Holding

The Court held that the NGT had jurisdiction to entertain the matter, that the MMDR Act and its rules apply to Meghalaya’s tribal areas requiring mining leases, that the State has statutory authority to regulate illegal mining while lawful mining under a lease is permissible, and that the NGT may constitute committees and a fund, modifying the fund direction to allow transfer from the existing fund.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals arising from the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) orders that banned rat‑hole coal mining in Meghalaya, directed the State to deposit Rs 100 crore for environmental restoration, and held that all coal extracted after May 2016 vested in the State. The Court held that the NGT had jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 because the application alleged substantial environmental questions involving violations of Schedule I statutes. It ruled that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 apply to the tribal hills of Meghalaya, requiring a mining lease even for privately or community‑owned land, and that such leases are granted by the private owner with Central Government approval, not by the State. The State was found to have statutory power to regulate and prohibit illegal mining, while the NGT’s ban applies only to illegal mining and does not preclude lawful mining under a valid lease. The Court also upheld the NGT’s power to constitute expert committees and a restoration fund, modifying the fund direction to allow transfer from the existing fund. Consequently, most appeals were dismissed with clarification, the 2016 order vesting coal in the State was set aside, and the 2019 fund order was partially allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the NGT had jurisdiction under Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to entertain the application and issue the ban and related orders.
Whether the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 applies to the tribal hills of Meghalaya covered by the Sixth Schedule.
Whether a mining lease is a statutory requirement for mining coal on privately or community owned land in Meghalaya.
Who is competent to grant a mining lease under the MMDR Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
Whether the State of Meghalaya has statutory control over coal mining in the hills districts.
Whether Autonomous District Councils have the power to allot land for mining purposes.
Whether the NGT’s order banning all coal mining is sustainable and can be modified.
Whether the NGT can constitutionally constitute committees and a restoration fund.
Whether the direction to deposit Rs 100 crore by the NGT is sustainable.
Whether the order that all coal extracted after 15 May 2016 vests in the State is valid.
What mechanism should be adopted for transportation and disposal of assessed and unassessed coal.

Legislation cited

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. 3
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960s. 22, s. 27, s. 45, s. 50, s. 52, s. 63
Mines Act, 1952s. 16, s. 18, s. 75
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957s. 1, s. 13, s. 2, s. 21, s. 3, s. 4, s. 5
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010s. 14, s. 15, s. 16, s. 19(1), s. 19(2), s. 19(4)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

Subjects

National Green Tribunalenvironmental jurisdictionmining leasetribal areasSixth Scheduleillegal miningenvironmental restoration fundcoal transportationmineral regulation

Judgment

[2019] 8 S.C.R. 297 297

STATE OF MEGHALAYA A
v.
ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,
DIMA-HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.10720 of 2018) B
JULY 03, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: ss.14, 15 and 16 –
Jurisdiction of National Green Tribunal (NGT) – Orders by NGT
C
imposing ban on mining – Whether orders passed by NGT were
without jurisdiction being beyond the purview of ss.14, 15 and 16
of the NGT Act, 2010 – Held: Cognizance was taken by NGT when
application O.A.73 of 2014 on 17.4.2014 was admitted and order
was issued – There were clear allegation in the application that
inspite of various remedial measures set out in the report of expert, D
no proper and effective remedial measures were taken by the
concerned authorities of the State – The pleadings in the
application clearly alleged environmental degradation due to
illegal coal mining – It was further stated that inaction of
authorities had resulted in violation of various enactments
E
mentioned in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010 including the Water
(Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 – The allegations made in the application
were sufficient for NGT to exercise its jurisdiction as conferred by
s.14 – Both the component as appearing in sub-section 1 of s.14, F
that is (i) substantial question relating to environment and (ii) such
question arises out of the implementation of the enactments
specified in Schedule I, were involved – NGT after adverting to
O.A.No.73 of 2014 on 17.04.2014 had called for various reports
from different committees including State Pollution Control Board
G
– It was not a case of mere allegation of environmental
degradation by illegal and unregulated coal mining rather there
were materials on the record including the report of the experts, the
Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board published in the month
of September, 1992, the report of Katakey committee appointed by
H
297
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A NGT by which environmental degradation of water, air and surface
of the land was proved – Therefore, there was sufficient allegation
regarding substantial questions relating to environment and
violation of enactments in Schedule I – There was no substance in
the appellant’s submission that NGT has no jurisdiction to
entertain the case and pass orders – In cases pertaining to
B
environmental matter, the State has to act as facilitator and not as
obstructionist – The submission for the State that NGT exceeded its
jurisdiction under ss.14 and 15 in entertaining O.A.No.73 of 2014
is rejected – Constitution of India – Art.48A – Water (Prevention
and Control Pollution) Act, 1974 – Air (Prevention and Control of
C Pollution) Act, 1981 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: s.19(1) – Under Or.26
r.10A CPC, a Court can appoint commission for scientific
investigation – This power can very well be exercised by the NGT
also – NGT while asking expert to give a report is not confined to
D the four corners of r.10A and its jurisdiction is not shackled by
strict terms of Or.21 r.10A by virtue of s.19(1) of the NGT Act – r.24
of National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011
empowers the Tribunal to make such orders or give such directions
as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to
secure the ends of justice – There is no lack of jurisdiction in NGT
E in directing for appointment of a committee and to obtain a report
from a Committee – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.26 r.10A –
Commission/Committee – National Green Tribunal (Practice and
Procedure) Rules, 2011 – r.24.
Land Laws: Land tenure system – Nature of land tenure in
F the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya – In the Hills Districts of
State of Meghalaya, the most of the lands are either privately or
community owned in which State does not claim any right – The,
private owners of the land as well as community owners have both
the surface right as well as sub-soil right – Thus, the tribals owned
G the land and also owned the minerals – Constitution of India –
Art.244, sub-clause (2) – Mines and Minerals.
Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957:
Applicability of the provisions of Act of 1957 in Tribal areas within
the State of Meghalaya, included in Schedule VI of the Constitution
H – Schedule VI of the Constitution is a provision for Administration
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 299
DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

of Tribal areas in the State of Meghalaya – There is nothing in A
Schedule VI which may indicate about the inapplicability of Act,
1957 with regard to the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya – In
the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the
year ended 31st March, 2013 also it is clearly stated that Act, 1957
is fully applicable for regulation of mines and regulation of minerals
B
in the State of Meghalaya – Moreover, there was no notification
issued by the President under Para 12A(b) of Schedule VI which
empowers the President, with respect to any Act of Parliament, by
notification, to direct that it shall not apply to an autonomous district
or an autonomous region in the State of Meghalaya, or shall apply
to such district or region or any part thereof subject to such C
exceptions or modifications as he may specify in the notification –
Thus, there is nothing in Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which
may indicate about the inapplicability of Act, 1957 with regard to
the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya – Constitution of India –
Schedule VI, Para 12A sub-clause (b) – Mines Act, 1952.
D
Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957:
Legislative competence of State of Meghalaya to frame Mining
Policy – Directions of NGT to the State of Meghalaya to frame policy
– Propriety of – Held: Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy, 2012
and Draft Guidelines of coal mining activities in the State framed
by Mining and Geology Department of the Government – Policy of E
2012 contemplated regulatory regime for mining lease by the State
– The Guidelines mentioned about the unregulated and unscientific
mining being carried out in the State of Meghalaya – There can be
no dispute to the preposition that in view of MMDR Act, 1957, the
legislative competence of State of Meghalaya under Entry 23 List II F
stood denuded – However, under MMDR Act, 1957 as well as the
MC Rules, 1960, several statutory obligations/jurisdictions have
been conferred on the State of Meghalaya – When under a
Parliamentary enactment, State has been given some statutory
obligations, there is no lack of jurisdiction in the State to frame
policy to give effect to or implement the jurisdictions conferred on G
the State by Parliamentary enactments – It is true that Mining Policy
to be framed by the State has to confine to the jurisdiction conferred
on it as per the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder
– Several other aspects relating to mining like, rehabilitation,
H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A reclamation and restoration have to be effectively implemented by
the State for which also, it may be required to frame a policy –
Policy of 2012 was already framed by the State of Meghalaya, even
before directions were issued by the NGT – In pursuance of NGT
directions, it was draft guidelines of 2015, which were prepared by
State of Meghalaya – Thus, direction of NGT to declare Mining
B
Policy by the State of Meghalaya cannot be said to be without
jurisdiction – However, the State in its Mining Policy can only include
those areas where it has jurisdiction under the MMDR Act, 1957
and the Rules framed thereunder – Constitution of India – Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960.
C Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957: s.4(1)
– Whether the statute requires obtaining lease for winning the
minerals in so far as mining of coal from privately owned land/
community owned land are concerned – Held: For carrying out
mining operations in privately owned land in hills districts of
D Meghalaya, obtaining a mining lease is a statutory requirement
under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules, 1960 – Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960.
Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957:
Whether the power to allot land for mining purposes is vested in
E Autonomous District Councils – Held: The District Council does
not have any power to make any law with regard to grant of mining
lease – The mining leases for winning the major minerals has to be
granted in accordance with 1957 Act and Mineral Concession Rules,
1960 – Khasi Hills District (Trading by Non Tribals) Regulation,
1954 – United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Management
F and Control of Forest) Rules, 1960 – Khasi Hills Autonomous District
(Trading by Non Tribals) Rules, 1959,.
Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957:
Whether the order of NGT dated 17.04.2014 directing for complete
ban on mining is unsustainable – Held: The use of natural resources
G plays major role in carrying out development – A fine balance has
to be maintained in utilisation of natural resources and its
conservation and preservation – By order of NGT dated 17.04.2014,
the Rat hole mining/illegal mining was prohibited throughout the
State of Meghalaya – In OA No.73 of 2014 in which said order was
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 301
DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

passed, sufficient materials were on record including experts report A
which proved that illegal coal mining in the State of Meghalaya
was degrading the environment – NGT after considering all pleas
and materials affirmed order dated 17.04.2014 and refused to
withdraw the ban – No error in the order of NGT reaffirming its
ban order.
B
Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957:
Whether the complete ban on mining of coal in the State of
Meghalaya as directed by NGT deserved to be vacated/modified in
the interest of State and Tribals – Held: Tribals are the owners of
the land who carry on mining of coal in their land by which they
earn their substantial livelihood – In event mining operations are C
undertaken by the tribals or other owners of hills districts of
Meghalaya in accordance with mining lease obtained from the State
of Meghalaya as per 1957 Act and Rules, 1960, the ban order dated
17.04.2014 of NGT shall not come in its way of carrying mining
operations – The ban order is for the illegal coal mining which was D
rampant in the State of Meghalaya and the ban order cannot be
extended to valid and legal mining as per 1957 Act and 1960 Rules
– Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: Chapter V – Procedure for
grant of mining lease and authority/person, who is competent to E
grant such lease – Held: As per the statutory provisions contained
in Rules, 1960, especially Chapter V, a mining lease for minerals,
which belongs to a private owner or a community owner, it is not
the State Government, which is entitled to receive any application
or grant any mining lease, but it is the private owner or community
owner, who is entitled to grant a lease for mining minerals owned F
by them.
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: Chapter IV and Chapter V
– Distinction between – Chapter IV deals with grant of mining leases
in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government and
Chapter V deals with procedure for obtaining a prospecting licence G
or mining lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in a
person other than the Government – Procedure and manner of
applying for mining lease and grant of lease as contained in Chapter
IV is not made applicable to the procedure as given in Chapter V
H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A except that by virtue of r.45(i) certain conditions of mining lease as
contained in r.27 under Chapter IV are made applicable for mining
lease under Chapter V.
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: Chapter V – Whether the
State of Meghalaya has any statutory control over the mining of
B coal from privately owned/community owned land in Hills Districts
of State of Meghalaya – Held: State of Meghalaya has jurisdiction
and power to ensure that no mining of coal should take place except
when a mining lease is granted under the Rules, 1960 – The statutory
scheme delineated by s.13(2)(f) and the Rules, 1960 clearly
contemplate grant of mining lease, with regard to both the categories
C of land, i.e., land in which minerals vest in the Government, and the
land in which minerals vest in a person other than the Government
– Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957 –
s.13(2)(f).
Mines and Minerals: Jurisdiction of NGT – Constitution of
D committee – Whether NGT had any jurisdiction to constitute
committees to submit reports, to implement the orders of NGT, to
monitor storage/transportation; of minerals and to prepare action
plan for restoration of environment and whether the NGT committed
error in directing for constitution of fund, namely, Meghalaya
E Environment Protection and Restoration Fund – Held: There is no
lack of jurisdiction in the NGT to direct for appointment of committee
or to obtain a report from a committee – A Fund has been constituted
by NGT, namely, “Meghalaya Environment Protection and
Restoration Fund” – NGT could have passed any order or direction
to secure ends of justice which power especially conferred by Rule
F 24 – Direction to constitute Fund is thus also saved under such
power – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
Mines and Minerals: Judicial powers of NGT – Whether NGT
by constituting Committees has delegated essential judicial powers
to the Committees – Held: The various instances where the NGT
G directed for report or investigation and submission of report by
committees were with the object of ensuring the implementation of
the orders passed by it and to decide the environmental issues raised
before it – In no manner, constitution of committee can be said to be

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 303
DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

delegation of essential judicial powers of the NGT to the committee A
– The Katakey committee was constituted by NGT on 31.08.2018 –
The constitution of the committee and its functions entrusted were
with the object to implement the orders passed by NGT – For the
restoration of environment, NGT by its order dated 31.08.2018 has
directed the committee to submit its action plan and reports by
B
e-mail – NGT, thus, had kept complete control on all steps which
were required to be taken by the committee and issued directions
from time to time – Thus, the submission that the essential judicial
powers of the NGT had been delegated to the committee is not tenable
– The matter being pending before NGT of acts of the committee are
under direct control of NGT and if the committee oversteps in any C
direction the same can very well be corrected by NGT on the matter
being brought before it – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
Mines and Minerals: Whether constitution of the committee
encroaches the constitutional scheme of the Tribal areas under
Art.244(2) and Art.275(1) and Schedule VI of the Constitution – D
Para 3 of the Schedule VI enumerates the powers of the District
Council and Regional Council to make laws – The powers of the
District and Regional Councils are enumerated under Para 3 – In
the directions of NGT to constitute committee for transportation of
extracted minerals or for preparing time bound action to deal with
the restoration of environment and to ensure its implementation, E
there is no interference in the powers of the District or Regional
Councils – Action plan for restoration of environment is consequence
of NGT finding out that an unregulated coal mining has damaged
environment and has caused the pollution including water pollution
– It is not case of the appellant that District and Regional Councils F
have framed any law for restoration of environment which is being
breached by the committee or its acts – The District and Regional
Councils are free to exercise all their powers and the committee
constituted by NGT is only concerned with the Environmental
degradation and illegal coal mining – The committees’ report or
direction of NGT in no manner encroaches upon the administration G
of Tribal areas by the District and Regional Councils – Constitution
of India – Arts.244(2), 275(1).

H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A Mines and Minerals: Whether direction to deposit Rs.100/-
crores by the State of Meghalaya by order dated 04.01.2019 of
NGT is sustainable – NGT by its order dated 04.01.2019 had directed
the State of Meghalaya to deposit an amount of Rs.100 Crores with
the Central Pollution Control Board, which was to be spent for
restoration of environment – The State of Meghalaya aggrieved by
B
this direction filed appeal – Held: The amount, which has been
directed by NGT to be deposited by State of Meghalaya is neither a
penalty nor a fine imposed on the State – The amount has been
directed to be deposited for carrying out steps regarding restoration
of environment – The said amount cannot be said to be amount of
C damages to be paid by the State – State of Meghalaya has very
limited source of revenue and putting an extra burden on the State
of Meghalaya to make payment of Rs.100 Crores from its own
financial resources and budgetary amount may cause great hardship
to the State of Meghalaya – In the ends of justice, the direction of
NGT dated 04.01.2019 is modified to the extent that State is permitted
D
to transfer an amount of Rs.100 Crores from the amount lying in the
MEPRF to the Central Pollution Control Board – The Central
Pollution Control Board shall utilise the amount of Rs.100 Crores
only for restoration of the environment.
Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957:
E ss.4(1), 21 – Coal – Vesting in Government – Whether NGT’s order
dated 31.03.2016 that after 15.05.2016, all remaining coal shall
vest in the State of Meghalaya is sustainable – By order dated
31.03.2016, NGT had permitted transportation of coal till 15.5.2016
under terms and conditions as enumerated therein and further
F contemplated that no coal in any form whatsoever shall be permitted
to be transported after 15.05.2016 on which date the entire
remaining coal shall vest in the State Government and shall be
disposed of in accordance with law – Propriety of NGT’s order dated
31.03.2016 – Held: Coal mining was illegally going on in the Hills
District of State of Meghalaya without there being any mining lease
G – The entire mining was, thus, is clear in contravention of s.4(1) of
Act, 1957 which attracted penalties under s.21 – The present is not
a case where any kind of penalty was imposed on the miners except
that the amount of royalty as payable on mining of coal was collected
by the State as penalty – State Government has power under s.21(5)
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 305
DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

to recover from such person the minerals so raised, or, where such A
material has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may
also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may
be, but it is for State Government to exercise its power under s.21(5)
by way of penalty – The NGT did not give any reason as to how
coal shall automatically vest in the State – The right of recovery of
B
mineral as contemplated under s.21(5) would not amount to say
that proprietary right of owner of the minerals is lost rather State
under s.21(5) exercises its power to recover the mineral which has
been raised without any lawful authority – Thus, coal extracted
and lying in open after 15.05.2016 was not automatically vested in
the State and the owner of the coal or the person who has mined the C
coal shall have the proprietary right in the mineral which shall not
be lost.
Mines and Minerals: Coal – Whether assessed and unassessed
coal which has already been extracted and lying in different
Districts of Meghalaya be permitted to be transported – Mechanism D
to be adopted for disposal of such coal – Held: Coal being major
mineral and useful for different industries and projects, appropriate
disposal of extracted coal is of a paramount importance – Entire
extracted coal lying at various places is directed to be taken over
by Coal India Ltd, a Government of India unit, who may dispose of
the same as per its normal method of disposal – For all extracted E
coal lying at different places, it is the State, which is the
receiver-cum-custodian of the coal – The State having carried out
the assessment of the coal lying in the said four districts including
the details of the quantities and the details of owners being available
with it, it may ensure that the entire coal are handed over to the F
Coal India Ltd., as per the mode and manner to be formulated by
Katakey Committee, in consultation with officers of the Coal India
Ltd. and State of Meghalaya – Commissioner and Secretary of the
State in the Department of Mining and Geology alongwith the
officers of Coal India Ltd. are directed to deliberate with the Katakey
committee to finalise a comprehensive plan for transportation and G
handing over of the coal to Coal India Ltd. for disposal/auction as
per rules of Coal India Ltd. – It is for the Coal India Ltd. to decide
as to venue, where they shall receive the coal and finalise the process
of disposal and auction of the coal – It shall be the duty of the State
H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A of Meghalaya and its officers especially Deputy Commissioner of
the area concerned to enter details of quantity of the coal, name of
the owner and place from where it is collected – State of Meghalaya
shall be entitled to royalty and payment towards MERP Fund as
well as taxes out of the price of the coal – The Coal India Ltd. after
taking its expenses for transportation with 10% of price of the coal
B
shall remit the entire amount to the State and State after deducting
the royalty and payment to the MERP Fund and taxes would pay
back the balance of the amount to the owner – The coal, which has
been seized by the State in illegal transportation or illegal mining
for which different cases have been registered by the State shall be
C dealt by the State in accordance with s.21 of the Act, 1957 and on
being satisfied, the State can take a decision to recover the entire
quantity of coal so illegally raised without lawful authority and the
said cases has to be separately dealt with in accordance with law –
All I.A.s filed by different applicants seeking order of transportation
of the different quantities disposed of – The Katakey committee in
D
consultation with State of Meghalaya and officers of Coal India
Ltd. would finalise appropriate mode and manner to affect the
transport and disposal of the coal in the above manner.
Mines Act, 1952: Mines Act, 1952 contains various provisions
regarding inspection of mining operation and management of mines
E – The provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 are mandatory to be followed
before working a mine – The regulations namely Coal Mines
Regulations, 2017 also contains several regulatory provisions which
need to be followed while working a mine by a mining lease holder
– The enforcement of Mines Act, 1952 and the Regulations, 2017
F have to be ensured by the State in the public interest.
Mines and Minerals: Coal mining in the Hills Districts of the
State of Meghalaya – As per statutory regime brought in force by
notification dated 15.01.2016 issued under Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, environmental clearance is required for a
G project of coal for mining of any extent of area – While implementing
statutory regime for carrying mining operations in the Hills Districts
of the State of Meghalaya, the State of Meghalaya has to ensure
compliance of not only MMDR Act, 1957 but Mines Act, 1952 as
well as Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 307
DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

Judicial Appreciation: Committee – Work appreciated – The A
Katakey committee and its various members and participants have
done a commendable job in studying and examining various aspects
of environment in the State of Meghalaya and several valuable
suggestions have been given by the committee, which are also being
implemented to mitigate the suffering of the citizens consequent to
B
the illegal coal mined.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: Whether orders passed by the National Green
Tribunal are without jurisdiction being beyond the purview of
Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010? C
1. The present is not a case of mere allegation of applicant
of environmental degradation by illegal and unregulated coal
mining rather there were materials on the record including the
report of the experts, the Meghalaya State Pollution Control
Board published in the month of September, 1992, the report of D
Katakey committee appointed by the Tribunal where
environmental degradation of water, air and surface of the land
was proved. Hence, there was sufficient allegation regarding
substantial questions relating to environment and violation of
enactments in Schedule I. There were reports of the Meghalaya
State Pollution Control Board before the State Government E
pointing out environmental degradation and the Tribunal having
taken up the issue, the submission on behalf of the State that the
Tribunal has no jurisdiction is not expected from the State
Government who is under constitutional obligation to ensure clean
environment to all its citizens. In cases pertaining to F
environmental matter the State has to act as facilitator and not as
obstructionist. The submission for the State that the Tribunal
exceeded its jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15 in
entertaining O.A.No.73 of 2014 is rejected. [Paras 67, 68, 72]
[373-E-H; 376-A]
G
Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari and
Others (2018) 11 SCC 734 : [2017] 12 SCR 956 –
distinguished.

