mining and railway
infrastructure, industrial infrastructure and medical infrastructure. The
said order noted that the total cost of implementation of the CEPMIZ
over a period of ten years was Rs.15,742.35 crores. The prayer
was rejected, observing that at that stage, the CEPMIZ was a vision
document with all concrete measures, steps and proposals left to be
worked out at a later stage, that is, the stage of the preparation of
the Detailed Project Report.18 We would like to reproduce a portion
of the said judgment:
“15. What had happened in Bellary, Chitradurga and
Tumkur, has already been noticed by this Court in para
37 of the judgment dated 18-4-2013 [Samaj Parivartana
Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 8 SCC 154] i.e.
systematic, extraordinary and unprecedented plunder
of the natural wealth and environment. This Court has
specifically observed in para 37 that: (Samaj Parivartana
case [Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka,
(2013) 8 SCC 154] , SCC p. 187)

15 (2013) 8 SCC 213.
16 For short, “MIA”.
17 (2017) 5 SCC 434.
18 For short, “DPR”.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1309

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

“37. … The situation being extraordinary the remedy,
indeed, must also be extraordinary.”
(emphasis supplied)
It is to deal with such an extraordinary situation that the
necessity of Cepmiz and implementation thereof by a special
purpose vehicle out of funds in credit with the Monitoring
Committee was contemplated. The special funds in deposit
with the Monitoring Committee being the proceeds of
illegal mining were meant to be deployed for re-creation
of what had been lost due to such illegal activities. It is
for the aforesaid purpose that Cepmiz was required to
be drawn up and thereafter implemented. The state of
implementation of the Scheme has not yet commenced.
Funds in huge proportions would be necessary. A full and
clear picture is yet to emerge. In a situation lessees who
may be even remotely connected with the degradation and
destruction of nature must continue to pay their share in
the process of restitution by contributing to the Monitoring
Committee from their present sale proceeds. Even the
new lessees who may not have been involved with such
degradation are contributing to the process of reclamation
and restoration. In such a situation, we do not see how
we can vary or modify our earlier orders that require all
existing lessees to pay 10% of the sale proceeds and/or
to depart from the requirement of payment of what has
been already ordered, namely, 10% of the sale proceeds
to the Monitoring Committee/SPV.”
87. The Court did not make comments on the CEPMIZ, except to state that
insofar as socio-economic measures are concerned, different heads
under which restoration and implementation work was proposed to
be done, details thereof were to be worked out. It is to be noted that
at that stage, funds to the extent of Rs.10,336 crores were available.
88. This aspect was again examined in the order dated 21.03.2018 on
an application filed by the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries,
Southern Region19 enclosing therewith reports of the CEC dated

19 For short, “FIMI, South”.
1310 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

19.03.2018. In this report, the CEC, with reference to the CEPMIZ, had
suggested submission of a project report by KMERC indicating very
broadly, different facets of the CEPMIZ, the work to be undertaken and
the cost, which is reasonably expected to be incurred. Accordingly,
this Court rejected the prayer made in the application, and stated
that the same would be considered subsequently. Directions were
issued to KMERC to prepare and submit within six months, a revised
comprehensive proposal of socio-economic development and
eco-restoration including those relating to road infrastructure with
short-term and long-term targets and study relating to the railway
backbone required to support the mining activity, as suggested by
certain authorities/experts.
89. This Court, in the order dated 21.04.2022, granted in-principle approval
to the CEPMIZ submitted by the State of Karnataka, as recommended
by the CEC in its reports dated 22.10.2018 and 16.04.2019. However,
this order also records that the parties are at liberty to place any
objections or submissions before the Oversight Authority with regard
to the CEPMIZ. The order states that the Oversight Authority shall
decide the objections or suggest modifications after hearing the
parties and taking assistance of any expert including the CEC, as
may be required. Further, if any clarification is required, the parties
were granted liberty to approach this Court.
90. The Oversight Authority constituted by this order was to oversee the
works and progress being carried out by KMERC.
91. Our attention was also drawn to the report of the CEC, dated
10.04.2022, which states that the SPV amount maintained by the
Monitoring Committee exceeds Rs.20,000 crores as of 31.03.2022.
This amount including the interest, which will accrue, would be
adequate to meet the expenses incurred with the activities proposed
to be undertaken under the CEPMIZ. This report recommends that
10% of the sale value (20% of the sale value from NMDC) being
contributed towards the SPV, may be discontinued.
92. At this stage, we may record that this Court vide order dated
22.02.2023, reduced the contribution of NMDC to the SPV from 20%
to 10% w.e.f. 01.01.2019 and accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,326
crores has been refunded to them.
93. As per the figures placed before us, the CEPMIZ Plan, as provisionally
approved by this Court, states that a tentative expenditure of nearly
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1311

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

Rs.25,000 crores is likely to be incurred for various sectors, as
tabulated below:-