H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A Whether provisions of Mines and Minerals Development
Regulation Act, 1957 are applicable in Tribal areas within the
State of Meghalaya, included in Sixth Schedule of the Constitution?
2.1 By the North-Eastern Area Reorganisation Act, 1971,
the State of Meghalaya was formed as independent full-fledged
B State. After the enforcement of the Constitution, the area, now
comprised in the State of Meghalaya, was included in the State of
Assam, the Administration and control of which area was as per
Article 244 of the Constitution of India read with Sixth Schedule
of the Constitution. In so far as the land tenure in the Hills
Districts of Meghalaya, there is no substantial change after the
C advent of the Constitution. There was no payment system of land
revenue before the advent of the Constitution in the Hills
Districts of Meghalaya. [Para 73] [376-C-E]
2.2 The lands in the Khasi Hills District of Meghalaya come
under two divisions Ri Raid and Ri Kynti. Ri raid lands are
D community lands which are set apart for the benefit and use of
entire community. Ri kynti lands are privately owned lands which
were also owned by community as well as by individuals. The
owner of the re kynti land is an absolute proprietor. The tenure
system in Jaintia Hills classified into two types of lands, namely,
E Hali / irrigated land and High land. Hali lands are further
categorised in Raj land, service land, village puja land and
private land. Proprietary right does not vest in the State in
respect to majority of lands which are either privately owned or
owned by the Tribal community. No system of payment of land
revenue is prevalent in the Hills District of Meghalaya except
F lands which belong to State. In the Hills Districts of State of
Meghalaya, the most of the lands are either privately or
community owned in which State does not claim any right. Thus,
private owners of the land as well as community owners have
both the surface right as well as sub-soil right. Tribals owned the
G land and also owned the minerals, which is an inescapable
conclusion. [Paras 73, 75] [376-E-G; 378-E-F]
Thressiamma Jacob and Others v. Geologist,
Department of Mining and Geology and Others (2013)
9 SCC 725 : [2013] 7 SCR 863 – referred to.
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 309
DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

Raja Anand Brahma Shah v. The State of Uttar Pradesh A
and Others AIR 1967 SC 1081 : [1967] SCR 373 –
followed.
2.3 Part X of the Constitution separately deals with
Scheduled and Tribal areas. Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya
were treated to be Tribal area and were to be governed by B
Article 244 sub-clause (2) read with Schedule VI. Sixth
Schedule of the Constitution contains ‘Provisions as to the
Administration of Tribal Areas in the States of Assam, Meghalaya,
Tripura and Mizoram’. Paragraph 20 of Sixth Schedule refers to
Tribal areas and Part II of which consists of Khasi Hills District,
Jaintia Hills District and Garo Hills District which have been C
referred as Autonomous Districts. [Paras 76, 77, 78] [378-G-H;
379-C]
2.4 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957 has been enacted to provide for development and
regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union. D
The Act came into effect w.e.f. 01.06.1958. Para 12A sub-clause
(b) Schedule VI of the Constitution empowers that the President
may, with respect to any Act of Parliament, by notification, direct
that it shall not apply to an autonomous district or an
autonomous region in the State of Meghalaya, or shall apply to E
such district or region or any part thereof subject to such
exceptions or modifications as he may specify in the notification.
No notification has been issued by the President under Para
12A(b), although, the said Para 12A(b) is in the Constitution with
effect from 21.1.1972. Thus, there is nothing in Sixth Schedule of
the Constitution which may indicate about the inapplicability of F
Act, 1957 with regard to the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya.
The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for
the year ended 31st March, 2013 clearly stated that Act, 1957 is
fully applicable for regulation of mines and regulation of minerals
in the State of Meghalaya. [Paras 81 82, 83] [381-G-H; 382-C-E; G
383-D]
2.5 Clause 10 of the Mehghalaya Mines and Minerals
Policy, 2012 provides for “Regulatory Framework for Mine
Development and Mining”. Sub-clause (b) of Clause 10 required
that application for mineral concession either fresh or renewal is H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A to be submitted to the State Government through the Deputy
Commissioner of the District wherein the area applied for is
situated, with NOC from District Council concerned and land
owner. Clause 10 also refers to clearance of the Pollution
Control Board of Meghalaya and other requirement. Sub-clause
(l) further contemplated that order for grant of mineral
B
concessions will be issued by the State Government, with the
approval of the Central Government wherever necessary. The
Mining and Geology Department of the Government framed a
draft guidelines for coal mining activity in the State which were
prepared after consultation with the Central Government. The
C draft guidelines clearly mentions about the unregulated and
unscientific mining being carried out in the State of Meghalaya.
[Paras 85-87] [383-F-H; 384-A-B]
2.6 There can be no dispute to the preposition that in view
of MMDR Act, 1957, the legislative competence of State of
D Meghalaya under Entry 23 List II stood denuded. However,
under the MMDR Act, 1957 as well as the Mineral Concession
Rules, 1960, several statutory obligations/jurisdictions have been
conferred on the State of Meghalaya. When under a
Parliamentary enactment, State has been given some statutory
obligations, there is no lack of jurisdiction in the State to frame
E policy to give effect to or implement the jurisdictions conferred
on the State by Parliamentary enactments. It is true that Mining
Policy to be framed by the State has to confine to the jurisdiction
conferred on it as per the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules framed
thereunder. There are other related issues concerning Mining
F like protection of environment and forests for which the State
has to declare its policy for implementation of its objective.
Several other aspects relating to mining like, rehabilitation,
reclamation and restoration have to be effectively implemented
by the State for which also, it may be required to frame a policy.
Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy, 2012 was already framed
G by the State of Meghalaya, even before directions were issued
by the NGT. In pursuance of NGT directions, it was draft
guidelines of 2015, which were prepared by State of Meghalaya.
Thus, direction of NGT to declare Mining Policy by the State of

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 311
DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

Meghalaya cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. However, A
the State in its Mining Policy can only include those areas where
it has jurisdiction under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules
framed thereunder. A perusal of the entire Policy documents
indicate that Policy has been framed by the State as per
the Act, 1957 and Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960.
B
[Paras 89, 90, 91] [324-F-G; 385-A-E]
Whether for mining the minerals from privately owned/
community owned land in hills districts of Meghalaya, obtaining
a mining lease is a statutory requirement under the MMDR Act,
1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960?
C
3.1 The Act, 1957 has been enacted in reference to Entry
54 List I of Seventh Schedule. The Legislative power under
Entry 23 is subject to the provision of List I with respect to
regulation and development under the control of the Union. When
the Union has declared to have taken under its control the
regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent D
provided in the Act, legislative power of the State to the above
extent is denuded. Section 4 of the Act contains general
restriction on undertaking prospecting and mining operation.
Section 4 is couched in terms of an injunction. No person shall
undertake any mining operations in any area, except under and E
in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance
permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a
mining lease, granted under this Act and rules made thereunder.
The use of word ‘no person’ in Section 4(1) is without an
exception. There is nothing in Section 4(1) to indicate that
restriction contained in Section 4(1) does not apply with regard F
to a person who is owner of the mine. Further, word ‘any area’
under Section 4(1) also has significance which does not have any
exception. Further phrase ‘except under and in accordance with
terms and condition with a mining lease granted under the Act’
are also significant which make the intent and purpose of G
prohibition clear and loud. [Paras 95, 97, 99, 100] [386-C-F;
387-B; 388-A-B]
3.2 Section 5 contains restriction on the grant of
prospecting licences and mining lease. The proviso to Section
H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A 5(1) contains a further restriction that no mining lease shall be
granted with regard to any minerals specified in Para A of First
Schedule except with the previous approval of the Central
Government. Coal is in Para A of First Schedule. Section 13
provides for Rule making power of Central Government in
respect of minerals. Reading clause (a) and clause (f) of Section
B
13(2) makes clear that the Rules can be made for grant of mining
lease in respect of land in which minerals vest in the
Government as well as in respect of any land in which minerals
vest in person other than Government. The statutory scheme,
thus, is clear that lease can be granted with regard to both the
C categories of land, land in which Government is owner of
minerals and land in which minerals vest in person other than
Government. The Tribals, owners of the minerals shall expressly
fall in Rule making power of the Government under Section 13(2)
(f). [Paras 100, 101, 103] [388-B; 389-B-C; 390-A-B]
D 3.3 The Central Government in exercise of power under
Section 13 has framed Rules, namely, Minerals (Concession)
Rules, 1960. The statutory scheme delineated by Section 13(2)(f)
and the Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960 clearly contemplate
grant of mining lease, with regard to both the categories of land,
that is, land in which minerals vest in the Government, and the
E land in which minerals vest in a person other than the
Government. There is no exception that when owner himself wants
to win the minerals he does not require any mining lease.
[Paras 104, 105] [390-C-D; 391-B]
Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition Para 321
F – referred to.
3.4 The word ‘mining lease’ has been given specific
meaning under Act, 1957. It is well settled principle of
interpretation that the provisions of an Act including definition of
a term is to be interpreted in a manner which may advance the
G object of the legislation. The essential characteristic of mining
lease is that it is granted for the purpose of undertaking mining
operation and mining operation means any operation undertaken
for the purpose of winning the mineral. Applying said definition
in the Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960 under Chapter V, it
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 313
DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

cannot be said that no mining lease is contemplated with respect A
to land where mineral vests exclusively in a private person.
[Para 111] [394-E-F]
Sri Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu v. Dar Dass Dey & Co.
and Others (1979) 3 SCC 106 ; State of Karnataka
and Others v. Subhash Rukmayya Guttedar and Others B
(1993) 3 Suppl. SCC 290 – referred to
3.5 The Mines Act, 1952 is an Act to amend and
consolidate the law relating to the regulation of labour and safety
of mines. The Act contains various provisions regarding
inspection of mining operation and management of mines. C
Section 18 contains duties and responsibilities of owners, agents
and managers. There are various other provisions in the Mines
Act, 1952 which are mandatory to be followed before working
any mine. Section 16 obligates the owner, agent or manager of a
mine to give notice before the commencement of any mining
operation to the District Magistrate of the District in which the D
mine is situate. Section 75 of the Mines Act, 1952 also
empowers the District Magistrate to institute prosecution against
any owner, agent or manager for any offence under the Mines
Act, 1952. In exercise of the power under Section 57 of Mines
Act, 1952 a new set of regulations has been framed, namely, Coal E
Mines Regulations, 2017. The Regulations contain several
regulatory provisions which need to be followed while working a
mine by the owner or his agent. The enforcement of Mines Act,
1952 and the Regulations, 2017 have to be ensured in the public
interest by the state of Meghalaya. [Paras 113, 114, 116, 118]
[394-H; 395-A-D; 396-E-F; 397-C-D] F

3.6 Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 pro-
vided for requirements of prior environmental clearance with
regard to projects enumerates therein. Notification dated
14.09.2006 was issued by the Ministry of Environment and
Forests in exercise of power under Section 3(3) of the G
Environment Protection Act, 1986. Schedule to the notification
listed the projects or activities requiring prior environmental
clearance. “Mining of minerals” included at Item No.1(a) but even
for mining project requirement of minimum 5 hectares area was
required for applicability of the project. Substituting Item No.1(a) H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A of Notification dated 14.09.2006 a new notification dated
15.01.2016 has been issued. As per statutory regime brought in
force by notification dated 15.01.2016, environmental clearance
is required for a project of coal for mining of any extent of area.
The notification dated 15.01.2016 being a statutory provision shall
operate on its own force and no order of any Court is required for
B
enforcement of notification dated 15.01.2016. While
implementing statutory regime for carrying mining operations in
the Hills District of the State of Meghalaya, the State of Meghalaya
has to ensure compliance of not only MMDR Act, 1957 but Mines
Act, 1952 as well as Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
C [Paras 119-121] [397-E-G; 398-F-H]
Whether under the MMDR Act, 1957 and Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960, it is the State Government, who is to
grant lease for mining of minerals in privately owned/community
owned land or it is the owner of the minerals, who is to grant
D lease for carrying out mining operations?
4.1 Chapter IV of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960
deals with grant of mining leases in respect of land in which the
minerals vest in the Government and Chapter V deals with
procedure for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining lease in
E respect of land in which the minerals vest in a person other than
the Government. Chapter IV contains Rules 22 to 40 and
Chapter V contains Rules 41 to 52 and the procedure and
manner of applying for mining lease and grant of lease as con-
tained in Chapter IV is not made applicable to the procedure as
given in Chapter V except that by virtue of Rule 45(i) certain
F conditions of mining lease as contained in Rule 27 under Chap-
ter IV are made applicable for mining lease under Chapter V.
[Para 123] [399-C-D]
4.2 Rule 22(1) provides that an application for the grant of
a mining lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the
G Government shall be made to the State Government in Form I
through such officer or authority as the State Government may
specify in this behalf. In Chapter V, there is no such rule, which
requires making an application for lease to the State

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 315
DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

Government. There is a marked difference between the rules A
contained in Chapter IV and rules contained in Chapter V. Rule
27(2) provides that a mining lease may contain such other
conditions as the State Government may deem necessary in
regard to the matters enumerated therein. Whereas Rule 45(iii)
provides that every mining lease may contain such other
B
conditions, not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Act
and these rules, as may be agreed upon between the parties.
The above provision gives an indication that in the lease executed
by Chapter V, the omission of word “State Government” in Rule
45(iii) is indicative of the fact that conditions, which are to be
added has to be agreed upon between the parties. It is provided C
in Rule 45(i) that in clauses (c) and (d) of Rule 27 for the words
“State Government” the word “lessor” shall be substituted, which
gives a clear indication that State Government is not a lessor in a
lease granted under Chapter V. [Paras 124, 125] [399-E-G;
400-F]
D
4.3 Under Rule 27(5), if the lessee makes any default in
the payment of the royalty or the payment of dead rent or
commits breach of any of the conditions, the State Government
shall give notice to the lessee and determine the lease and
forfeit the whole or part of the security deposit. Whereas under
rule 45(iv), the said power has been vested in the lessor, which E
also indicates that it is lessor, who will determine the lease and
not the State Government. Rule 47 provides for submission of
copy of licence or lease to the State Government within three
months of the grant of such licence or lease. Requirement of
submitting the licence or lease copy to the State Government F
indicate that the State Government is not the authority, who is
granting the lease, otherwise there was no requirement of
submitting a copy to the State Government, if it was contemplated
that State Government shall grant the lease. [Para 126]
[401-B-E]
G
4.4 Prior to MMDR Act, 1957, earlier Central Legislation
which was governing the field was Mines and Minerals
(Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, under which rules have
been framed by Central Government namely, Mineral

H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A Concession Rules, 1949. Rule 14 of Chapter III contemplated
application for prospecting license. Chapter IV of the Rules,
1949 contained the heading “grant of Mining Lease in respect of
land in which the minerals belong to Government”. The
provisions of Rule 27 of Chapter IV provide for application for
mining lease and there were several other rules under Chapter
B
IV, which in substance have been retained in Chapter IV of Rules,
1960. Chapter V of Rules, 1949 contained the heading “grant of
mineral concessions by private persons.” The heading of
Chapter V under Rules, 1960 is “procedure for obtaining a
prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of land in which
C the minerals vest in a person other than the Government.” Rule
47 of Chapter V of Rules, 1949 provide for “conditions in a
mining lease”, which are in substance similar as Rule 45 of Rules,
1960. Rule 47(iv) of the Rules, 1949 was akin to present Rule
45(i) of the Rules, 1960. [Para 127] [401-G-H; 402-A-C]
D 4.5 Thus, the Chapter V of Rules, 1949 dealt with the
mining lease granted by private persons, i.e., the category where
the minerals were not owned by the Government but was owned
by private persons. Chapter V of the Rules, 1960 contains
substantially similar provisions. Thus, Chapter V of Rules, 1960
has to be treated to be dealing with minerals owned by private
E owners. The earlier statutory regime, which was enforced as per
Rules, 1949 made it amply clear that mineral concessions are to
be granted by private persons also, which is in substances
retained in Chapter V of Rules, 1960. Thus, mining lease to be
granted as per Chapter V of Rules, 1960 is mining lease by the
F owner of mineral and similar concept has to be borrowed and
read in Chapter V. Absence of any procedure to make an
application for mining lease to the State Government in Chapter
V of the Rules, 1960 and lessor being the private persons and
not the State Government, clearly indicates that State
Government is not to grant the lease in respect of land of
G privately owned/ community owned owners. [Para 128]
[402-F-H; 403-A]
4.6 Another reason for not providing any application to
State Government for grant of mining lease in respect of
minerals, which vests in the private owners and community
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 317
DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

owners is that; without consent or willingness of private owners/ A
community owners of minerals, no authority is empowered to
grant any mining lease with regard to minerals, of which he is the
owner, it is the owner of the minerals may be private persons or
community owners, who is entitled to grant lease of minerals as
per the provisions of Chapter V of Rules, 1960. As per the
B
statutory provisions contained in Rules, 1960 especially
Chapter V, a mining lease for minerals, which belongs to a
private owner or a community owner, it is not the State
Government, which is entitled to receive any application or grant
any mining lease, but it is the private owner or community owner,
who is entitled to grant a lease for mining minerals owned by C
them. [Paras 129, 130] [403-A-D]
Whether the State of Meghalaya has any statutory control
over the mining of coal from privately owned/community owned
land in hills districts of State of Meghalaya?
5.1 As per Rule 42(2), except with the previous approval D
of the Central Government, no prospecting licence or mining
lease shall be granted in respect of any mineral specified in the
First Schedule to the Act. Thus, previous approval of Central
Government is mandatory before grant of mining lease of coal.
Rule 63 provides that the approval of the Central Government E
has to be obtained through the State Government. Thus, the
State Government has to be aware that any previous approval of
the Central Government for mining coal has been obtained or
not. Thus, restriction being statutory and without any exception
State Government cannot say that it has no role to play with
regard to mining of coal. Rule 50 empowers the State F
Government with the approval of the Central Government to
direct the parties concerned not to undertake any mining
operations, if it has reasons to believe that the grant or transfer
of mining lease is in contravention of any of the provisions of
Chapter V. Thus, when mining operations of coal are being G
conducted without prior approval of Central Government, State
is not powerless to direct the parties not to undertake any
prospective mining operations in the area. The power given under
Rule 50 is not only enabling power, but is a statutory obligation
on the State to exercise the power in the public interest. Rule 52
H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A gives the State Government ample power to prosecute and
punish mining leases or his transferees or assignees on violation
of the rules or contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter
V, which is ample power to the State to ensure that the Act is
faithfully followed. The State was advised by the Comptroller
and Auditor General of India in its report ended 31st March, 2013
B
in para 4.5.1 to regulate mining by following Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. [Para 133-136]
[404-C-E, H; 405-A-B, E-G]
5.2 The State is thus well aware of its statutory obligation
which is reflected in Mining Policy of 2012 and Draft Guidelines,
C 2015 but still before this Court their contention that no mining
lease is to be obtained for privately owned/community owned land
in Hills District of State of Meghalaya is unacceptable and not in
a good spirit. Our country being governed by the Constitution of
India, all the States are to implement Parliamentary Acts in true
D spirit and in the present case the State having been advised time
and again by Comptroller and Auditor General and being well
aware of its statutory obligation it comes ill from the State to
contend before this Court that there is no requirement of mining
lease for winning the minerals. [Para137] [405-H; 406-A-C]
E Whether the power to allot land for mining purposes is
vested in Autonomous District Councils?
6.1 Para 3 of Schedule VI of the Constitution enumerates
the power of District Council and Regional Council to make laws.
Certain legislation framed by District Council are the Khasi Hills
F District (Trading by Non Tribals) Regulation, 1954, the United
Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Management and
Control of Forest) Rules, 1960, the Khasi Hills Autonomous Dis-
trict (Trading by Non Tribals) Rules, 1959, all framed in exercise
of power under para 3 of Sixth Schedule. The power to make law
entrusted to Autonomous District Council under para 3 of
G Schedule VI is power to make law referable to List 2 and List 3
of the Seventh Schedule. With regard to regulation and
development of mineral, the Union has made declaration by
Section 2 of 1957 Act and the power of the State Legislature is
denuded in that respect. The logical corollary of the above
H principle is that power of Autonomous District Council shall also
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 319
DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

be denuded in so far as regulation and development of minerals A
to the extent which is covered by 1957 Act. Rule 4 of United
Khasi Jaintia Hills District (Trading by non Tribals) Rules,1959,
which contemplates form of licence and one of the licence
referred to is under Rule 4 is licence in Form E.
[Paras 138, 139] [406-F-H; 407-A-B]
B
6.2 The United Khasi Jaintia Hills District (Trading by
Non-Tribal) Rules, 1959 has been repealed insofar as Jaintia Hills
Districts are concerned by the Jaintia Hills Autonomous District
(Trading by Non-Tribal) Regulation Act, 2011. Rules, 1959 is still
in force in Khasi Hills Autonomous Districts, since, no other
regulations have been placed repealing the Rules, 1959. C
Regulations, 2011 have nothing to do with the mining of coal.
Paragraph 9 of the Schedule VI confines to the licences or leases
of minerals granted by Government of the State. Schedule VI
which constitute the District Councils and Regional Councils
enumerates their powers. Para 9 only deals with share of the D
royalties to District Councils as agreed upon between the
Government of the State and the District Councils. Further
paragraph 12(A)(a) itself contemplates that any law made by
District Council or Regional Council which is repugnant to any
law of the State shall be void. Thus, the status of law made by
District Council or Regional councils has to give way to the law E
made by the State. There can be no doubt that District Council
and Regional Council cannot make any law which may be
repugnant to the provisions of the Parliamentary Act. Thus,
District Council does not have any power to make any law with
regard to grant of mining lease. The mining leases for winning F
the major minerals has to be granted in accordance with 1957
Act and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. [Paras 140-144]
[407-E-F; 408-B, G-H; 409-A-B]
Whether the order of National Green Tribunal dated
17.04.2014 directing for complete ban on mining is unsustainable? G
Whether the complete ban on mining of coal in the State of
Meghalaya as directed by NGT deserved to be vacated/modified
in the interest of State and Tribals?
7.1 The use of natural resources plays major role in
carrying out development. A fine balance has to be maintained in H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A utilisation of natural resources and its conservation and
preservation. One cannot be sacrificed for the interest of other.
The concept of Sustainable Development has been evolved and
is being pursued. By order of NGT dated 17.04.2014, the Rat
hole mining/illegal mining was prohibited throughout the State of
Meghalaya. In OA No.73 of 2014 in which said order was passed,
B
sufficient materials were brought on the record including experts
report which proved that illegal coal mining in the State of
Meghalaya is degrading the environment. There is no error in
the order of NGT reaffirming its ban order in the facts of the
case. The revenue earned by the State from coal mining plays
C substantial part in the economy of the State. It is also amply
demonstrated from the record that tribals are the owners of the
land who carry on mining of coal in their land by which they earn
their substantial livelihood. [Paras 146, 147, 150] [409-F-G;
410-D-E; 412-B-C]
D State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s Hind Stone and Others
(1981) 2 SCC 205 : [1981] 2 SCR 742 – relied on.

Lafarge Umiam Mining (pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India &
Others (2011) 7 SCC 338 : [2011] 7 SCR 954 –
E referred to.
7.2 Although the manner in which the mining is being
carried out by the tribals cannot be approved which is clearly in
violation of statutory regime under 1957 Act and 1960 Rules but
in event the mining is carried out by tribals or their assignees as
F per the provisions of 1957 Act and 1960 Rules, there can be no
objections in carrying such mining under the regulation and
control of State of Meghalaya and the ban order dated 17.04.2014
of the tribunal shall not come in its way of carrying mining
operations. The ban order is for the illegal coal mining which was
rampant in the State of Meghalaya and cannot be extended to
G valid and legal mining as per 1957 Act and 1960 Rules.
[Para 151] [412-D-F]
Whether NGT had any jurisdiction to constitute committees
to submit reports, to implement the orders of NGT, to monitor
storage/transportation; of minerals and to prepare action plan
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 321
DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

for restoration of environment? Whether the NGT committed A
error in directing for constitution of fund, namely, Meghalaya
Environment Protection and Restoration Fund?
8.1 Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of NGT Act provides
that Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by
the Code of Civil Procedure but shall be guided by the principles B
of natural justice. What sub-section (1) meant to convey is that
Tribunal is not shackled with the procedure laid down by the CPC
for conducting its proceedings. Sub-section (2) of Section 19
empowers the Tribunal, powers to regulate its own procedure.
Section 19(4) vests some powers as are vested in civil court,
while trying a suit, in respect of matters enumerated therein. C
The use of expression “shall not be bound by the procedure laid
down by the CPC” is not akin to saying that procedure as laid
down by the CPC is in no manner relevant to the Tribunal.
Further, Section 19(1) also does not mean that Tribunal cannot
follow any procedure given in the CPC. One provision of CPC D
inserted by Act 104 of 1976 with effect from 01.02.1977 is Order
XXVI, which is relevant for present inquiry. [Para 154]
[414-E-G]
8.2 Rule 10A of Order XXVI CPC provides that where any
question arising in a suit involves any scientific investigation which E
cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be conveniently conducted
before the Court, the Court may, if it thinks necessary or
expedient in the interests of justice so to do, issue a commission
to such person as it thinks fit, directing him to inquire into such
question and report thereon to the Court. Rule 10A is enabling
power to the courts to obtain report from such persons as it thinks F
fit when any question involves with the scientific investigation.
The powers under Rule 10A which are to be exercised by the
Court can very well be used by the NGT to obtain reports by
experts. The NGT as per the statutory scheme of the NGT has
to decide several complex questions pertaining to pollution and G
environment. The scientific investigation and report by experts
are necessary requirement in appropriate cases to come to
correct conclusion to find out measures to remedy the pollution
and environment. There is no dearth of jurisdiction in the NGT

H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A to appoint a committee to submit a report. While asking expert
to give a report the NGT is not confined to the four corners of
Rule 10A rather its jurisdiction is not shackled by strict terms of
Order 26 Rule 10A s per Section 19(1). [Para 155] [415-C-E]
8.3 Under Section 35 of the NGT Act, 2010, Central
B Government is empowered to make rule for carrying out the
provisions of the Act. Rules have been framed in exercise of
powers under Section 35, namely, National Green Tribunal
(Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011. The said Rules have been
framed in exercise of powers under Section 4(4) as well as
Section 35. The Rules, 2011 are Rules also for practices and
C procedure of the Tribunal. [Para 156] [415-F-G]
8.5 Rule 24 empowers the Tribunal to make such orders
or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give
effect to its order or to secure the ends of justice. Rule 24 gives
wide powers to the Tribunal to secure the ends of justice. Rule
D 24 vests special power to Tribunal to pass orders and issue
directions to secure ends of justice. Use of words ‘may’, ‘such
orders’, ‘gives such directions’, ‘as may be necessary or
expedient’, ‘to give effect to its orders’, ‘order to prevent abuse
of process’, are words which enable the Tribunal to pass orders
E and the above words confer wide discretion. [Para 157]
[416-B-C]
8.4 The enabling powers give to the Tribunal under Rule
24 is for purpose and object to decide the subjects which are to
be examined, decided and an appropriate relief is to be granted
F by the Tribunal. Further, subjects contain wide range of subjects
which require technical and scientific inputs. The Tribunal can
pass such orders as it may think fit necessary or expedient to
secure ends of justice. The object for which said power is given
is not far to seek. To fulfil objective of the NGT Act, 2010. NGT
has to exercise a wide range of jurisdiction and has to possess
G vide range of powers to do justice in a given case. The power is
given to exercise for the benefit of those who have right for clean
environment which right they have to establish before the
Tribunal. The power given to the Tribunal is coupled with duty to
exercise such powers for achieving the objects. There is no lack
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 323
DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

of jurisdiction in the NGT to direct for appointment of committee A
or to obtain a report from a committee in given facts of the case.
[Para 159, 160, 161] [416-E-H; 417-D]
L. Hirday Narain v. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly
(1970) 2 SCC 355 : [1971] 3 SCR 683 – relied on.
Professor Justice G.P. Singh in Principles of Statutory B
Interpretation, 14th Edition – referred to.
8.5 A Fund has been constituted by the Tribunal, namely,
“Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund”.
The NGT could have passed any order or direction to secure
ends of justice which power especially conferred by Rule 24 di- C
rection to constitute Fund is thus also saved under such power.
[Paras 162, 163] [417-E; 418-D-E]
Whether NGT by constituting Committees has delegated
essential judicial powers to the Committees and has further
encroached the constitutional scheme of administration of Tribal D
areas under Article 244(2) and Article 275(1) and Schedule VI of
the Constitution?
9.1 The Tribunal by its various directions has asked for
reports from State officials and the committees. The various
instances where the NGT directed for report or investigation E
and submission of report by committees were with the object of
ensuring the implementation of the orders passed by it and to
decide the environmental issues raised before it. In no manner
constitution of committee can be said to be delegation of
essential judicial powers of the NGT to the committee. The F
Katakey committee was constituted by the Tribunal on
31.08.2018. The Constitution of the committee and its functions
entrusted were with the object to implement the orders passed
by the Tribunal. For the restoration of environment, NGT vide
its order dated 31.08.2018 has directed the committee to submit
its action plan and reports by e-mail. The Tribunal, thus, had kept G
complete control on all steps which were required to be taken by
the committee and issued directions from time to time. Thus,
the submission of the appellant that the essential judicial powers

H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A of the NGT had been delegated to the committee is not tenable.
Looking to the enormous work of restoration of environment
which has to be supervised on the spot the committee was
constituted. However, the State is always at liberty to obtain
particular direction if aggrieved by any act of the committee. The
matter being pending before the Tribunal of acts of the
B
committee are under direct control of the Tribunal and if the
committee oversteps in any direction the same can very well be
corrected by the Tribunal on the matter being brought before it.
[Para 165-167] [418-G-H; 419-A, D-H; 420-A]
9.2. It is not case of the appellant that District and
C Regional Councils have framed any law for restoration of
environment which is being breached by the committee or its
acts. The District and Regional Councils are free to exercise all
their powers and the committee constituted by the Tribunal is
only concerned with the Environmental degradation and illegal
D coal mining. The committees’ report or direction of the Tribunal
in no manner encroaches upon the administration of Tribal areas
by the District and Regional Councils. [Para 168] [420-D-E]
Whether direction to deposit Rs.100/- crores by the State
of Meghalaya by order dated 04.01.2019 of NGT impugned in
E C.A.No.2968 of 2019 is sustainable?
10.1 The NGT by its order dated 31.08.2018 constituted a
committee headed by Justice B.P. Katakey, Former Judge of
Gauhati High Court with representatives from Central Pollution
Control Board and Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad. The
F committee visited different sites, held various meetings, various
presentations were also made before the committee by Meghalaya
State Pollution Control Board and other bodies namely North
Eastern Centre for Technology Application and Reach, North
Eastern Space Application Centre. The committee observed that
the coal mining activities which includes the extraction of coal
G and transportation is going on in the State of Meghalaya, at least
in East Jaintia Hills District, where such mining activities are
most, despite the ban imposed by the NGT by its order dated
17.4.2014. The fact that on 13.12.2018, 15 coal mine workers

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 325
DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

were trapped in an ongoing coal mining operation, who all have A
been reported to be dead itself proves beyond any doubt that
order dated 17.04.2014 banning mining in the entire State of
Meghalaya was neither been enforced nor serious endeavours
were taken by the State or its authorities to save the
environmental pollution. With regard to restoration of the
B
environment and restoration of the victims, action plans were
formulated by the committee. [Paras 169, 171, 174] [420-E-F;
421-C-E; 422-E-F; 423-C-D]
10.2 The report being placed on website on 31.12.2018
itself, there was no question of serving copy of the report of the
committee to the Stakeholders. Additional Chief Secretary of C
the Government of Meghalaya was himself the Member Secretary
and Coordinator of the committee under the orders of the Tribunal
dated 19.09.2018. All proceedings of the committee, its meetings
and minutes, were with the knowledge and participation of the
coordinator/ Additional Chief Secretary of the State of Meghalaya. D
A perusal of the direction to deposit Rs.100/- crores by the State
of Meghalaya by order dated 04.01.2019, indicates that although
the State of Meghalaya was present and was heard but no kind of
objection was raised regarding acceptability of the report. The
report obtained by the NGT through the committee was to take
effective steps towards protection of environmental pollution and E
for restoration of damaged environment. Pollution of the various
rivers and streams and steps for treating the acidic water was
urgently required. Several presentations before the committee
were also made and different steps regarding restoration of
environment were to be taken as noticed and indicated in the F
report of the committee. The NGT by its order dated 25.03.2015
constituted a fund namely ‘Meghalaya Environment Protection
and Restoration Fund’ to be maintained by the State under the
direct control of the Chief Secretary of the State of Meghalaya. It
is reiterated in the report of the committee that an amount of
Rs.433 Crores is already lying in the said fund, which has not G
been spent. [Paras 176-177] 423-F-H; 424-A-C]
10.3 The amount, which has been directed by NGT to be
deposited by State of Meghalaya is neither a penalty nor a fine

H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A imposed on the State. The amount has been directed to be
deposited for carrying out steps regarding restoration of
environment. The said amount cannot be said to be amount of
damages to be paid by the State. State of Meghalaya has very
limited source of revenue and putting an extra burden on the
State of Meghalaya to make payment of Rs.100 Crores from its
B
own financial resources and budgetary amount may cause great
hardship to the State of Meghalaya. Ends of justice be served in
modifying the direction of NGT dated 04.01.2019 to the extent
that State is permitted to transfer an amount of Rs.100 Crores
from the amount lying in the MEPRF to the Central Pollution
C Control Board. The Central Pollution Control Board as directed
by NGT shall utilise the said amount of Rs.100 Crores only for
restoration of the environment. [Para 179] [424-D-G]
Whether NGT’s order dated 31.03.2016 that after
15.05.2016 all remaining coal shall vest in the State of Meghalaya
D is sustainable?
11. The mining of coal in contravention of Section 4(1)
invites penalties as enumerated in Section 21. The present is
not a case where any kind of penalty has been imposed on the
miners except that the amount of royalty as payable on mining of
E coal is being collected by the State as penalty. It is true that the
State Government has power under Section 21(5) to recover from
such person the minerals so raised, or, where such material has
already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover
from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, but it
is for the State Government to exercise its power under Section
F 21(5) by way of penalty. The NGT has not given any reason as to
how coal shall automatically vest in the State. The right of
recovery of mineral as contemplated under Section 21(5) does
not amount to say that proprietary right of owner of the minerals
is lost rather State under Section 21(5) exercises its power to
G recover the mineral which has been raised without any lawful
authority. Thus, coal extracted and lying in open after 15.05.2016
was not automatically vested in the State and the owner of the
coal or the person who has mined the coal shall have the
proprietary right in the mineral which shall not be lost. [Para 182[
[486-E-H]
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 327
DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

Whether assessed and unassessed coal which has already A
been extracted and lying in different Districts of Meghalaya be
permitted to be transported and what mechanism be adopted for
disposal of such coal?
12.1 Several I.A.s were filed by different applicants
seeking direction to transport already extracted coal lying at B
different places in hills districts of State of Meghalaya. The State
Government itself came with a case that huge quantity of coal in
the four hills districts, which has been extracted is lying waiting
for orders of transportation. In the instant case, illegal coal
mining is going on in spite of ban by NGT by its order dated
17.04.2014. The Katakey committee report has also opined that C
all the extracted coal lying in different districts is a coal, which
has been illegally mined after the imposition of ban by the order
dated 17.04.2014. All coals being illegally mined, the State is
fully entitled to impose a penalty, i.e., to realise the royalty and
the amount of MEPR Fund. The coal being major mineral and D
useful for different industries and projects, appropriate disposal
of extracted coal is also of a paramount importance.
[Paras 183, 184, 185] [427-A; 429-D; 430-A]
12.2 Entire extracted coal lying at various places is directed
to be taken over by Coal India Ltd, a Government of India unit, E
who may dispose of the same as per its normal method of
disposal and proceeds be distributed as per directions issued by
this Court hereinafter. The NGT has already directed that for all
extracted coal lying at different places, it is the State, which is
the receiver-cum-custodian of the coal. The State having carried
out the assessment of the coal lying in the said four districts F
including the details of the quantities and the details of owners
being available with it, it may ensure that the entire coal are
handed over to the Coal India Ltd., as per the mode and manner
to be formulated by Katakey Committee, in consultation with
officers of the Coal India Ltd. and State of Meghalaya. The G
Katakey committee and its various members and participants
have done a commendable job in studying and examining various
aspects of environment in the State of Meghalaya and several
valuable suggestions have been given by the committee, which

H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A are also being implemented to mitigate the suffering of the
citizens consequent to the illegal coal mined. [Paras 186, 187]
[430-A-E]
12.3 Commissioner and Secretary of the State in the
Department of Mining and Geology alongwith the officers of Coal
B India Ltd. are directed to deliberate with the Katakey
committee to finalise a comprehensive plan for transportation
and handing over of the coal to Coal India Ltd. for disposal/
auction as per rules of Coal India Ltd. Disposal/auction by Coal
India Ltd. shall be beneficial to both the owners of the mines as
well as to the State of Meghalaya. It is for the Coal India Ltd. to
C decide as to venue, where they shall receive the coal, i.e., either
at any of its depot or any other place in State of Meghalaya and it
is for the Coal India Ltd. to finalise the process of disposal and
auction of the coal. It shall be the duty of the State of Meghalaya
and its officers especially Deputy Commissioner of the area
D concerned to enter details of quantity of the coal, name of the
owner and place from where it is collected. Coal India Ltd. shall
also take steps to ensure weighment of the coal when it is
received by it and since all consequent steps regarding disposal,
price grade of the coal shall be determined as per the weight of
the coal received by the Coal India Ltd. from different places.
E The expenses of transportation shall be borne by the State of
Meghalaya, Coal India Ltd. or by both, which expenses shall be
deductible from the price received of the coal. The State of
Meghalaya shall be entitled to royalty and payment towards MERP
Fund as well as taxes out of the price of the coal. After deduction
F of cost of transportation, the payment of royalty and payment to
MERP fund and taxes plus 10% of value of the coal to be given
to Coal India Ltd. for the above exercise, balance amount shall
be disbursed to the owner of the coal towards its price, which
disbursement shall be the responsibility of the State. The Coal
India Ltd. after taking its expenses for transportation with 10%
G of price of the coal shall remit the entire amount to the State and
it is for the State after deducting the royalty and payment to the
MERP Fund and taxes to pay back the balance of the amount to
the owner. The coal, which has been seized by the State in
illegal transportation or illegal mining for which different cases
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 329
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE

have been registered by the State shall, however, be dealt by the A
State in accordance with Section 21 of the Act, 1957 and on being
satisfied, the State can take a decision to recover the entire
quantity of coal so illegally raised without lawful authority and the
said cases has to be separately dealt with in accordance with law.
Thus, all I.A.s filed by different applicants seeking order of
B
transportation of the different quantities stand disposed of in view
of the directions as given above. The Katakey committee in
consultation with State of Meghalaya and officers of Coal India
Ltd. would finalise appropriate mode and manner to affect the
transport and disposal of the coal in the above manner.
[Paras 188-190] [430-E-H; 431-A-D] C
Case Law Reference
[2017] 12 SCR 956 distinguished Para 69
[2013] 7 SCR 863 referred to Para 73
[1967] SCR 373 followed Para 74 D
(1979) 3 SCC 106 referred to Para 108
(1993) 3 Suppl. SCC 290 referred to Para 110
[1981] 2 SCR 742 relied on Para 145
[2011] 7 SCR 954 referred to Para 146 E

[1971] 3 SCR 683 relied on Para 160
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.10720
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2018 of the National F
Green Tribunal at New Delhi in Original Application No. 73 of 2014
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 10611/2018, 10907/2018, 5272/2016, 2968/2019,
Civil Appeal No.5295 of 2019 @ D. No.3067/2018. G
A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG, Shekhar Naphade, Raju Ramachandran,
Amrendra Sharan, Colin Gonsalves, Sanjay R. Hegde, Anupam Lal Das,
Nidhesh Gupta, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, R. Basant, Siddharth Luthra,

H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A Sr. Advs., Amit Kumar, AG (State of Meghalaya), Sammarth Khanna,
Ms. Ekta Gupta, Ms. Sukriti Bhatnagar, Durga Dutt, Shaurya Sahay,
Atul Kumar, Ms. Rekha Bakshi, T.K. Nayak, Prakash Singh Negi, Chetan
Joshi, Ms. Laxmi Iyer, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Kumar Abhishek, Avijit
Mani Tripathi, Yoginder Handoo, P. Yobin, Prashant Bhatnagar, Saurabh,
Prithvi Pal, Naresh Kumar Nagar, Amit Kumar, Avijit Roy, V. Senthil
B
Kumar, Satish Kumar, Theerthe Gowda N.M., G.Sughumaran,
Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Pranay Ranjan, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Gurmeet Singh
Makker, Tayenjam Momo Singh, Ms. T. Archana, Ranjan Mukherjee,
S. Bhowmick, K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Deniel Stone Lyngdoh, Upendra
Mishra, Dr. Gajendra Pal Singh, Ms. Olivia Bang, Satya Mitra, Arvind
C Kumar Sharma, Ahanthem Henry, A. Rohen Singh, Vivek Kumar,
Phillemon N., Kumar Mihir, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Ms. Anuradha Arputham,
Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Geetanjali, M/s. Arputham Aruna and Co,
Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Ms. Japneet Kaur, Ms. Vriti Gujral, Ms. Pallavi
Singh, Dileep Tandon, Ms. Neha Tandon, R.B. Phookan, Shailesh
Madiyal, Subhro Sanyal, Ms. Soumya Roop Sanyal, Somesh Chandra
D
Jha, Sameer Kumar, Ms. Heena Rohra, Nirnay Gupta, Kawaljeet Singh
Bhatia, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1.Natural resources of the country are
E not meant to be consumed only by the present generation of men or
women of the region where natural resources are deposited. These
treasures of nature are for all generations to come and for intelligent use
of the entire country. The present generation owes a duty to preserve
and conserve the natural resources of the nation so that it may be used
in the best interest of coming generations as well and for the country as
F a whole.
2. These appeals have been filed challenging various orders passed
by National Green Tribunal wherein several directions were issued,
measures to be taken to check and combat the unregulated coal mining
in Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya which coal mining resulted not
G only loss of lives but damaged the environment of the area.
Details of appeals
3. Civil Appeal Nos. 10720 of 2018, 10611 of 2018 and 10907 of
2018 have been filed against order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the
H National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Civil Appeal
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 331
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