S. Sector/Districts Bellary(Rs. Chitradurga Tumkur Total (Rs.
No. Cr.) (Rs. Cr.) (Rs. Cr.) Cr.)
1 Eco-Restoration 1584.79 555.64 515.23 2655.75
2 Agriculture & 881.93 391.04 330.08 1603.05
allied
3 Drinking Water, 3464.70 978.68 486.52 4929.90
Sanitation &
Rural Roads
4 Health 1450.17 255.94 209.67 1915.78
5 Education 643.49 330.58 192.28 1166.35
6 Development 695.60 188.54 198.42 1082.56
of vulnerable
sections
7 Housing 1027 106.88 60 1193.88
8 Skill 436.19 70.79 31.27 538.25
Development
9 Tourism 148 34 7 189
10 Irrigation 799 154.70 53 1006.70
11 Physical 734.99 105.29 44.08 884.36
Infrastructure
12 Roads & 1512.55 620.22 426.40 2559.17
Communication
13 Railway 5271.96
Infrastructure
Grand Total 13378.41 3792.30 2554.05 24996.71

94. The total expenditure to be incurred on the projects, which stand
approved, is about Rs.7,000 crores.
95. It is an accepted and admitted position that in respect of 51 Category
C mining leases, ICFRE had approved R&R Plans of 28 leases. In
respect of the remaining 23 leases, inputs have not been provided
to ICFRE to approve the R&R Plans. It is also stated that 23 lessees
of Category C have not submitted any data. In three cases, R&R
Plans submitted have not been approved by the CEC.
1312 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

96. We do not think, at this stage, it will be appropriate to withdraw the 10%
levy imposed by this Court in terms of the order dated 13.04.2012, as
the CEPMIZ Plan is still at the initial stage of execution. The proposed
plan was provisionally approved by this Court only vide order dated
21.04.2022. Objections and suggestions have been invited and are
pending consideration by the Oversight Authority. This apart, we feel
certain directions are required to be given for preparation of R&R
Plans and execution thereof in respect of Category C leases, which
were terminated/cancelled, but thereafter no progress has been
made for submission of the plans or execution or implementation
of R&R Plans.
97. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to direct the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests, 20 State of Karnataka to undertake a
detailed scrutiny and survey of all Category C mines, where data
and R&R Plans have not been submitted and submit R&R Plans
after conducting their scrutiny and survey. PCCF, Karnataka will
be entitled to procure assistance from domain experts, specialized
agencies or institutions. The cost incurred will be paid in the
interim from the funds available with the SPV. The R&R Plans will
be thereupon implemented and executed either through KMERC
or if more appropriate, through any other agency, which may be
nominated for this purpose after moving an application before this
Court by the CEC, the Monitoring Committee, and the Oversight
Authority.
98. The directions given above will equally apply to other cases of
Categories A and B mines, where R&R Plans have not been submitted
or approved.
99. The amount incurred for R&R Plans must be collected from the
erstwhile Category C lease holders or the Category A and B lease
holders, as appropriate. The amount will be collected as arrears of
land revenue. However, no amount shall be refunded to the new
lease holders. The amount collected will be deposited with the SPV.
I.A. No. 41984/2023
100. This application has become infructuous and is disposed of.

20 For short, “PCCF”.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1313

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

101. We clarify that the applicant will be entitled to file a fresh application
after this Court has received a report from the CEC in terms of the
directions given above.
I.A. Nos.17247/2020 and 17249/2020 and 17250/2020
102. I.A. nos. 17247/2020 seeks permission to file application for
impleadment and 17249/2020 seeks impleadment. I.A. no.
17250/2020 has been filed seeking certain directions.
103. We see no reason to grant the prayer in the applications seeking
directions to shift the category of the applicant from Category C to
B. We have also examined the CEC report no. 23 of 2022.
104. All the applications accordingly stand dismissed.
105. In view of the aforesaid, I.A. Nos. 121324/2022, 121326/2022, and
I. A. No. 173897/2022 (Application for Additional Documents) shall
also stand disposed of.
I.A. No. 21886 of 2020
106. We are not inclined to accept the prayer made in the present
application in view of the facts and hence, the same is dismissed.
I.A. No. 172166/2023
107. We are not inclined to accept the prayer made in the present
application in view of the facts and hence, the same is dismissed.
I.A. 49701 in W.P.(C) No. 768/2013
108. The application is not taken up for hearing today.
Writ Petition No. 505 of 2020
109. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 – State
of Karnataka has drawn our attention to the order dated 28.09.2022
passed in “M/s Arjun Ladha v. The State of Odisha”.21 The said order
specifically refers to the present Writ Petition(C) No. 505 of 2020.
110. The period of the lease has expired by flux of time. We do not think
any relief can be granted to the petitioner(s) in the present writ
petition, and the same is dismissed.

21 Writ Petition (C) No. 539 of 2022.
1314 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

111. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that the
petitioner(s) would like to challenge the fresh auction. It will be open
to the petitioner(s) to challenge the fresh auction in accordance with
law. However, we make no comments either way in this regard.
112. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Headnotes prepared by: Result of the case:
Vidhi Thaker, Hony. Associate Editor Directions issued in IAS
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.) Main Writ Petition pending.