No.5272 of 2016 has been filed by KA Hima Nongstoin Land Owners, A
Coal Traders and Producers Association against the order dated
10.05.2016 of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Civil Appeal (Diary No.3067) of 2018 has been filed by Lber Laloo
against order dated 25.03.2015 of National Green Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi and Civil Appeal No.2968 of 2019 has been filed
B
against order dated 04.01.2019 of National Green Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi by which State of Meghalaya has been directed to
deposit Rs.100 crores with the Central Pollution Control Board.
4. All the appeals having been filed against the orders of National
Green Tribunal (NGT), it is necessary to notice the details of various
proceedings before the NGT to appreciate the grievances raised in the C
appeals. The Gauhati High Court on the basis of a News item to the
effect that on 06.07.2012, 30 coal labourers were trapped inside a coal
mine at Nongalbibra in the District of South Garo Hill and 15 of them
died inside the coal mine, registered PIL suo moto No.(SH) 3 of 2012.
Vide order dated 10.12.2012 of the Gauhati High Court the matter was D
directed to be transferred to NGT in which notice was issued by the
Tribunal on 30.01.2013. Transferred matter was registered as Original
Application NO.11(THC)/2012.All Dimasa Students Union Dima Hasao
District Committee filed an Original Application No.73 of 2014 before
National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench making serious complaints with
regard to rat-hole mining operation, which has been going on in Jaintia E
Hills in the State of Meghalaya for last many years without being
regulated by any law. It was alleged that in the course of rat-hole coal
mining by flooding water several employees and workers have died.
The applicant had also brought before the Tribunal a detailed report of
one Dr. O.P. Singh, Professor, Department of Environmental Studies, F
North-Eastern Hills University, Shillong, Meghalaya where entire
aspects of the coal mining in the State of Meghalaya were discussed.
The NGT admitted the application and took the view that illegal and
unscientific miningneither can be held to be in the interest of people of
the area,the people working in the mines nor in the interest of
environment. After hearing applicant, the Tribunal on 17.04.2014 passed G
an order directing the Chief Secretary of Meghalaya, Director General
of Police, State of Meghalaya to ensure that rat-hole mining/illegal
mining is stopped forthwith throughout the State of Meghalaya and any
illegal transport of coal shall not take place until further orders passed by
H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A the Tribunal. After the passing of the order dated 17.04.2014 various
applications were filed before the Tribunal by different Associations and
persons claiming interest in the subject matter of the application.
Application No. 317/2019 was filed by Western Coal Miners and
Exporters Association for being impleaded in O.A. No.73 of 2014, which
was allowed. Another application M.A.No.306 of 2014 was filed by
B
Khasi Hills District Autonomous District Council, Shillong, East Khasi
Hills District, Meghalaya (one of the appellants before us) for impleadment
claiming to be a constitutional body and entitled in the sharing primarily
of the royalty on the coal produced/mined, which application was
allowed.
C 5. The Tribunal clubbed O.A.No.13 of 2014, O.A.No.73 of 2014
and O.A.No.11(THC)/2012. Miscellaneous applications were filed
before the Tribunal praying for vacating the order dated 17.04.2014.
Against order dated 17.04.2014, C.A.No.5756 of 2014 was filed by a
coal mine owner. The miscellaneous application was also filed by the
D State Coordination Committee of the Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya
(one of the appellants before us) for their impleadment, which was
allowed. This Court dismissed the Civil Appeal filed against the order
dated 17.04.2014 passed by the Tribunal, however, granted liberty to the
appellant to approach the Tribunal for modification of the order. The
Tribunal also noticed in its order dated 09.06.2014 that there has been
E serious air, water and environmental pollution being caused by the
illegal, unregulated and indiscriminate rat-hole mining being carried on in
various parts of the State of Meghalaya. Serious pollution to the
upstream was also noticed. The Tribunal, however, noticed that there
are documents on record to show that right from the year 2003, there
F has been serious air and water pollution in the mining areas of Meghalaya
which is injurious and has not only resulted in degradation of
environment, particularly the streams and underground water, but has
also seriously jeopardised the human health. It was further noticed that
Transportation of coal in an illegal, unregulated, indiscriminate and
unscientific manner has resulted in serious diseases to the people. The
G report of the Committee dated 09.06.2014 was noticed by the Tribunal.
By order dated 09.06.2014 while permitting the transportation of the
already extracted coal lying in open near the mining sites, constituted a
committee for supervising such transportation. Various other directions
were issued to the committee as well as to the State and its authorities.
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 333
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

6. By a subsequent order dated 01.08.2014 the Tribunal noticed A
that the committee earlier constituted by order dated 09.06.2014 failed
to perform the functions assigned to it, hence, a new committee was
constituted. The Tribunal from time to time issued various directions.
We need to notice four orders passed by the Tribunal in detail which are
subject matter of challenge in these appeals. The orders which are
B
subject matter in these appeals are orders dated 25.03.2015, 10.05.2016,
31.08.2018 and 04.01.2019.
Order dated 25.03.2015
7. In order dated 25.03.2015 NGT noticed that the rampant,
illegal, unscientific and life-threatening mining activity, particularly rat C
hole mining is going on in the State of Meghalaya for years. The NGT
noticed the report of Commissioner appointed by it and opined that in
spite of order dated 17.04.2014 fresh mining was going on. The Tribunal
also noticed that State of Meghalaya has promulgated a Mining Policy
of 2012 which does not deal with rat hole mining. The State Government
was also directed to formulate and declare Mining Policy and Guidelines D
for the State of Meghalaya to deal with all aspects of mining, which
Policy was yet to see the light of the day. The Tribunal also noticed that
the order of the Tribunal has been violated by illegal mining despite
complete prohibitory orders. It was noticed that the State Government
has found as many as 73 cases of illegal transportation of coal in one E
District. Further, 15 more cases of specific violation of the NGT orders
had already been registered by the State Government. In all 11 Districts
of State of Meghalaya, 308 cases of violation have been registered and
a total number of 605 trucks and 2675.63 tonnes of coal has been seized.
The stand of the State for a non-compliance and its inability to comply
with the direction was also noticed to the following effect: F

“(a) Lack of forces of carry out counter insurgency operations
and implementation of NGT orders.
(b) The State Government proposes to approach the Central
Government for claiming an exemption, in terms of para 12A(b) G
of the VIth Schedule of the Constitution of India and from the
condition of previous approval of the Central Government under
the Mine and Mineral Rule Regulation Act, 1957 in respect of
reconnaissance, prospecting and mining of coal and from the
operations of Coal Mines Nationalisation Act.”
H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A 8. The Tribunal issued directions that the Additional Secretary,
North East in the Ministry of Home, Central Government shall, within a
period of two weeks, hold a meeting with the Chief Secretary of the
State of Meghalaya and other concerned Authorities and consider the
proposal of the State of Meghalaya. The Tribunal also expressed its
disapproval for the conduct of the State in not formulating appropriate
B
Policy and Guidelines. The Tribunal further observed that the mining in
the State cannot be permitted, unless appropriate policy is prepared by
the State Government.
9. The Tribunal also noticed that there is huge environmental
degradation and pollution of the water in the State of Meghalaya and
C observed that serious steps are required to be taken for cleaning
polluted waterbodies, with the above objective the Tribunal authorised
the State Government to collect 10% on the market value of the coal in
addition to the royally payable to it. In this regard following directions
were issued:
D “It is also undisputable that there has been huge environmental
degradation and pollution of the waterbody in the State of
Meghalaya, because of this illegal, unscientific mining. No one
has even thought of restoration of the area in question, to bring to
some extent, if not completely, restoration of ecology and
E environment in question. Serious steps are required to be taken
for cleaning polluted waterbodies and ensure that no further
pollution is caused by this activity and the activity which would be
permitted to be carried on finally including transportation of coal.
On the basis of `Polluter Pay Principle’. We direct that the State
Government shall in addition to the royalty payable to it, shall also
F collect 10% on the market value of the coal for every consignment.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
keeping in view the notifications of the Central Government dated
10.05.2012 and that of the State Government dated 22.06.2012,
we may notice that in the report of Comptroller and Auditor
G General of India for the period ending 31st March, 2013 under
7.5.18 of Chapter 7 of which the invoice value of the coal has
been taken Rs. 4850/- per metric tonne.
Thus, we direct that the State Government shall in addition to
the royalty payable to it, also collect 10% of the said market value
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 335
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

of the coal per metric tonne from each person. The amount so A
collected shall be deposited in the account to be titled as ‘Meghalaya
Environment Protection and Restoration Fund’ to be maintained
by the State under the direct control of the Chief Secretary of the
State of Meghalaya.
This amount shall only be used for restoration of environment and B
for necessary remedial and preventive measures in regard to
environment and matters related thereto.”
10. Certain other directions were issued by the Tribunal vide
order dated 25.03.2015.
Order dated 10.05.2016 C

11. Order dated 10.05.2016 has been challenged by KA Hima
Nongstoin Land Owners, Coal Traders and Producers Association. The
NGT vide its order dated 23.12.2015 had permitted transportation of
coal for the period till 15.05.2016. By order dated 31.03.2016, NGT
refused to further extend the time for transportation and directed that D
after 15.05.2016 all extracted coal shall vest in the State. Aggrieved
against order dated 31.03.2016 KA Hima Nongstoin Land Owners, Coal
Traders and Producers Association filed C.A.No.4793 of 2016 before
this Court, which was disposed of by granting liberty to the appellant to
file application before the NGT. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this E
Court M.A.No.427 of 2016 was filed before the NGT. By order dated
10.05.2016 applications, M.A. Nos.400 and 427 of 2016 were dismissed.
By the same order the State of Meghalaya was directed to place on
record the exact current quantity of coal and value thereof including the
status of the coal lying and mined anywhere in the State of Meghalaya
as on 01.04.2015 and the exact quantity of coal lying as on 16.05.2016. F
The state was also directed to submit its proposal as to how the State
shall deal with the coal that is vested in the State primarily for the
reasons that entire coal is illegally extracted coal.
Order dated 31.08.2018
G
12. On 31.08.2018, the Tribunal noticing the earlier proceedings
also noted that few issues are pending before this Court arising out of
orders passed by the Tribunal. In paragraph 10 of the order following
has been noticed:

H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A “10. At this stage, we may note that following issues are pending
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court arising out of orders passed
by this Tribunal:
i) Civil Appeal No(s). 5272/2016 titled as Ka Hima Nongstoin
Land Owners, Coal Traders and Producers Association Vs.
B All Dimasa Students Union, Dima Hasao District Commit-
tee and Ors., wherein following order was passed on
21.09.2016:
“Having heard counsel for the parties, it is directed that the
petitioners, as well as the respondents, who have mined the
C coal, are permitted to transport the coal on payment of royalty
and other fees as fixed by the National Green Tribunal (for
short, ‘the Tribunal’) and other relevant status. The extracted
coal can be transported from 1st October, 2016 till 31st May,
2017. It is further directed that no other extraction shall take
place in the meantime.
D
The finding of the Tribunal that the coal is vested in the State
on the ground that it is illegally extracted coal, shall be adverted
to at the time of final hearing. The miners shall keep the
accounts and if, ultimately, it is held that the coal belongs to the
State, they will refund the amount with interest. The quantum
E of interest shall be determined at the time of final hearing.
Needless to say, these observations have been made without
prejudice to the contentions to be raised by the learned counsel
for the parties. The tribunal can proceed with regard to the
other aspects which are pending before it.”
F The above order shows that question whether coal is vested
in the State is to be gone into before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Thereafter, on 28.03.2018, by the said order, time for
transporting already extracted coal was extended up to 31.05.2018
but it was clear that no further extraction shall be allowed.
G
ii) Civil Appeal Diary No. 3067/2018 titled as Lber Laloo
Vs. All Dimasa Students Union, Dima Hasao District Committee
and Ors., raising the question whether ban on mining can be
continued. We are informed that in the said matter, the issue of
mining plan has also been raised.”
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 337
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

13. The Tribunal further directed that ban on rat hole mining shall A
continue subject to further orders of this Court. Ban on transportation of
extracted coal will also continue subject to further orders. Following
directions were issued in paragraph 13:
“13. Accordingly, we direct that orders of ban of rat-hole mining
will continue, subject to further orders of the Hon’ble Supreme B
Court. Ban of transportation of the already mined material will
also continue subject to further orders of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The State of Meghalaya will be the receiver/custodian of
the available extracted coal as on date, subject to further orders
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. If any further coal not so far
recorded in the inventory is available, a separate inventory may C
be made and if it is found that the extraction was illegal, royalty in
terms of orders already passed may also be collected. This may
be determined by the Secretary of Mining of the State of
Meghalaya. While one view is that there is extracted coal and not
accounted for, the other view put forward that it is result of illegal D
mining. This aspect may be gone into by the Secretary of Mining,
State of Meghalaya in the first instance. The same be
cross-checked by a joint team of representatives of Central
Pollution Control Board and Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad.”
14. The Tribunal also deliberated on restoration of the E
environment and rehabilitation of the victims for which funds were
available. The Tribunal constituted a committee headed by Justice B.P.
Katakey, Former Judge of the Gauhati High Court with representatives
from Central Pollution Control Board and Indian School of Mines,
Dhanbad. Paragraphs 14 to 28 of the order are relevant in this context
which are as follows: F

“14. Only last question which remains is of restoration of the
environment and rehabilitation of the victims for which funds are
available. We are of the view that for this task, it will appropriate
that we constitute an independent Committee. This Committee
will be headed by Justice B.P. Katakey, Former Judge of the G
Guwahati High Court with representatives from Central Pollution
Control Board and Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad.
15. The Committee will take the following steps:
· Take stock of all actions taken so far in this regard.
H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A · Prepare time bound action plan to deal with the issue and ensure
its implementation.
16. The Committee may requisition services of such technical
experts as may be necessary and may also carry out visits to sites
whenever necessary. They will be entitled to all logistic support
B for performing these functions which shall be provided under the
directions of the Chief Secretary, Meghalaya.
17. The Committee may also set up website for receiving and
giving information on subject.
18. The Committee may also involve educational institutions for
C awareness and feedback about results.
19. All authorities concerned in the State of Meghalaya shall
cooperate and coordinate with the Committee. The Committee
can seek such technical assistance as may be required from any
relevant authority.
D
20. The Chief Secretary, Meghalaya to provide all facilities to
said Committee to perform its functions. The Committee may
send its periodical reports to the Tribunal by e-mail at
filing.ngt@gmail.com.
21. The Committee may assume its charge within two weeks
E
from today. The Committee may prepare Action Plan which shall
have targets of ensuring compliance. It may meet at such intervals
as considered appropriate but twice in every month and fix targets
for compliance.
22. The Committee will be free to take up all incidental issues.
F
The committee will be free to seek any further directions from
this Tribunal by e-mail.
23. The Chief Secretary of State of Meghalaya may determine
remuneration of the Chairman in consultation with him and the
Chief Secretary of the State of Meghalaya will also provide all
G logistic support including security if needed for their proper
functioning.
25. The Committee will be entitled to take the help of the technical
experts in execution of this order. The Committee may frame its

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 339
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

action plan for implementation within one month from today and A
implementation may be completed within six months as far as
possible. The timelines may be laid down. A copy of the action
plan may be sent to this Tribunal by e-mail at filing.ngt@gmail.com.
Thereafter, reports may be sent at least once in two months. The
Committee may also assess the damage to the environment as
B
well as to the individuals as already suggested in the Report.
27. The State of Meghalaya will make available all the relevant
records to the Committee for the purpose. The State will also
determine the remuneration to be paid to the Chairman of the
Committee in consultation with him within one month from today.
C
28. The Committee will be at liberty to take technical assistance
from any quarter which may be facilitated by the State of
Meghalaya. The Committee may also supervise any issue arising
out of receivership/custodianship of the already extracted coal,
including any environmental issues which any arise out of storage
of the extracted material and the steps required to be taken for D
the purpose.
The Report of the Committee may be furnished to this Tribunal
by e-mail at filing.ngt@gmail.com.
A copy of this order may be sent to all the concerned authorities E
by e-mail for compliance.
All pending matters will stand disposed of in above terms.
List for consideration of the Report on 06th March, 2019.”
Order dated 04.01.2019
F
15. Justice Katakey submitted its report before the Tribunal on
02.01.2019. Committee’s various proceedings which were part of the
report were noticed in detail by the NGT. In paragraph 21 of the order
following was noticed:
“21. Under issue number D, it was noted that the Meghalaya G
State Pollution Control Board in its report in September, 1997 had
noted that unplanned and unscientific coal mining activities were
taking place. This had achieved dangerous dimensions in the last
two decades creating ecological disturbance and adverse

H
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A environmental impacts. This showed that though cognizance of
the problem was taken in the year 1997, the problem continues
even 20 years thereafter. The State Pollution Control Board had,
in the year 1997, recommended steps to check illegal mining
including generation of awareness, legislative measures, use of
technology, carrying out of study but none of the recommendations
B
were implemented even after 21 years.”
16. The Tribunal after considering the report of the committee
and other materials on record came to the conclusion that the State of
Meghalaya had failed to perform its duties to act on the
recommendation of the report of the Meghalaya State Pollution Control
C Board submitted in the year 1997. The Tribunal opined that interim amount
be deposited towards restoration of the environment. Paragraphs 31 to
33 are as follows:
“31. Paying capacity and the amount which may act as deterrent
to prevent further damage is also well recognised. Net Present
D Value of the ecological services foregone and cost of damage to
environment and pristine ecology, the cost of illegal mined material,
and the cost of mitigation and restoration are also relevant factors.
The Committee may go into these aspects to determine the final
figure.
E 32. We are satisfied that having regard to the totality of factual
situation emerging from the record, damages required to be
recovered are not, prima facie, less than Rs. 100 Crores.
Accordingly, by way of an interim measure, we require the State
of Meghalaya to deposit Rs. 100 crores within two months with
F the CPCB in this regard.
33. We have already noted the extent of damage found and the
value of the illegally mined material, apart from clandestine mining
for which sufficient material is not available. The State had
collected, as noted in the earlier order, royalty of Rs. 400 crores
G which by now must be higher figure.”
17. The State of Meghalaya has filed two appeals being
C.A.No.10720 of 2018 and C.A.No.2968 of 2019. C.A.No.10720 of
2018 has been filed questioning the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by
the Tribunal by which the Tribunal directed that order of the ban of
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 341
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

rat-hole mining will continue and further constituted Justice B.P. Katakey A
committee to take steps for restoration of the environment and
rehabilitation of the victims. The other Civil Appeal No.2968 of 2019 has
been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh questioning the order dated
04.01.2019 by which State of Meghalaya was directed to deposit
interim amount of Rs.100 crores towards restoration of the
B
environment.
18. Against the same order dated 31.08.2018 two other appeals
have been filed being C.A.No.10611 of 2018 by the State Coordination
Committee of Coal Owners, Miners and Dealers Forum and
C.A.No.10907 of 2018 by Garo Hills Autonomous District Council
aggrieved by the perpetual ban of coal mining by order dated 31.08.2018 C
without considering illegality of the ban in the first place. The appellants
are also aggrieved by appointment of State Government receiver/
custodian of the extracted coal when there is no dispute of the owner-
ship of the coal and further the question of vesting of the coal in the
State is pending consideration in this Court in C.A.No.5272 of 2016. D
19. C.A.No.10907 of 2018 is filed by Garo Hills Autonomous
District Council which is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated
31.08.2018 by which it has confirmed the ban on coal mining which was
in force for over four years and further direction by the Tribunal to
constitute a committee for the disposal of funds in excess of Rs.400 E
crores. The appellants are aggrieved by the above and alleged that the
Tribunal failed to consider that constituting the committee without
considering the roles and responsibilities of the District Council has the
effect of virtually excluding the Council from issues concerning
administration of forests and lands which are within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Council. The ban on coal mining has effectively closed F
the doors on a major source of revenue for the functioning of the
District Council, which is empowered in terms of Sixth Schedule of the
Constitution to collect taxes.
20. C.A.No.5272 of 2016 by KAHima Nongstoin Land Owners,
Coal Traders and Producers Association has been filed against order G
dated 10.05.2016 by which Miscellaneous Applications No.400 and 420
of 2016 were dismissed. The appellants had prayed for modification and
clarification and/or recall of the final order dated 31.03.2016 by which
Tribunal directed for vesting of the duly assessed already extracted coal
H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A with the State of Meghalaya and refusing to extend the time for
transportation of the already extracted coal. The appellants claim for
propriety rights of its members over such coal, which were mined as per
prevailing custom prior to 17.04.2014.
21. Now, remains appeal being Civil Appeal of 2019(@ Diary
B No.3067 of 2018) filed on behalf of the Lber Laloo. The appellant has
filed this appeal against the order dated 25.03.2015. Aggrieved by the
blanket ban on mining activities imposed in the State of Meghalaya by
the NGT which, according to the appellant, is adversely affecting the
lives and livelihood of the miners in the State of Meghalaya. As a result
of ban on coal mining large number of the families are affected in the
C State of Meghalaya, who are dependent for their livelihood on coal
mining.
Submissions
22. We have heard Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior
D counsel, Shri Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel, Shri Amit Kumar,
Advocate General, for the State of Meghalaya. We also heard Shri Ranjan
Mukherjee appearing for the State of Meghalaya. Shri Ranjit Kumar,
learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant in C.A. Diary No.3067
of 2018 and Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel, appearing
for the appellant in C.A.No.10907/2018. Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned
E senior counsel has been heard as amicus curiae. We have also heard
learned counsel for respondent No.1 in C.A. No.5272 of 2016 (who
was the applicant before the NGT). Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior
counsel has been heard for the private respondents in C.A.No.5272 of
2016. Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General has
F been heard for the Union of India. We have also heard other learned
counsel who were permitted to intervene in the matter and raise various
arguments in respect of their different IAs.
23. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel led the
arguments on behalf of the State of Meghalaya. Shri Naphade submits
G that jurisdiction of NGT constituted under National Green Tribunal Act,
2010 is confined to Sections 14,15 and 16. Section 16 is not attracted in
the present case. Section 14 deals with original jurisdiction of NGT and
it takes within its compass or all of civil cases where a substantial
question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right
relating to environment) is involved and such question arises out of the
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 343
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. The A
jurisdiction depends upon two conditions which are required to be
satisfied cumulatively and they are: (1) substantial question whichrelates
to environment and (2) implementation of the enactments specified in
Schedule I. It is submitted thatMines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation)Act, 1957(hereinafter referred to as “MMDR Act, 1957”)not
B
being specified in Schedule I, the National Green Tribunal could not
have exercised jurisdiction to examine violation of MMDR Act, 1957. It
is submitted that the NGT committed error in holding that the coal
mining in State of Meghalaya is unregulated. The NGT proceeded on
erroneous premise that the Tribals of Meghalaya cannot do coal mining
without obtaining lease from the State Government. It is submitted that C
Tribals who are owners of the land are also owners of the sub-soil and
the minerals in the land. The land in the State of Meghalaya was
property of men and villages. The Khasi Hills, Jaintia Hills and Garo
Hills have different land tenure system of their own, which does not
provide for vesting of land or minerals in the State right from
D
pre-Independence period.
24. Shri Naphade submits that the ownership of minerals vests
with the owner of the land unless the owner of the land is deprived of
the same by some valid process of law, for example, the provision
contained in Land Revenue Codes of different States, which
categorically state that the ownership of minerals exclusively vests in E
the State Government. However, in the State of Meghalaya, there exists
no such law that deprives the owner of the land from owning the
minerals beneath it.
25. Shri Naphade submits that under MMDR Act, 1957, State
has no legislative or executive power with regard to coal, which is a F
major mineral. It can neither exercise any jurisdiction of granting any
mining lease to the Tribals nor it has any jurisdiction to frame any mining
policy. It is submitted that the provisions of the MMDR Act deal with
lease and prospecting licence. The Tribals of Meghalaya are owners of
the minerals located in their land. Since they are the owners, there is no G
question of they being required to obtain either a prospecting licence or
a mining lease. The concepts of lease and licence necessarily involve
minimum two parties to the transaction- in case of a license, there has to
be a licensor and licensee. The owner of minerals cannot give licence
or lease to himself or grant a prospecting licence. The State is not the
H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A owner of the minerals and, therefore, it cannot on its own grant
prospecting licence or lease as it has no proprietary right in respect of
such minerals. State can neither be a licensor nor a lessor in such
situation.
26. Shri Naphade reiterates that the whole premise of NGT that
B the coal mining in the State of Meghalaya is unregulated is fully
erroneous. Referring to north-eastern area under which the State of
Meghalaya was established as full-fledged State, it is submitted that
administration of Tribal areas is to be governed as per Sixth Schedule of
the Constitution of India and various orders passed by the NGT directly
interfered in the administration of Tribal area which is vested in the
C Autonomous District Councils. It is submitted that NGT failed to
consider the relevant statutory matrix including the provisions of Sixth
Schedule and legislation framed by the Autonomous District Councils. It
is submitted that NGT has no jurisdiction to constitute any committee for
the purpose of enforcing its orders. The constitution of committees
D including constitution of Justice B.P. Katakey, former Judge of the Gauhati
High Court by the impugned order dated 31.08.2018 is beyond the
jurisdiction of NGT. The constitution of the committee is interference
with the jurisdiction of Autonomous District Council. It is further
submitted that NGT has also no jurisdiction to create any fund. The
Tribunal by constituting the committee and by constituting a fund has
E created a parallel Government. The Tribunal not being a constitutional
court it cannot issue a continuous mandamus. It is submitted that
Tribunal although issued several directions to the State of Meghalaya to
frame mining policy whereas the State has no jurisdiction regarding
framing of mining policy under MMDR Act, 1957, the State is denuded
F with any legislative powers with regard to regulation and development
of minerals, which have been declared by the Union to have taken under
its control. Referring to EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 issued under
Environment Protection Act, 1986, he submitted that environment
clearance for mining was required only when area of mining was more
than five hectares. In Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya, mining area
G consists of small area which being not more than five hectares, there
was no requirement of obtaining an environment clearance. He does not
dispute that after 15.01.2016 by the EIA notification now the
requirement of area of being not more than five hectares having been
deleted environment clearance is required as on date with regard to
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 345
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

carrying mining operations. The Tribals are dependent for their A
livelihood on coal mining and, therefore, by complete ban on coal mining
with effect from 17.04.2014, large number of Tribals are deprived from
their livelihood and it is obligatory for the State to espouse the cause of
the Tribals, who individually were not before the NGT. There being no
jurisdiction in the State of Meghalaya to grant mining lease as per
B
special nature of land tenure in the Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya
and further minerals are not vested in the State of Meghalaya, the NGT
erred in holding that State has failed to carry on its obligation and failed
to check coal mining in the State of Meghalaya, it is Central
Government which have all jurisdiction and authorities under Act, 1957
to make necessary Rules and issue necessary directions and State alone C
cannot be blamed. Referring to Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 framed
under Section 13 of MMDR Act, 1957, it is submitted that even though
Rule 13(f) refers to mining application with regard to land of which
minerals vest in persons other than the Government, he submits that this
provision shall not apply for owner when he himself carries on the
D
mining, the question of taking lease may arise when ownerof the land
give land to some other person to mine the minerals.
27. Shri Naphade, however, submits that the provisions of the
Mines Act, 1952 are applicable and have to be complied with. He
referred to the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988,
where cess can be charged by the State. E

28. Shri Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for
the State of Meghalaya in C.A. No.2968 of 2019 submits that NGT vide
impugned order dated 04.01.2019 has directed the State of Meghalaya
to deposit Rs. 100 crores as an interim measure which is wholly
unsustainable. The NGT has passed the order dated 04.01.2019 relying F
on first interim report of the Committee headed by Justice B.P. Katakey,
former Judge of the Gauhati High Court. The constitution of committee
was itself beyond the jurisdiction of the NGT. Shri Sharan adopts the
submissions made by Shri Naphade and in addition to those submissions,
submits that order dated 04.01.2019 has been passed in violation of G
principles of natural justice since no opportunity was given to the State
of Meghalaya to respond to the report of the committee used against it
for imposing a penalty of Rs.100 crores. The order impugned has been
made by the NGT contrary to the findings recorded in the report of the

H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A committee of Justice B.P. Katakey. The impugned order dated 04.01.2019
has been passed by the NGT without any assessment of damage of
environment whatsoever. The Tribunal also did not notice its earlier
order dated 25.03.2015 wherein penalty has already been imposed on
actual polluters, i.e., coal miners and transporters based on Polluters
Pay Principle for which Fund, namely, Meghalaya Environment
B
Protection and Restoration Fund (hereinafter referred to as “MEPRF”)
has already been created. The NGT passed order dated 04.01.2019
without considering the concerned statutory provisions to determine as
to who is responsible for implementation of the mining statutes and the
environmental legislation in the State of Meghalaya. The state of
C Meghalaya has limited source of revenue and putting extra burden of
Rs.100 Crores shall shatter the economy of the state.
29. Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel, in support
of appellant, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council in Civil Appeal No.
10907 of 2018 submits that the NGT while passing order dated 31.08.2018
D has ignored the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. By order dated
31.08.2018, the NGT could not have constituted the committee.
Referring to Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, Shri Raju Ramachandran
submits that under para 2, District Councils, Regional Councils have
been constituted and also Hills District Council is a Council created under
the Sixth Schedule of the constitution framed under Article 244(2) and
E Article 275(1) of the Constitution of India. The constitution of
committee by the NGT has virtually affected District Autonomous Council
from issues concerning administration of forests and lands within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the council. The ban of coal mining has deprived
the appellant from major source of Revenue. Under para 8 of Sixth
F Schedule, Autonomous District Council is entitled to share the Revenue
from minerals royalty collected by the State Government. The impugned
order has been passed without hearing and taking note of existence of
shareholders or stake of shareholders. Shri Raju Ramachandran further
submits that NGT has disposed of OA Nos.73/2014, 13/2014 and 186/
2014 by order dated 31.08.2018after this, it could not have passed any
G order.
30. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of C.A. No. 5272
of 2016 submits that the appeal filed by the appellant is only for seeking
protection of the proprietary rights of its members over the coal which

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 347
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

was mined as per prevailing custom prior to 17.04.2014. It is submitted A
that by order dated 31.03.2016, NGT had taken the view that all coal
after 2016 shall vest in the State. The appellant had previously approached
this Court by filing C.A.No.4793 of 2016 against the order dated
31.03.2016 wherein this Court granted the liberty to the appellant to
approach the NGT for filing application for clarification of the order.
B
The application of the appellant for clarification was rejected by the
NGT without giving any reason. The NGT had overreached the scope
of its jurisdiction and authority in directing for vesting of the coal
extracted by the members from their land in the State. It is further
submitted that MMDR Act, 1957 was enacted by the Parliament to
regulate the mining activities in the country which does not in any C
manner purport to declare the proprietary rights to the State in the
minerals.
31. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel in support of C.A.(D)
No.3067 of 2018 submits that the Tribunal committed error in stopping
the entire coal mining in the State of Meghalaya. Referring to Section 15 D
of NGT Act, 2010, Shri Ranjit Kumar submits that relief, compensation
and restitution can be granted as provided in Section 15. It is submitted
that by stopping entire coal mining from 17.04.2014 the livelihood of
appellant and several similarly situated persons had been adversely
affected. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have lifted the ban.
Order impugned infringes right under Article 21 of the Constitution of E
India. The Tribunal has acted beyond its power under Section 15 of
NGT Act, 2010. The finding of the Tribunal on mining that in the State of
Meghalaya mining is unregulated is not correct,whereas, a miner is
required to get registered and it has to pay royalty fixed by the State of
Meghalaya. F
32. Shri Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2, State of Meghalaya in C.A.No.3067(D) of 2019
submits that even if rat-hole mining has been banned, all mining cannot
be banned. He submits that the Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy,
2012 has been formulated with an aim to facilitate systematic, scientific G
and planned utilisation of mineral resources and to streamline mineral
based development of the State. The State of Meghalaya has been
created to follow the customary rights and practices of coal mining in
the Tribal areas of Meghalaya. In this regard letter of Central

H
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A Government dated 02.07.1987 has also been relied. The draft guidelines
for coal mining activities in the State has also been framed in the year
2015. Although, NGT has directed Ministry of Environment and Forests
to look into the matter but no objection has been communicated to the
State except certain miner discrepancies.
B 33. Shri A.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the Union of India submits that provisions of MMDR Act,
1957 are also applicable in the Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya. The
request submitted by the Government of Meghalaya for issuance of
Presidential Notification under Paragraph 12A(b) of the Sixth Schedule
of the Constitution of India for exempting the State of Meghalaya from
C certain provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957 has not been acceded to.
The Office Memorandum dated 12.03.2019 issued by the Government
of India, Ministry of Coal has been referred to and relied by the learned
Additional Solicitor General in this regard. It is submitted that no prior
approval for mining rights in respect of area containing coal has been
D given under MMDR Act, 1957 by Ministry of Coal, Government of
India for the State of Meghalaya.
34. It is submitted that it is entirely impermissible for the appellant
or any other private person to claim any rights for illegal or unlawful
mining of coal in derogation of the law in force in the State of Meghalaya.
E It is further submitted that generation of revenue would not be a ground
for claiming permission to carry out mining in contravention/derogation
of the law in force. A draft guideline submitted by the State Government
of Meghalaya by letter dated 24.09.2015 was examined by the Ministry
of Coal, Government of India on which decision was taken that the
guidelines submitted by the Government of Meghalaya were not in
F conformity with the existing statutory provisions of MMDR Act, 1957.
Hence, the State of Meghalaya may reframe the guidelines in
conformity with MMDR Act, 1957 and submit. In the revised proposal
dated 25.07.2016 the State of Meghalaya had proposed certain
amendments in MMDR Act, 1957 and exemption from the application
G of the MMDR Act, 1957 through a Presidential notification under
Para 12A(b) of the Sixth Schedule.It had already been communicated
by Central Government that exemption from applicability of MMDR
Act, 1957 cannot be acceded to.
35. Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel, appearing as
H amicus curiae, has raised various submissions. Learned amicus curiae
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 349
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

has submitted a Report in two volumes titled “CURSE OF A
UNREGULATED COAL MINING IN MEGHALAYA”, a citizen’s
Report from Meghalaya 01/12/2018. In Volume I under the head
‘INTRODUCTION’ the Report states:
“INTRODUCTON
Meghalaya has a resource curse. Although, we have been B
endowed with abundant forests and minerals, these resources have
not contributed to the good of our society, because they have
been extracted without any regulation or concern for the larger
common good. This unregulated, narrow, self-interest based use
of natural resources has exacerbated socio-economic inequality, C
destroyed the environment, heightened criminality, and torn as
under our egalitarian tribal social fabric.
It also violates Section 39(b) of the Constitution which provides
that the ownership and control of the material resources of the
community should be so distributed so as to best subserve the D
common good and, therefore, the State cannot distribute the
material resource of the community in any way it likes. The process
of distribution must be guided by the constitutional principles
including the doctrine of equality and larger public good.
The National Green Tribunal’s landmark order regarding E
Unregulated and illegal coal mining in our state therefore came as
a wakeup call for Meghalaya society at large. This order has
been criticised and appealed against by a small section of locals
most of who are coal mine owners, transporters, politicians and
administrators who have ‘illegally’ benefitted out of this unregulated
mining and who want things to get back to business as usual. Coal F
Miners and politicians who are miners, truck owners, weigh bridge
operators etc. have been filed appeals with the Honourable
Supreme Court, asking the Hon’ble Court to rescind NGT orders
so that mining can once again begin.”
36. Learned amicus curiae submits that State of Meghalaya still G
continues with the illegal mining. Shri Gonsalves submits that Section 4
of MMDR Act, 1957 by use of words “no person” clearly prohibits
mining operation without obtaining mining lease in accordance with the
Act. Referring to Section 5,he submits that for Schedule A minerals
permission of Central Government is required which has not been
H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A obtained. Shri Gonsalves submits that for mining, the leases are required
and permission be sought. He submits that there are 53 mines per
kilometre in Tribal areas of Meghalaya. He submits that all extracted
coal which is claimed to be lying assessed or unassessed in the State of
Meghalaya is result of illegal mining and Coal India Ltd. be directed to
take over the entire coal.
B
37. Shri Gonsalves has also referred to various reports of
Comptroller and Auditor General of India which has been brought on
record in Volume II – A Citizen’s Report from Meghalaya 06/01/2019.
38. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel, appearing on
C behalf of private respondent in Civil Appeal No.5272 of 2016 has
refuted the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Nidhesh Gupta submits that as per Entry 54 of List I regulation of
mines and minerals development has been declared by the Parliament
under MMDR Act, 1957. Section 2, by declaration as contained in
MMDR Act, 1957, the State Government is denuded of all legislative
D and executive powers under Entry 23 of List II read with Article 162 of
the Constitution of India. Section 4 sub-section (1) makes it clear that no
person can undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining
operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms
and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence.
E As per Section 5 sub-section (1) A State Government shall not grant a
reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease to any
person unless such person is an Indian National and satisfies such
conditions as may be prescribed. The proviso to Section 5(1) provides
that in respect of any mineral specified in Part A and Part B of the First
Schedule, no reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease
F shall be granted except with the previous approval of the Central
Government. The contention on behalf of the State of Meghalaya that
the MMDR Act, 1957 does not apply to State of Meghalaya is based on
an erroneous reading of the statutory provisions.
39. Section 13 empowers the Central Government to make rules
G for regulating the grant of reconnaissance permits, prospecting licences
and mining leases in respect of land in which minerals vest in the
Government and also in respect of any land in which the minerals vest in
a person other than the Government. In exercise of powers under
Section 13 of the Act, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 have been
H framed.
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 351
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

40. Chapter V deals with the procedure for obtaining a A
prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of a land in which the
minerals vest in a person other than the Government. The said Chapter
contains provisions from Rule 41 to Rule 52. Rule 41 stipulates that the
provisions of the said Chapter apply only to the grant of prospecting
licences and mining leases in respect of land in which minerals vest
B
exclusively in a person other than the Government. Therefore, mining
leases in respect of land where minerals vest in a person other than the
Government are covered by the said Chapter and matters concerning
grant of prospecting licences and mining leases are detailed therein.
41. As per Section 23C, the State Government is empowered to
make Rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of C
minerals. No Rules have been framed by the State of Meghalaya under
Section 23C. The contention on behalf of State of Meghalaya that
MMDR Act applies only in the cases where minerals vest in
Government, therefore, MMDR Act does not apply in the State of
Meghalaya, is completely misconceived. D
42. Learned counsel also relies on the stand taken by the Union
of India in the Status Report dated 24.07.2018. Shri Gupta submits that
approximate price of coal is Rs.10,000/- per metric ton. Referring to
notice inviting tenders by the State of Meghalaya, it is submitted that
amount of Rs.1,000/- per metric ton was contemplated. It is submitted E
that selling the coal on much low price is causing loss to Revenue as
well as loss to other stakeholders. The allegations have been by Shri
Gupta that sale of coal at such low price raises suspicion of under hand
dealing. It is submitted that legal position be laid down by this Court and
the orders of the NGT be upheld.
F
43. In addition to above, we have also heard several learned
counsels who have filed IA for impleadment and IAs for direction
including direction to transport coal belonging to them. We have heard
Shri Siddharth Luthra, Shri R. Basant, Smt. Meenakshi Arora, Senior
Advocates and other learned counsel.
G
44. On 10.05.2019, we had passed an order permitting
transportation of coal to the extent of 75,050 metric ton which was
balance quantity from 1,76,655 metric ton of coal, for transportation of
which this Court had passed order on 04.12.2018. The order dated
10.05.2019 permitted transportation of the coal, for which Transport
H
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A challans had already been issued after 04.12.2018 under the terms and
conditions as indicated in the order dated 10.05.2019. In the order dated
10.05.2019, we had also held that applicants need not be impleaded,
however, they were permitted to intervene in the matter.
45. The counsel appearing for different applicants claim
B transportation of different quantity of coal which according to them has
now been assessed. Still some of the applicants claims transportation of
the coal which is yet to be assessed. In different applications, different
quantities are claimed to be transported which according to the
applicant is lying in different districts of the State of Meghalaya.
I.A.No.22981 of 2019 and I.A. No. 22991 of 2019 are applications by
C an applicant claiming to be auction purchaser. Learned counsel
submitted that he was declared highest bidder, he pleaded for extension
of time to deposit the amount but after the order dated 15.01.2019, he
was not permitted to transport the coal nor he could deposit the balance
auction money.
D 46. Shri Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for State
of Meghalaya has filed an additional affidavit of Commissioner and
Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Mining and Geology
Department dated 06.04.2019. In the affidavit, it is stated that in
pursuance of the order of NGT dated 31.08.2018, the State Government
E vide notification dated 14.09.2018 has constituted a team to assist the
Commissioner and Secretary to deal with the directives given in para 13
of the order of the NGT. It is submitted that in pursuance of the order of
the State Government dated 14.09.2018, the members of the committee
have carried out assessment of unassessed extracted coal appearing in
the datasheet of inventory in different hills district. The report dated
F 04.10.2018 of Deputy Commissioner, west Khasi hills, is filed as
Annexure A-3, containing the statement of unassessed extracted coal
has been brought on record. Another report dated 22.10.2018 and
16.11.2018 of west Khasi hills district containing the statement of
assessment of unassessed extracted coal has been brought on record.
G By report dated 12.11.2018 of Deputy Commissioner, South west Khasi
hills, datasheet of coal inventory has been brought on the record. Report
dated 30.10.2018, Deputy Commissioner, South Garo hills, has also been
brought on record. There were reports referring to different assessment
carried out by the committee according to the affidavit which has been

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 353
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

filed on behalf of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of A
Meghalaya, the total quantity of coal stock which has now been
assessed in different reports stands at 32,56,715 metric ton.
47. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the State of
Meghalaya that above assessment of coal has been also verified by
technical committees appointed by the State of Meghalaya. Certain B
reports of technical committees have also been brought on the record
along with the affidavit.
48. Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned Amicus Curiae has challenged
the assessment made by the committees appointed by the State
Government as well as verification by technical committee report. It is C
submitted by Shri Gonsalves that report of technical committee wants to
undo what has been done in the proceedings before the tribunal and this
Court. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that for transportation, five
extensions were granted by NGT and four extensions were granted by
this Court. Shri Gonsalves referred to Katakey committee report in
support of his submissions. D

49. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel, has also refuted
the claim of the different applicants as well as the steps taken by the
State of Meghalaya in assessing the coal and verifying the same by
technical committee. Shri Gupta submits that the coal which is now
claimed to be assessed is nothing but illegally extracted coal. It is E
submitted that in pursuance of several orders passed by NGT and this
Court substantial transportation of coal has been permitted, still the
enormous quantity of coal is claimed which is nothing but an excuse to
obtain an order of transportation of such illegally mined coal.It is
submitted that State of Meghalaya is hand in glove with illegal miners. F
Shri Gupta submits that the cost of winning coal by rat hole mining is
negligible and after payment of royalty of Rs.675/- and Rs.485/-
towards Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund i.e.
total payment of Rs.1160/-, the coal is transported. The market price of
the coal is approximately Rs.10,000/- per metric ton. The claim of
different applicants with regard to unassessed coal is false. It is G
submitted that all illegally mined coal should be vested in the State and
no permission of transport as prayed by the different applicants be granted
by this Court. Learned senior advocate submits that all applications
praying for different directions deserve to be rejected.
H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A 50. Learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective
submissions have placed reliance on various judgments of this Court
which shall be referred to while considering the submissions of the
parties.
51. From the submissions of the parties as noted above and the
B materials on record in these appeals following points arise for
consideration.
52. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether orders passed by the National Green Tribunal are
without jurisdiction being beyond the purview of Sections 14,
C 15 and 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010?
2. Whether provisions of Mines and Minerals Development
Regulation Act, 1957 are applicable in Tribal areas within the
State of Meghalaya, included in Sixth Schedule of the
Constitution?
D
3. Whether for mining the minerals from privately owned/
community owned land in hills districts of Meghalaya, obtaining
a mining lease is a statutory requirement under the MMDR
Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960?
4. Whether under the MMDR Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession
E
Rules, 1960, it is the State Government, who is to grant lease
for mining of minerals in privately owned/community owned
land or it is the owner of the minerals, who is to grant lease
for carrying out mining operations?
5. Whether the State of Meghalaya has any statutory control
F
over the mining of coal from privately owned/community owned
land in hills districts of State of Meghalaya?
6. Whether the power to allot land for mining purposes is vested
in Autonomous District Councils?
G 7. Whether the order of National Green Tribunal dated 17.04.2014
directing for complete ban on mining is unsustainable?
8. Whether the complete ban on mining of coal in the State of
Meghalaya as directed by NGT deserved to be vacated/
modified in the interest of State and Tribals?
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 355
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

9. Whether NGT had any jurisdiction to constitute committees to A
submit reports, to implement the orders of NGT, to monitor
storage/transportation; of minerals and to prepare action plan
for restoration of environment?
10. Whether the NGT committed error in directing for constitution
of fund, namely, Meghalaya Environment Protection and B
Restoration Fund?
11. Whether NGT by constituting Committees has delegated
essential judicial powers to the Committees and has further
encroached the constitutional scheme of administration of
Tribal areas under Article 244(2) and Article 275(1) and C
Schedule VI of the Constitution?
12. Whether direction to deposit Rs.100/- crores by the State of
Meghalaya by order dated 04.01.2019 of NGT impugned in
C.A.No.2968 of 2019 is sustainable?
13. Whether NGT’s order dated 31.03.2016 that after 15.05.2016 D
all remaining coal shall vest in the State of Meghalaya is
sustainable?
14. Whether assessed and unassessed coal which has already
been extracted and lying in different Districts of Meghalaya
be permitted to be transported and what mechanism be E
adopted for disposal of such coal?
53. Now we proceed to consider the above points in seriatim.
Point No.1
54. The State of Meghalaya submits that NGT while imposing F
ban on mining and by forming committee and creating a “Meghalaya
Environment Protection and Restoration Fund” has gone beyond its
jurisdiction as conferred on it by NGT Act, 2010. The Tribunal has no
inherent jurisdiction, its jurisdiction flow from Sections 14, 15 and 16 of
the Act.
G
55. It is relevant to notice few provisions of NGT Act, 2010 to
comprehend the jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal. The National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010 was enacted to provide for the effective and
expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and
conservation of forests and other natural resources including
H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and giving relief
and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2 is definitions.
Section 2(c)defines environment in the following manner:
“2(c) “environment” includes water, air and land and the inter-
B relationship, which exists among and between water, air and land
and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism
and property;
56. Section 2(m) defines substantial question relating environment
which is to the following effect:
C “2(m) “substantial question relating to environment” shall include
an instance where,— (i) there is a direct violation of a specific
statutory environmental obligation by a person by which,— (A)
the community at large other than an individual or group of
individuals is affected or likely to be affected by the
D environmental consequences; or (B) the gravity of damage to the
environment or property is substantial; or (C) the damage to
public health is broadly measurable; (ii) the environmental
consequences relate to a specific activity or a point source of
pollution;”

E 57. Chapter III of the Act deals with jurisdiction, powers and
proceedings of the Tribunal. Sections 14 and 15 which are relevant in
the present case are as follows:
“14. Tribunal to settle disputes.—(1) The Tribunal shall have the
jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating
F to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating
to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the
implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.
1. Ins. by Act 7 of 2017, s. 182 (w.e.f. 26-5-2017).
(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions
G referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and pass
order thereon.
(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section
shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a
period of six months from the date on which the cause of action
H for such dispute first arose:
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 357
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the A
applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the
application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further
period not exceeding sixty days.
15. Relief, compensation and restitution.—
(1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide,— B

(a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and
other environmental damage arising under the enactments
specified in the Schedule I (including accident occurring
while handling any hazardous substance);
C
(b) for restitution of property damaged;
(c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas,
as the Tribunal may think fit.
(2) The relief and compensation and restitution of property and
environment referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section D
(1) shall be in addition to the relief paid or payable under the
Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).
(3) No application for grant of any compensation or relief or
restitution of property or environment under this section shall be
entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of E
five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation
or relief first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant
was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within
the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not F
exceeding sixty days.
(4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the damage to public health,
property and environment, divide the compensation or relief
payable under separate heads specified in Schedule II so as to
provide compensation or relief to the claimants and for restitution G
of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit.
(5) Every claimant of the compensation or relief under this Act
shall intimate to the Tribunal about the application filed to, or, as
the case may be, compensation or relief received from, any other
court or authority.” H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A 58. The submission which has been pressed by the State is that
neither MMDR Act, 1957 nor Mines Act, 1952 is prescribed in Schedule
I of the Act,hence, coal mining is not within the purview of Schedule I
and not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The submission further is
that for applicability of Section 14 both the component of sub-section (1)
of Section 14 that (i) a substantial question relating to environment and
B
(ii) such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments
specified in Schedule I has to be satisfied.
59. It is relevant to notice that before the NGT no such plea was
taken by the State of Meghalaya or any of the parties questioning the
jurisdiction of the NGT. However, the issue being a jurisdictional issue,
C we have permitted the learned counsel for the appellant to raise the
issue. The NGT took cognizance when application, O.A.No.73 of 2014
on 17.04.2014 was admitted and order was issued. The jurisdiction of
the Tribunal to entertain O.A.No.73 of 2014 has to be found out from
the case set up and pleadings in O.A.No.73 of 2014 for which we need
D to scrutinise the application. O.A.No.73 of 2014 has been brought on
record as Annexure - A3 in C.A.No.5272 of 2016. The application was
filed by one All Dimasa Students Union Dima Hasao District
Committee. In the application following were the respondents:
1. The State of Meghalaya through the Principal Secretary, For-
E est and Environment Department, Government of Meghalaya,
Shillong. 2. The Chairperson, State Pollution Control Board,
Meghalaya, Shillong. 3. The State of Assam through the Principal
Secretary, Forest and Environment Department Government of
Assam, Dispur. 4.The Chairperson, State Pollution Control Board,
Assam, Dispur. 5. The Central Pollution Control Board, Parvesh
F Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi – 110032 through its Chairper-
son. 6. North Easter Electric Power Corporation Ltd. through its
Chairman and Managing Director Brooklyn Compound, Lower
New Colony, Shillong – 793003. Meghalaya.
60. Paragraph 3 of the application states the case of the applicant
G and facts in brief. Paragraph 3 and (I) to (VI) are as follows:
“3.The Applicant above named beg to present the present
Application to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Tribunal about the
adverse impact of unscientific opencast mining operations being
still undertaken in the Jaintia Hills in Meghalaya on the ecology
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 359
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

and socio-economy of the concerned area including Dima A
Hasao District of Assam. It is stated that the Acid Mine
Drainage (for short (AMD’) generated from the aforesaid
mining operations has resulted in making the water of the river
Kopili (an inter-state river flowing through the State of
Meghalaya and Assam) and its tributaries highly acidic which
B
in turn has not only caused serious far reaching damage to the
environment, water bodies, soil, agriculture, economy, and
industry of the concerned area but also resulted in causing
erosion/corrosion of the critical underwater Hydro Power
Equipments of the Kopili Hydro-Electric Project (for short
`KHEP’) of the North-Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd C
(for short `NEEPC0') situated in Umrongso, Dima Hasao,
District of Assam in as much as the said acidic water is
ultimately led to the reservoirs of the said project.
FACTS IN BRIEF
I. That the Applicant is the Secretary of the Dima Hasao D
Students Association and filing the present Petition in a
representative capacity to espouse the cause of the people
of Dima Hasao, Assam who are constantly and
continuously facing the adverse affect of the aforesaid
illegal activities in the State of Meghalaya. E
II. That the Kopili River is an inter-state river in North-East
India that flows through the States of Meghalaya and Assam
and is the largest south bank tributary of the river
Brahmaputra in Assam, The Kopili river originates from the
black mountains of Lum Bah-bo Bah-Kong in Meghalaya F
and flows north-west into the Brahmaputra Valley in Assam.
The said river demarcates the Jaintia Hills in Meghalaya
and Dirria Hasao in Assam. The river flows for a total length
of 290 kms and has a catchment area of 16, 420 Kms.
III. That the Kopili Hydro-Electric Project (KHEP) of NEEPCO G
(a Government of India undertaking)is one of the pioneering
Hydro-Electric Project in the North Eastern Region of India.
The Kopili Hydro-Electric Plant is a 275 MW storage type
hydro electric plant consisting of two dams which have
created two reservoirs namely Kopili reservoir is used in
H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A the Khandong powerhouse through a 2759 metre tunnel to
generate power. The tail water from this powerhouse is led
to the Umrong reservoir is used in Kopili powerhouse through
a 5473 metre tunnel to generate power. Although, the dam,
powerhouse and residential colony of. kopili Hydro Electric
Planer (KHEP) are located in the Dima Hasao District
B
(formerly known as North Cachar Hills District) of Assam,
the catchment and reservoirs are spread in two states namely
Meghalaya and Assam. It is further stated that the Kopili
River and its tributaries feed water to the reservoirs of the
project. The Kharkor is a major tributary of river Kopili and
C drains a vast area of Jaintia Hills Districts of Meghalaya.
The Jaintia Hills being well known for coal mining areas is
contributing acidic water in the form of Acid Mine Drainage
(AMD) to the river Kharkor through its different tributaries
such as Urn Pai, Myntriang, Urn Ropang, Sarbang, Mostem
etc. as these streams drain through the active and inactive
D
coal mining areas of Jaintia Hills. The acidic water finally
reaches to Khandong and Umrong reservoirs of KHEP. As
a result, the water of the reservoirs has become highly acidic.
The water pollution in streams of catchment area varies
from brownish to reddish orange. The same polluted water
E through various tributaries of rivers Kharkor and Kopili is
perpetually reaching to the reservoirs of the KHEP. As a
result, the water of reservoirs has become highly acidic. In
recent years, it has been found that acidity of reservoir water
is a major threat to equipments and machinery due to
corrosion/metal decay and erosion. Components such as
F
cooling water header pipe, Bends, throttling valves, pressure
equalizer pipe of turbine etc. made up of different metals
and alloys are getting severely affected and incurring
high maintenance cost.
IV. That the said adverse impact of the aforesaid mining
G operation which has not only affected the ecology and
socio-economy of the area but also severely affected the
generation of hydro-electricity at the Kopili Hydro-Electric Plant
has been subject matter of various studies. In fact, a detailed

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 361
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

project report of pilot project for remediation of Acid Mine A
Drainage (AMD) in the catchment of Kopili River at the
upstream of Kopili Hydro Electric Plant (KHEP), Umrongso,
Dima Hasao, Assam was d o n e b y D r. O . P. S i n g h ,
Professor, Department of Environmental Studies, North-
Eastern Hills University, Shillong, Meghalaya. Similarly, a
B
detailed article based on detailed investigation by Shri Pankaj
Sharma and others was published under the heading “Acid
mine discharge — Challenges met in a hydro power
project” in the International Journal of Environmental
Sciences, Volume I, No.6, 2011. Both the aforesaid
publications gives an in depth analysis of the aforesaid C
problem as well as suggests remedial measures to improve
the situation. However, it is stated that no proper and
effective remedial measures have been taken by the
concerned authorities / State Respondents to abort the
aforesaid menace and the ill-effect of the same are still continuing
D
and the same are being constantly faced by the innocent
citizens / water bodies etc of the area including the people
of Dima Hasao district of Assam. Copies of the detailed project
report of pilot project for remediation of Acid Mine Drainage
(AMD) in the catchment of Kopili River at the upstream of
Kopili Hydro Electric Plant (KHEP), Umrongso, Dima Hasao, E
Assam and the article published under the heading “Acid mine
discharge — Challenges met in a hydro power project” in the
International Journal of Environmental Sciences, Volume I, No.6,
2011 are annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE-P/1 & P-2 respectively. The ill-effect of
F
the aforesaid operations has also been the subject matter of
news items in various newspapers including one published by
the Assam Tribune on June, 20, 2012 under the heading
“Concern over contamination of Kopili Water” and another
one published in the Telegraph on 20.06.2013 under the
heading “Two Kopili power units shut down — Mining in G
Jaintia Hills affects machines”. Copies of the news items
published in the Assam Tribune dated 20.06.2012 and the
Telegraph dated 20.06.2013 are annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE-P/3 & P-4 respectively.”
H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A 61. In paragraph 3(V) the appellant has extracted a report of one
Dr. O.P. Singh, Professor, North-Eastern Hills University, Shillong,
Meghalaya. Certain paragraphs of report stated that Acid Mine
Drainage(AMD) is the greatest environmental problem of coal industry
and main source of water pollution in and around mining areas. The
report mentioned that AMD degrades the water quality of the area in
B
terms of lowering the pH of the surrounding water resources and
increasing the level of total suspended solids, total dissolved solids and
some heavy metals. Following is the part of the paragraph 4.1.4 of the
report which is extracted in paragraph 3(V):
“4.1.4 Impact of AMD on Environment, Socio-economy and
C Industry
Impact on Environment and Water Resources: Acid mine
drainage is the greatest environmental problem of coal
mining industry and main source of water pollution in and
around mining areas. The influx of untreated AMD into
D streams severely degrades both water quality and aquatic
habitat turning water unfit for desired uses and often
producing an environment devoid of most aquatic life. AMD
degrades the water quality of the area in terms of lowering
the pH of the surrounding water resources and increasing
E the level of total suspended solids, total dissolved solids
and some heavy metals. Acidity and high concentration of
SO 42; iron and other metals prove to be toxic and corrosive
to most aquatic animals and plants. Precipitate of iron
hydroxide increases the load of suspended solids which
impair light penetration and visibility resulting into low
F productivity and disruption of normal functioning of the
contaminated aquatic ecosystem. AMD can also be toxic
to vegetation when discharged to the shallow soil water
zones and wetlands (Van Green et al., 1999; Singh and
Agrawal, 2004; Gosh, 1991).
G Aquatic communities of rivers and streams comprise of
phytoplanktoris, periphyton, macrophytes, zooplanktons,
invertebrates and vertebrate species. They play important
role in normal functioning of the aquatic ecosystem and
are indicative of good health of water bodies. Generally,
H a variety of species with representatives of almost all insect
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 363
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

orders, including a high diversity of insects belonging to A
the taxonomic orders of Ephemeroptera (mayflies),
Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies)
commonly referred to as EPT taxa. Any physical, chemical
or biological change in waterbodies affects one or all
species and disturbs the normal functioning of the aquatic
B
e c o s y s t e m . L i k e m a n y o t h e r pollutants, AMID
contamination causes a reduction in the diversity and total
numbers, or abundance, of these aquatic communities
including benthic macroinvertebrates, fishes, etc. As a
result, the community structure is altered and water bodies
affected by AMD possess a lower percentage of EPT taxa C
(Campbell et al., 2000). Moderate AMD contamination
eliminates the more sensitive species whereas severely
contaminated conditions are characterized by dominance
of c e r t a i n t a x o n o m i c re p re s e n t a t i v e s o f p o l l u t i o n
tolerantorganisms.
D
As a consequence of depletion of aquatic invertebrates,
the fishes do not get adequate supply of food and suffer
indirectly from AMD contamination AMD also has direct
effect on fishby causing various physiological
disturbances. However, the primary cause of fish death in
acid waters is loss of sodium ions from the blbod. Less E
availability of oxygen to the cells and tissues leads to
anoxia and death as acid water increases the permeability
of fish gills to water, adversely affecting the gill function.
Severe anoxia occurs below pH 4.2. Low H that is not
directly lethal may adversely affect fish growth rates and F
reproduction.”
62. Further, paragraph 4.2.3 of the report dealt with coal mining in
Jaintia Hills and paragraph 4.2.4 dealt with impact of coal mining in
Jaintia Hills and paragraph 4.2.5 dealt with degradation of water quality
due to coal mining. Paragraphs 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 which were G
extracted in O.A.No.73 of 2014 are produced as below:
“4.2.3 Coal Mining in Jaintia Hills
Extraction of coal has been taking place in all three
regions, however, ‘major production occurs in Jaintia Hills. The
mining activity in Jaintia Hills is a small scale venture H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A controlled by individuals who own the land. Primitive mining
method commonly known as ‘rat-hole’ mining is in
practice in Meghalaya. In this method the land is first
cleared by cutting and removing the ground vegetation and
then digging pits ranging from 5 to 100 m2 into the ground
to reach the coal seam. Thereafter, tunnels are made into
B
the seam sideways to extract the coal which is brought into
the pit by using a conical basket or a wheel barrow
manually. Coal seams are reached by excavating the side
edge of the hill slopes and then coal is extracted through a
horizontal tunnel. The coal from the tunnel or pit is taken
C out and dumped on nearby un-mined area, from where it is
carried to the larger dumping places near highways for its
trade and transportation. Finally, the coal is carried by
trucks to the larger dumping places near highways for its
trade and transportation. Entire road sides in and around
mining areas are used for piling of coal which is a major
D
source of air, water and soil pollution. Off road movement
of trucks and other vehicles in the area causes further
damage to the ecology of the area.
Every year new areas are brought under mining and area
under coal mining in Jaintia Hills is increasing day-by-
E day as shown in Figure 4,5.”
“4.2.4 Impact of Coal Mining in Jaintia Hills and
Beyond
Mining operation, undoubtedly has brought wealth and
F employment opportunity in the area, but simultaneously has
led to extensive environmental degradation and erosion of
traditional values in the society. Environmental problems
associated with mining have been felt severely because of
the region’s fragile ecosystems and richness of biological
and cultural diversity. The indiscriminate and unscientific
G mining and absence of post-mining treatment and
management of mined areas are making the fragile
ecosystems more vulnerable to environmental degradation
and leading to large scale land cover/land use changes.
The current modus operandi of surface mining in the area
H generates huge quantity of mine spoil or overburden
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 365
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

(consolidated and unconsolidated materials overlying the A
coal seam) in the form of gravels, rocks, sand, soil etc.
which are dumped over a large area adjacent to the mine
pits. The dumping of overburden and coal destroys the
surrounding vegetation and leads to severe soil and water
pollution. Large scale denudation of forest cover, scarcity
B
of water, pollution of air, water and soil, and degradation
of agricultural lands are some of the conspicuous
environmental implications of coal mining in Jaintia
Hills.Further, entire coal mining area of the Jaintia Hills
has become full of mine pits and caves. These open, unfilled
pits are the places where surface water percolates and C
disappears. As a result, smaller streams and rivers of the
area, which served as life lines for the people, are either
completely disappearing from the face of the earth or
becoming seasonal instead. Consequently, the area is
facing acute shortage of clean drinking and irrigation
D
water. Besides, a vast area has become physically
disfigured due to haphazard dumping of overburden and
mined coal, and caving in of the ground and subsidence
of land.
Continuous discharge of Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and
toxic c h e m i c a l s f ro m c o a l m i n e s , s t o r a g e s i t e s a n d E
exposed overburden have polluted the river system of the
area. Acidic water on reaching to land and agricultural
fields has affected the traditional agriculture and
agricultural productivity of the area (Das Gupta et al,
2002; Swer and Singh, 2004) F
“4.2.5 Degradation of Water Quality due to Coal Mining
The water bodies of the area are the greatest victims of the
coal mining. The water bodies are badly affected by
contamination of Acid Mines Drainage (AMD) originating
from mines and spoils, leaching of heavy metals, • organic G
enrichment and silting by coal and sand particles. Pollution
of the safer is evidenced by the colour of the water which
in most of the rivers and streams in the mining area varies
from brownish to reddish orange. Low pH (between 2-3),
high conductivity, high concentration of sulphate, iron and H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A toxic heavy metals, low dissolved oxygen (DO) and high
BOD are some of the physic-chemical and biological
parameters which’ characterize the degradation of water
quality. Analysis of physic-chemical and biological
parameters of water in the mining area shows severe
degradation of water quality.
B
The colour of the water in mining area generally varies
from brownish to reddish orange. Siltation of coal
particles,’ sand, soil etc. and contamination of AMD and
formation of iron hydroxide are some of the major causes
of change in water colour. Formation of iron hydroxides
C [Fe (CH)31 is mainly responsible for orange or red colour
of water in the mining areas. Iron hydroxide is a yellowish
insoluble material commonly formed in water bodies of
the coalfields. It is this material that stains streams and
responsible for red to orange color of water. When elevated
D levels of iron are introduced into natural waters, the iron
is oxidized and hydrolyzed, thereby forming precipitate of
iron hydroxides.
The water in coal mining areas has been found highly
acidic. The pH of streams and rivers varies between 2.31
E to 4.01. Solids such as fine particles of coal, sand, mud
and other mineral particles were found deposited at the
bottom of the water bodies. Besides, water was also found
turbid and coloured due to suspended precipitates of iron
hydroxides. Dissolved oxygen was found to be low in
water bodies of coat mining areas, the lowest being 4.24
F mg/L in river Rawaka and stream Metyngka of Rymbai.
The waters of the mining areas have been found containing
sulphate concentration between 78 to 168 mg/L. Electrical
conductivity is a rapid measure of the total dissolved solids
present in ionic form. Water in coal mining areas was found
G having high conductivity. Deposition of silt at the bottom
of the rivers and streams is another important problem in
coal mining areas. Water bodies of the mining area appear
to contain various types of organic matter which is
evident by low Dissolved Oxygen (D00 and high
H Biochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD).
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 367
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

As a result, the rivers, streams and springs which had A
supported extremely rich biodiversity and traditional
agriculture, and were source of potable and irrigation water
in the area have become unfit for human consumption.
Further, there is an overall decline in agricultural
productivity due to contamination of soil with coal particles,
B
seepage of Acid mines drainage and scarcity of water. The
water of many rivers and streams have almost become
devoid of aquatic life”.
4.2.6 Causes of Deterioration of Water Quality
Major causes of deterioration of water quality, as C
evidenced by above observations are AMD discharge,
siltation and organic enrichment. As in any other coal
mining area, Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) is the main
source of water pollution in the coal mining areas of Jaintia
Hills. As discussed in previous chapter, Amp is formed by a
series of complex geochemical and microbial reactions that D
occur when water comes in contact with pyrite (Iron sulfide)
found in coal and exposed rocks of overburden. Iron sulfide
in presence of oxygen, water and bacteria forms sulphuric
acid, is referred to as AMD. In the process, iron hydroxide,
a yellowish orange precipitate is also formed. The E
prercipitate of iron hydroxide together with other
contaminants auses turbidity and changes in colour of the
water which reduces the penetration of light and affects
the aquatic life. Extremely low pH conditions in the water
accelerate weathering and dissolution of silicate and other
rock minerals, there b y c a u s i n g t h e re l e a s e o f o t h e r F
elements such as aluminium, manganese, copper, cadmium
etc. into the water. Hence, water contaminated with AMD
is often coloured and turbid with suspended solids, highly
acidic (low pH), and contains high concentration of
dissolved metals and other elements. Most of the streams G
and rivers of Jaintia Hills in coal mining areas are severely
contaminated with AMD and thus becomes water has
become highly acidic. The pH and other parameters of
some AMD affected water bodies are summarized in Table
4.1.
H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A Table 4.1: Summary of water quality parameters in some Coal
mining rivers/reservoir.

S I. Riv ers/ Col ou r pH Su l pha E
o. S treams & of te Con du c
Loc ati on Wat er con te n ti vi ty
B ts (pS/ Cm
(mg/ L) )

1. Myntriang Light 2.8 36 56
yellow
Brown is
2. Urn Pai 3 .2 186 160
Rawaka, hRed di 2 .31 166.5 135
C
3.
Rymb ai sh
brow
4. Kenai-um, Reddi 2 .66 144.0 74
Rymbai sh
brow
5. Metyngka, Reddish 2 .42 16 8.0 27
Rymbai brow
D n
6. Urn- Bro wnis 3 .52 11 8.7 67
Mynkseh, h
Lad rymba i oran ge
7. Thwa i- Brown is 4.01 82.8 7 18
Ku ngor, h
Bapun
E
8. Umkyrpon , Lig ht 3.67 161.3 37
Khlieh ria t O ra n g
e

9. Waikh yrw i,
F Su tn g a Brownis 3.96 78.69 -
h

1 0. Um Roong 2.8 896 12 8
1 1. Mo stem Brownish 2.9 616 11 9
1 2. Sarban g Turbid 3.35 150 32
G 1 3. Um Lurem Yellowish 5.0 19 3
1 4. Khong dong Clear 4.6 43 34
Reservoir

Source: Present study; GSI, 2006-7;
Biahwar, 2010
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 369
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

The results show that most of the rivers in the coal mining A
areas of Jaintia Hills are severely affected AMD as evident
from the lower pH values, higher sulphate content and EC
in water samples”.
n du c
i ty 63. Thus, there were clear allegations in the application that in
S/ Cm spite of various remedial measures set out in the report no proper and B
effective remedial measures have been taken by the concerned
authorities of the State of Meghalaya. Paragraph 3(VI) is as follows:
“3(VI). That the various remedial measures are set out in detail
0
in paragraphs 4.4, 4.5, 5, 5.1 and 5.2 and other relevant
5
paragraphs of the said report. However, to the best of C
knowledge of the Applicant, no proper and effective remedial
measures have been undertaken by the concerned authorities
till date and the innocent citizens/ water bodies etc. of the
concerned areas including that of Dima Hasao District in Assam
continue to be subjected to the ill-effect of the aforesaid illegal
mining operation in the State of Meghalaya. That apart, D
continuous and irreparable damage on the environment, water,
soil, agriculture etc. in the concerned areas including Dima
Hasao district of Assam are also continuing as a result of the said
illegal mining operations in Jaintia Hills in the State of
Meghalaya.” E
64. Ground A of the application is also relevant to be reproduced
which is to the following effect:
“GROUNDS
A. that the aforementioned illegal mining operations in the Jaintia F
Hills in the State of Meghalaya have not only caused serious
and irreparable damage to the ecology, water bodies and the
socio-economy of the concerned areas including of Dima Hasao
district of Assam but has also resulted in serious erosion/
corrosion of the underwater plants and machineries and
equipments of the Kopili Hydro Power Project of the North G
Eastern Electric Power Corporation of India (a Government
of India undertaking), The ill-effect of the said mining operation
has been highlighted in detail in the aforementioned detailed
project report by Dr. O.P.Singh, Professor, North-Eastern Hills
University as well as the said article published in the
H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A International Journal of Environmental Sciences. Though
remedial measures were suggested in both the aforesaid
studies, to the best of the knowledge of the Applicant, no proper
and effective remedial measures have been undertaken by the
Respondents herein and the ill-effect of the said activities
are still continuing to the detriment of the ecology, water bodied
B
and socio-economy of the concerned areas including Dima
Hasao district of Assam. It is most respectfully submitted that
the total inaction on the part of the Respondents herein in spite
of detailed study on the subject with remedial suggestions are
totally inexcusable and show the total callous attitude of the
C State Respondents The menace of illegal opencast mining
operations in the Jaintia Hills in Meghalaya is still continuing to
the detriment of the ecology and socio-economic of the
concerned areas including Dime Hasao district of Assam and
as such, warrants, in the most respectful submissions of the
Applicant, immediate intervention by this Hon’ble Tribunal. The
D
aforesaid inaction has resulted in violation of the various
enactments mentioned in Schedule I of the National Green
Tribunal Act 2010 including the Water (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act 1986
E apart from infringing the fundamental rights of the Applicant
under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
65. The pleadings in O.A.No.73 of 2014 as extracted above clearly
and categorically alleged environmental degradation consequent to
illegal coal mining. It was further stated that inaction of respondent
F authorities has resulted in violation of various enactments mentioned in
Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010 including the Water (Prevention and
Control Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The
application O.A.No.73 of 2014 thus has clearly made out allegationswhich
were sufficient for the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction as conferred
G by Section 14. Both the component as appearing in sub-section 1 of
Section 14 that is (i) substantial question relating to environment and (ii)
such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments
specified in Schedule I, were involved.

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 371
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

66. The NGT after adverting to the application O.A.No.73 of A
2014 on 17.04,2014 has undertaken different proceedings and asked for
various reports from different committees including State Pollution
Control Board. By order dated 31.08.2018, the NGT had appointed a
committee headed by Justice B.P. Katakey, former Judge of the Gauhati
High Court which consisted of Prof. Ashok K. Singh, Rajiv Gandhi Chair
B
Professor, Department of Environmental Science & Engineering
representative from Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad IIT(ISM), Dhanbad
(826004), Dr. Shantanu Kumar Dutta, Scientist ‘D’ representative of
Central Pollution Control Board. The said committee submitted interim
report on 31.12.2018 and on the subject “Whether coal mining activities
as well as dumping of coal results in adverse environmental effect, if so, C
the nature and extent thereof?” has been dealt with in Issue No.(D) in
the following manner:
“Issue No.(D) Whether coal mining activities as well as
dumping of coal results in adverse environmental effect, if
so, the nature and extent thereof? D
(i) The Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board in the month of
September, 1997 published a report entitled “ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT OF COAL MINING IN JAINTIA HILLS DISTRICT”.
The then Chairman of the said Board, in his foreword, has admitted
unplanned and unscientific coal mining activities in the State for E
more than hundred years, which achieved dangerous dimensions
since last two decades and are creating ecological disturbances
and negative environmental impacts, to the extent that the very
existence of biological life is threatened in the coal mining areas
of the State. It has also been admitted that no systematic efforts
to study such impacts have so far been made by any institution. F
The then Member Secretary of the Board, in the preface, has
projected the adverse impacts on the environment because of the
coal mining activities. The pH level of in water almost all the
rivers and streams was found to be below the required level. In
some rivers and streams, the pH level was found to be as low as G
2.4. The Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board, in the said
report, has observed that the random discharge of AMD and acidic
run offs from -40- the coal storage areas have also made the

H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A rivers, streams and even ground waters highly acidic. The ambient
air quality of the coal mining and coal storage areas was also
found to be degraded to certain extent. The Board, therefore,
observed that – “The uncontrolled and unscientific coal mining
operations in Jaintia Hills District have already created massive
ecological disturbances and environmental degradation because
B
presently neither any pollution control measures are adopted by
the miners nor any sincere efforts are made for reclamation of
the mine land”. In the said report, the following recommendations
were made to minimize the overall adverse environmental impacts
of the mining activities:-
C (a) To generate social awareness among the public in general
and the miners in particular about the adverse environmental
impacts and the health hazards associated with such unscientific
and unplanned coal mining activities.
(b) Preparation of the inventory of the mine owners, areas
D under mining and rate of land use change to get the first hand
knowledge about the quantum of the efforts required for better
management of these activities.
(c) To enforce suitable legislations on the lines of the National
Mineral Policy immediately for exploitation of coal in most
E sustainable manner.
(d) To engage expert institution for finding out the most suited
technologies for the coal exploitation with appropriate pollution
control measures in order to ensure that the environment as a
whole is not subjected to further degradation.
F
(e) To engage the expert institution for finding out the suitable
ways for rehabilitation of the mined land in phase manner so
that the scarce land resources can be brought back to productive
uses.
(f) To look for the alternative transport facilities to control
G
vehicular pollution.
(g) To identify the suitable location for the storage of coal for
sale with adequate facilities to treat dump run offs.
(h) To study the aspect of the presence of trace elements in
H the surface and ground water because the low pH values
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 373
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

increase the dissolution power of water. Large numbers of A
trace elements are always associated with the coal which gets
dissolved in low pH waters. These trace elements are serious
health hazards even in very low concentrations.
(i) To introduce lucrative schemes for the aforestation in the
most affected areas. B
(j) To develop the State Mineral Policy with the interaction of
Government Agencies, Social Institutions, Local Elders and
the Miners, keeping in view the specific land ownership system
of the State. Nothing of the above recommendations have been
implemented so far. C
(ii) It is, therefore, evident that apart from the water, air pollution,
there is degradation of surface land because of the coal mining
activities in the State of Meghalaya. Despite publication of the
said report by the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board as
back as in the year 1997, no steps appeared to have been taken D
by any authority to check the adverse environmental affect and
also to remedy the same.”
67. The present is not a case of mere allegation of applicant of
environmental degradation by illegal and unregulated coal mining rather
there were materials on the record including the report of the experts, E
the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board published in the month of
September, 1992,the report of Katakey committee appointed by the
Tribunal where environmental degradation of water, air and surface of
the land was proved.
68. Hence, there was sufficient allegation regarding substantial F
questions relating to environment and violation of enactments in
Schedule I. We fail to see any substance in the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant that NGT has no jurisdiction to entertain the
case and pass orders. During submission, learned counsel for the
appellant has not even referred to application which was filed by the
applicant in O.A.No.73/2014. There were reports of the Meghalaya G
State Pollution Control Board before the State Government pointing out
environmental degradation and the Tribunal having taken up the issue,
the submission on behalf of the State that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction
is not expected from the State Government who is under constitutional
obligation to ensure clean environment to all its citizens. In cases
H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A pertaining to environmental matter the State has to act as facilitator and
not as obstructionist. Article 48A of the Constitution provides:
“48A. Protection and improvement of environment and
safeguarding of forests and wild life The State shall endeavour to
protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests
B and wild life of the country.”
69. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Techi Tagi Tara versus Rajendra Singh
Bhandari and others, 2018(11) SCC 734. This Court had occasion to
consider Section 14,15 and 2(m) of the National Green Tribunal Act,
C 2010, which involves the question of jurisdiction of NGT. The nature of
order passed by NGT which was challenged before this court has been
noticed in para 1 of the judgment, which is to the following effect:-
“1. This batch of appeals is directed against the judgment
and order dated 24-8-2016 passed by the National Green
D Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short “the NGT”)
in Rajendra Singh Bhandari v. State of Uttarakhand1. On a
reading of the judgment and order passed by the NGT, it is
quite clear that the Tribunal was perturbed and anguished
that some persons appointed to the State Pollution Control
Boards (for short “SPCBs”) did not have, according to the
E NGT, the necessary expertise or qualifications to be members
or Chairpersons of such high-powered and specialised
statutory bodies and therefore did not deserve their
appointment or nomination. While we fully commiserate with
the NGT and share the pain and anguish, we are of the view
F that the Tribunal has, at law, exceeded its jurisdiction in
directing the State Governments to reconsider the appointments
and in laying down guidelines for appointment to the SPCBs,
however well-meaning they might be. Therefore, we set aside
the decision of the NGT, but note that a large number of
disconcerting facts have been brought out in the judgment
G which need serious consideration by those in authority,
particularly the State Governments that make appointments
or nominations to the SPCBs. Such appointments should not
be made casually or without due application of mind
considering the duties, functions and responsibilities of the
H SPCBs.”
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 375
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

70. In the above background, this Court held that the failure of the A
State Government to appoint professionals and experience persons to
the key positions in the State Pollution Control Board cannot be classi-
fied as a primary dispute over which the NGT could have jurisdiction.
Following was laid down in paragraph 21: -
“21. As far as we are concerned, in the context of the Act, a B
dispute would be the assertion of a right or an interest or a
claim met by contrary claims on the other side. In other words,
the dispute must be one of substance and not of form and it
appears to us that the appointments that we are concerned
with are not “disputes” as such or even disputes for the
purposes of the Act — they could be disputes for a C
constitutional court to resolve through a writ of quo warranto,
but certainly not for the NGT to venture into. The failure of
the State Government to appoint professional and experienced
persons to key positions in the SPCBs or the failure to appoint
any person at all might incidentally result in an ineffective D
implementation of the Water Act and the Air Act, but this
cannot be classified as a primary dispute over which the NGT
would have jurisdiction. Such a failure might be of a statutory
obligation over which, in the present context and not
universally, only a constitutional court would have
jurisdiction and not a statutory body like the NGT. While we E
appreciate the anxiety of the NGT to preserve and protect the
environment as a part of its statutory functions, we cannot
extend these concepts to the extent of enabling the NGT to
consider who should be appointed as a Chairperson or a
member of any SPCB or who should not be so appointed.” F
71. The issue involved in the above case was entirely different
which did not directly pertain to environmental degradation. Whether
NGT has jurisdiction to entertain a particular cause is a question which
depends on the facts of each case. To find out as to whether NGT has
jurisdiction to entertain a case, the case set up before the Tribunal has to G
be looked into to answer the question. The judgment of Techi Tagi Tara
(supra) was on its own facts and does not help the appellant in the
present case.
72. In view of the foregoing discussion, we reject the submission
of the learned counsel for the State that the Tribunal exceeded its H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15 in entertaining the application
O.A.No.73 of 2014. We also record our dis-approval to the stand taken
by the State in this regard.
Point No.2
73. Before we proceed to consider the above points, first of all,
B we need to notice the nature of land tenure in the Hills Districts of State
of Meghalaya. Learned counsel for the parties are not at variance on
the question of nature of land tenure in the Hills Districts of State of
Meghalaya. By the North-Eastern Area Reorganisation Act, 1971 the
State of Meghalaya was formed as independent full-fledged State.
C After the enforcement of the Constitution the area, now comprised in
the State of Meghalaya, was included in the State of Assam, the
Administration and control of which area was as per Article 244 of the
Constitution of India read with Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. In so
far as the land tenure in the Hills Districts of Meghalaya, there is no
substantial change after the advent of the Constitution. There was no
D payment system of land revenue before the advent of the Constitution in
the Hills Districts of Meghalaya. Learned counsel for the parties have
referred to various materials pertaining to the land tenure system
prevalent in the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya. The lands in the
Khasi Hills District of Meghalaya come under two divisions Ri Raid
E and Ri Kynti. Ri raid lands are community lands which are set apart
for the benefit and use of entire community. Ri kynti lands are privately
owned lands which were also owned by community as well as by
individuals. The owner of the re kynti land is an absolute proprietor.
The tenure system in Jaintia Hills classified into two types of lands,
namely, Hali /irrigated land and High land. Hali lands are further
F categorised in Raj land, service land, village puja land and private land.
Proprietary right does not vest in the State in respect to majority of lands
which are either privately owned or owned by the Tribal community. No
system of payment of land revenue is prevalent in the Hills District of
Meghalaya except lands which belong to State. For the purposes of
G present case where the submission of the appellant is that land in which
mining operations of coal is being done are lands belonging to Tribals
who are owners of the land as well as of the sub-soil, we proceed with
the assumption that Tribal is the owner of the land. It is further the case
of the appellant that in Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya in land
which is privately owned by the Tribal or community owned, the Tribals
H or the community or the clan are owners of both surface right and
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 377
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

sub-soil. It is the case of the appellant that the State does not have any A
right in sub-soil or minerals. The judgment of this in Thressiamma Jacob
and others vs. Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology
and others, 2013(9) SCC 725, is relied on. This Court in the above
case had occasion to consider the question of ownership of sub-soil/
mineral rights in reference to genmom lands in Malabar area of the
B
State of Madras. Holder of the genmom rights also claimed not only as
proprietor of the soil but the owner of the minerals in the soil. This Court
laid down following in paragraph 58:
“58. For the abovementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that
there is nothing in the law which declares that all mineral wealth/
subsoil rights vest in the State, on the other hand, the ownership C
of subsoil/mineral wealth should normally follow the ownership of
the land, unless the owner of the land is deprived of the same by
some valid process. In the instant appeals, no such deprivation is
brought to our notice and therefore we hold that the appellants
are the proprietors of the minerals obtaining in their lands. We D
make it clear that we are not making any declaration regarding
their liability to pay royalty to the State as that issue stands referred
to a larger Bench.”
74. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Raja Anand Brahma
Shah vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1967 SC E
1081, had laid down that prima facie owner of a surface of the land is
entitled to everything beneath the land unless there is an express or
implied reservation in the grant. In paragraph 13 following has been laid
down:
“13. In our opinion, a reading of the two sanads supports the case F
of the appellant that there is no reservation of mineral rights in
favour of the Government. The expression used in the sanad of
1803 A.D. is “You ought to consider him the Raja of immovable
jagir and of mahal and everything appertaining thereto belongs to
him.” In effect, the grant to the Raja in the two sanads is a grant
of the lands comprised in the mahal of Agori and everything G
appertaining thereto and as a matter of construction the grant
must be taken to be not only of the land but also of everything
beneath or within the land. Prima facie the owner of a surface of
the land is entitled ex jure to everything beneath the land and in
the absence of any reservation in the grant minerals necessarily H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A pass with the rights to the surface (Halsbury’s Laws of England,
3rd Edn., Vol. 26, p. 325). In other words, a transfer of the right to
the surface conveys right to the minerals underneath unless there
is an express or implied reservation in the grant. A contract
therefore to sell or grant a lease of land will generally include
mines, quarries and minerals beneath or within it (Mitchell v.
B
Mosley). It is manifest that when the sanad was executed in
favour of the Raja the Government made over the land with all its
capabilities to the Raja and merely imposed on him a fixed sum of
revenue in lieu of all the rights the Government had as a proprietor
of the soil. When neither of the parties knew undiscovered minerals
C underneath the land and the idea of reservation never entered
their minds it cannot be held that there was any implied reservation
in the grant. Nor can afterwards a distinction be drawn between
the various rights that may exist on the land for the purpose of
qualifying the original grant and importing into it what neither party
could have imagined. It was argued on behalf of the respondents
D
that the assessment was made on the agricultural income, but this
circumstance cannot derogate from the rights conveyed to the
Raja in the two sanads because no restriction was placed on the
use of the land and the use by the Raja was not limited to
agriculture.”
E 75. Thus, looking to the nature of the land tenure as applicable in
the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya, the most of the lands are either
privately or community owned in which State does not claim any right.
Thus, private owners of the land as well as community owners have
both the surface right as well as sub-soil right. We are, thus, of the
F opinion that Tribals owned the land and also owned the minerals,which
is an inescapable conclusion. We, thus, proceed to examine the issues
on the premise that in privately owned land or community land minerals
also vest in the owner. We first need to consider as to whether the
provisions of MMRD Act, 1957 are applicable in the Tribal area of Hills
District of State of Meghalaya.
G
76. Part X of the Constitution separately deals with Scheduled
and Tribal areas. Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya were treated to
be Tribal area and were to be governed by Article 244 sub-clause (2)
read with Schedule VI. Provisions of Article 244 after formation of State
of Meghalaya is as follows:
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 379
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

“Article 244. Administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal A
Areas.-(1) The provisions of the Fifth Schedule shall apply to the
administration and control of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled
Tribes in any State other than the States of Assam, Meghalaya,
Tripura and Mizoram.
(2) The provisions of the Sixth Schedule shall apply to the B
administration of the tribal areas in the State of Assam, Meghalaya,
Tripura and Mizoram.”
77. Sixth Schedule of the Constitution contains ‘Provisions as to
the Administration of Tribal Areas in the States of Assam, Meghalaya,
Tripura and Mizoram’. Paragraph 20 of Sixth Schedule refers to Tribal C
areas and Part II of which consists of Khasi Hills District, Jaintia Hills
District and Garo Hills District which have been referred as
Autonomous Districts. Sixth Schedule Para 1(1) is as follows:
“1. Autonomous districts and autonomous regions.-(1)Subject
to the provisions of this paragraph, the tribal areas in each item of D
Parts I, II and IIA and in Part III of the table appended to paragraph
20 of this Schedule shall be an autonomous district.
78. Para 2 of Sixth Schedule provides for Constitution of District
Councils and Regional Councils. Para 3 provides for powers of the
District Councils and Regional Councils to make laws which is to the E
following effect:
“3. Powers of the District Councils and Regional Councils
to make laws.—(1) The Regional Council for an autonomous
region in respect of all areas within such region and the District
Council for an autonomous district in respect of all areas within F
the district except those which are under the authority of Regional
Councils, if any, within the district shall have power to make laws
with respect to—
(a) the allotment, occupation or use, or the setting apart, of land,
other than any land which is a reserved forest for the
G
purposes of agriculture or grazing or for residential or other
non-agricultural purposes or for any other purpose likely to
promote the interests of the inhabitants of any village or town:
Provided that nothing in such laws shall prevent the
compulsory acquisition of any land, whether occupied or
H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A unoccupied, for public purposes 1 [by the Government of
the State concerned] in accordance with the law for the time
being in force authorising such acquisition;
(b) the management of any forest not being a reserved forest;
(c) the use of any canal or water-course for the purpose of
B agriculture;
(d) the regulation of the practice of jhum or other forms of shift-
ing cultivation;
(e) the establishment of village or town committees or councils
C and their powers;
(f) any other matter relating to village or town administration,
including village or town police and public health and sanita-
tion;
(g) the appointment or succession of Chiefs or Headmen;
D
(h) the inheritance of property;
(i) marriage and divorce;
(j) social customs.
(2) In this paragraph, a “reserved forest” means any area which
E is a reserved forest under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, or
under any other law for the time being in force in the area in
question. (3) All laws made under this paragraph shall be submitted
forthwith to the Governor and, until assented to by him, shall have
no effect.”
F 79. Para 9 of the Sixth Schedule which is relevant for the present
case is as follows:
“9. Licences or leases for the purpose of prospecting for, or
extraction of, minerals.—(1) Such share of the royalties accruing
each year from licences or leases for the purpose of prospecting
G for, or the extraction of, minerals granted by the Government of
the State] in respect of any area within an autonomous district as
may be agreed upon between the Government of the State] and
the District Council of such district shall be made over to that
District Council.
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 381
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

(2) If any dispute arises as to the share of such royalties to be A
made over to a District Council, it shall be referred to the Governor
for determination and the amount determined by the Governor in
his discretion shall be deemed to be the amount payable under
sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph to the District Council and
the decision of the Governor shall be final.”
B
80. Para 12A which is relevant for Meghalaya is as follows:
“12A. Application of Acts of Parliament and of the
Legislature of the State of Meghalaya to autonomous
districts and autonomous regions in the State of
Meghalaya.— C
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, —
(a) if any provision of a law made by a District or Regional Council
in the State of Meghalaya with respect to any matter specified in
subparagraph (1) of paragraph 3 of this Schedule or if any provision
of any regulation made by a District Council or a Regional Council D
in that State under paragraph 8 or paragraph 10 of this Schedule,
is repugnant to any provision of a law made by the Legislature of
the State of Meghalaya with respect to that matter, then, the law
or regulation made by the District Council or, as the case may be,
the Regional Council whether made before or after the law made E
by the Legislature of the State of Meghalaya, shall, to the extent
of repugnancy, be void and the law made by the Legislature of
the State of Meghalaya shall prevail;
(b) the President may, with respect to any Act of Parliament, by
notification, direct that it shall not apply to an autonomous district F
or an autonomous region in the State of Meghalaya, or shall apply
to such district or region or any part thereof subject to such
exceptions or modifications as he may specify in the notification
and any such direction may be given so as to have retrospective
effect.
G
81. Now, we revert back to Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957. Act, 1957 has been enacted to provide for
development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of
the Union. Section 1 of the Act is as follows:

H
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A “Section 1. Short title, extent and commencement. ¯(1) This Act
may be called the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957.
(2) It extends to the whole of India.
(3) It shall come into force on such date3 as the Central
B Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.”
82. The Act came into effect w.e.f. 01.06.1958. Whether there
are any indications in the Sixth Schedule or any other provision of the
law by which it can be contended that Act, 1957 is not applicable in Hills
District of Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya? We may first refer to
C Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which is a provision for
Administration of Tribal areas in the State of Meghalaya. Para 12A
sub-clause (b) empowers that the President may, with respect to any
Act of Parliament, by notification, direct that it shall not apply to an
autonomous district or an autonomous region in the State of Meghalaya,
D or shall apply to such district or region or any part thereof subject to
such exceptions or modifications as he may specify in the notification.
No notification has been issued by the President under Para 12A(b) of
the VIth Schedule of the Constitution, although, the said Para 12A(b) is
in the Constitution with effect from 21.1.1972. Thus, there is nothing in
Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which may indicate about the
E inapplicability of Act, 1957 with regard to the Hills Districts of State of
Meghalaya. At this juncture, we may also notice the report of the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year ended 31st March,
2013. In para 7.5.1 the report mentions:
“7.5.1. Introduction
F
Meghalaya is endowed with sizeable deposits of valuable minerals
like coal, limestone, uranium, granite and clay. Minerals being
valuable resource, the extraction needs to be maximised through
scientific methods of mining with aim to ensure extraction and
utilisation of minerals. Besides, most of the mineral reserves are
G in areas which are under forest cover and hence, mining in the
State has environmental implications. In Meghalaya, individual and
local communities have ownership over the land and the minerals
and barring a few reserve forest areas, the State Government
has no ownership over the minerals. The activities of the Mining
& Geology (M&G) Department, Government of Meghalaya
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 383
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

(GOM) are limited to collection of royalty on the minerals exported A
outside the State besides geological investigation/exploration of
minerals. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957 lays down the legal framework for regulation of mines
and development of minerals. The Mineral Concession Rules, 1960
and the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 were
B
accordingly framed under the MMDR Act framed for conservation
and systematic development of minerals and for regulating grant
of permits, licences and leases. The GOM has introduced the
Meghalaya Mineral Cess Act, 1988 to mobilise additional revenue.
Further with a view to facilitating systematic, scientific and planned
utilisation of mineral resources and to streamline mineral based C
development of the State, the Meghalaya Mines and Mineral Policy,
2012 has also been notified with effect from 5 November 2012.”
83. The Comptroller and Auditor General has clearly stated that
Act, 1957 is fully applicable for regulation of mines and regulation of
minerals in the State of Meghalaya. D
84. Learned counsel for the State of Meghalaya has also filed
before us along with an affidavit of Joint Secretary of Government of
Meghalaya, Mining and Geology Department dated 13.04.1018 by which
Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy, 2012 issued by the Government
of Meghalaya as well as draft guidelines of coal mining activities in the E
State prepared in the year 2015 has been brought on the record.
85. Clause 10 of the Policy provides for “Regulatory Framework
for Mine Development and Mining”. Sub-clause b) of Clause 10
required application for mineral concession either fresh or renewal is to
be submitted to the State Government through the Deputy F
Commissioner of the District wherein the area applied for is situated
and with NOC from District Council concerned and land owner. Clause
10 also refers to clearance of the Pollution Control Board of Meghalaya
and other requirement. Sub-clause (l) further contemplated that order
for grant of mineral concessions will be issued by the State Government,
with the approval of the Central Government wherever necessary. Thus, G
the Policy of 2012 contemplated regulatory regime for mining lease by
the State. The Mining and Geology Department of the Government had
framed a draft guidelines for coal mining activity in the State which has
also been brought on record along with the above affidavit dated
13.04.2018. H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A 86. The above guidelines were prepared after in consultation with
the Central Government.
87. The above draft guidelines prepared by the State clearly
mentions about the unregulated and unscientific mining being carried out
in the State of Meghalaya. The Policy Guidelines of Coal Mining which
B is part of the guidelines also contains following statement:
“The Mines Act, 1952 and the Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR), together with the rules and
regulations framed under them constitute the basic laws governing
the mining sector in India. While the Mines Act, 1952 governs the
C health and safety of the workers, the MMDR Act, 1957 (including
all amendments) lays down the legal frame work for the regulation
of mines and development of all minerals other than petroleum
and natural gas. The relevant rules in force under the MMDR
Act, 1957 are the Mineral Concession Rules (MCR), 1960 outlines
the procedures and conditions for obtaining a Prospecting Licence
D or Mining Lease. The MCDR, 1988 lays down guidelines for
ensuring mining on a scientific basis, while conserving the
environment, at the same time.
Apart from the mining statutes, which also govern environment in
mines, India has elaborate environment statutes for protection of
E environment in mining.”
88. One submission of Shri Naphade with respect to direction of
NGT to frame mining policy by the State also needs consideration. Shri
Naphade submits that the State of Meghalaya having no legislative
competence with regard to major minerals, National Green Tribunal could
F not have directed the State of Meghalaya to frame Mining Policy.
89. There can be no dispute to the preposition that in view of
MMDR Act, 1957, the legislative competence of State of Meghalaya
under Entry 23 List II stands denuded. However, under the MMDR
Act, 1957 as well as the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, several
G statutory obligations/jurisdictions have been conferred on the State of
Meghalaya, which shall be referred to later in this judgment.
90. When under a Parliamentary enactment, State has been given
some statutory obligations, there is no lack of jurisdiction in the State to

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 385
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

frame policy to give effect to or implement the jurisdictions conferred on A
the State by Parliamentary enactments. It is true that Mining Policy to
be framed by the State has to confine to the jurisdiction conferred on it
as per the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder. There
are other related issues concerning Mining like protection of
environment and forests for which the State has to declare its policy for
B
implementation of its objective. Several other aspects relating to mining
like, rehabilitation, reclamation and restoration have to be effectively
implemented by the State for which also, it may be required to frame a
policy. We may further notice that Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy,
2012 was already framed by the State of Meghalaya, even before
directions were issued by the NGT. In pursuance of NGT directions, it C
was draft guidelines of 2015, which were prepared by State of Meghalaya.
We, thus, are of the view that direction of NGT to declare Mining Policy
by the State of Meghalaya cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
However, the State in its Mining Policy can only include those areas
where it has jurisdiction under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules
D
framed thereunder.
91. A perusal of the entire Policy documents indicate that Policy
has been framed by the State as per the Act, 1957 and Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 1960.
92. The Government of Meghalaya has also made a request to E
the Government of India in the year 2015 for issuance of Presidential
notification under Para 12A(b) of Sixth Schedule for exempting State of
Meghalaya from certain provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957. After
several deliberations, the Union of India has communicated through its
O.M. dated 12.03.2019 that it is not possible to accede to the request of
the Government of Meghalaya for issuance of Presidential notification F
under Para 12A(b) of Sixth Schedule. Thus, the request made by the
State of Meghalaya to issue exemption has not also been acceded to.
The request of the State of Meghalaya that exemption be granted by
Presidential notification under Para 12A(b) itself expresses recognition
of the State of Meghalaya that provisions of Act, 1957 are applicable. G
We, thus, conclude that there is nothing in Sixth Schedule of the
Constitution which in any manner exclude the applicability of Act, 1957
in the Tribal areas of Hills District of State of Meghalaya.

H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A Point No.3
93. We need to scan through the statutory scheme of Act, 1957 to
find out as to whether Parliamentary legislation requires obtaining lease
for winning the minerals in so far as mining of coal from privately owned
land/community owned land are concerned?
B 94. Section 2 of the Act, 1957 contains declaration to the
following effect:
“2. Declaration as to expediency of Union Control.¯It is
hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the
Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and
C the development of minerals to the extent hereinafter provided.”
95. The Act, 1957 has been enacted in reference to Entry 54 List
I of Seventh Schedule to the following effect:
“Entry 54. Regulation of mines and mineral development to the
D extent to which such regulation and development under the control
of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in
the public interest.”
96. At this juncture, we may notice Entry 23 of List II which is to
the following effect:
E “Entry 23. Regulation of mines and mineral development subject
to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and
development under the control of the Union.”
97. The Legislative power under Entry 23 is subject to the
provision of List I with respect to regulation and development under the
F control of the Union. When the Union has declared to have taken under
its control the regulation of mines and development of minerals to the
extent provided in the Act. Legislative power of the State to the above
extent is denuded. Learned counsel for the appellant have also very
fairly not disputed the position in law.
G 98. Section 3 of the Act contains definition clause. Section 3(c)
defines mining lease and Section 3(d) defines a mining operation which
are to the following effect:
“Section 3(c) “mining lease” means a lease granted for the purpose
of undertaking mining operations, and includes a sub-lease granted
H for such purpose;
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 387
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Section 3(d) “mining operations” means anyoperations undertaken A
for the purpose of winning any mineral;”
99. Section 4 of the Act contains general restriction on
undertaking prospecting and mining operation. Section 4 is couched in
terms of an injunction. No person shall undertake any mining operations
in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and B
conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as
the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and rules
made thereunder. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 is relevant in the present
case which is as follows:
4. Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or C
lease.¯(1) No person shall undertake any reconnaissance,
prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in
accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance
permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a
mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder:
D
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any prospecting
or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with
terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or mining lease
granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force
at such commencement:
E
Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any
prospecting operations undertaken by the Geological Survey of
India, the Indian Bureau of Mines, the Atomic Minerals Directorate
for Exploration and Research of the Department of Atomic Energy
of the Central Government, the Directorates of Mining and Geology
of any State Government (by whatever name called), and the F
Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited., a Government company
within the meaning of clause (45) of section 2 of the Companies
Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), and any such entity that may be notified
for this purpose by the Central Government]:
Provided also that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any G
mining lease (whether called mining lease mining concession or
by any other name) in force immediately before the
commencement of this Act in the Union territory of Goa, Daman
and Diu.”
H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A 100. The use of word no person in Section 4(1) is without an
exception. There is nothing in Section 4(1) to indicate that restriction
contained in Section 4(1) does not apply with regard to a person who is
owner of the mine. Further, word ‘any area’ under Section 4(1) also has
significance which does not have any exception. Further phrase ‘except
under and in accordance with terms and condition with a mining lease
B
granted under the Act’ are also significant which make the intent and
purpose of prohibition clear and loud. Section 5 contains restriction on
the grant of prospecting licences and mining lease in the following words:
5. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting licences or
mining leases.¯ (1) A State Government shall not grant a
C reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease to any
person unless such person¯
(a) is an Indian national, or company as defined in 1clause (20)
of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013)]; and

D (b) satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed:
Provided that in respect of any mineral specified in Part A
and Part B of the First Schedule, no reconnaissance permit,
prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted except with
the previous approval of the Central Government.
E Explanation. ¯For the purposes of this sub-section, a person
shall be deemed to be an Indian national,¯
(a) in the case of a firm or other association of individuals, only
if all the members of the firm or members of the
association are citizens of India; and
F
(b) in the case of an individual, only if he is a citizen of India.
(2) No mining lease shall be granted by the State Government
unless it is satisfied that¯
(a) there is evidence to show the existence of mineral contents
G in the area for which the application for a mining lease has
been made in accordance with such parameters as may be
prescribed for this purpose by the Central Government;
(b) there is a mining plan duly approved by the Central
Government, or by the State Government, in respect of such
H category of mines as may be specified by the Central
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 389
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Government, for the development of mineral deposits in the A
area concerned:
Provided that a mining lease may be granted upon the filing of a
mining plan in accordance with a system established by the State
Government for preparation, certification, and monitoring of such
plan, with the approval of the Central Government. B
101. The proviso to Section 5(1) is relevant since it contains a
further restriction that no mining lease shall be granted with regard to
any minerals specified in Para A of First Schedule except with the pre-
vious approval of the Central Government. We in the present case are
concerned with coal which is in Para A of First Schedule. C
102. The next provision which is relevant is Section 13 which
provides for Rule making power of Central Government in respect of
minerals. Section 13 sub-section (1) and Section 13 sub-section (2) in so
far as relevant in the present case are as follows:
“13. Power of Central Government to make rules in respect D
of minerals.¯(1) The Central Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, make rules for regulating the grant of
reconnaissance permits, prospecting licences and mining leases
in respect of minerals and for purposes connected therewith.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the E
foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the
following matters, namely:¯
(a) the person by whom, and the manner in which, applications
for reconnaissance permits, prospecting licences or mining
leases in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the F
Government may be made and the fees to be paid therefor;
……………………………
(f) the procedure for obtaining 5 [a reconnaissance permit, a
prospecting licence or a mining lease] in respect of any
land in which the minerals vest in a person other than the G
Government and the terms on which, and the conditions
subject to which, such 6 [a permit, licence or lease may be
granted or renewed;
…………………………”
H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A 103. When we read clause (a) and clause (f), itmakes clear that
the Rules can be made for grant of mining lease in respect of land in
which minerals vest in the Government as well as in respect of any land
in which minerals vest in person other than Government. The statutory
scheme, thus, is clear that lease can be granted with regard to both the
categories of land, land in which Government is owner of minerals and
B
land in which minerals vest in person other than Government. The Tribals,
owners of the minerals shall expressly fall in Rule making power of the
Government under Section 13(f).
104. The Central Government in exercise of power under Section
13 has framed Rules, namely, Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960. Chapter
C IV of the Rules contains a heading “Grant of Mining Lease in respect of
land the Minerals vest in the Government”. Rules 22 to 40 contain
various provisions under Chapter IV. Chapter V has a separate heading
which is “Procedure for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining
lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in a person
D other than the Government”. Thus, Chapter V contains provisions
for grant of lease in respect of minerals which vest in the person other
than the Government. Rules 41 and 42 which are relevant are quoted
below:
“41. Applicability of this chapter: - The provisions of this chapter
E shall apply only to the grant of prospecting licences and mining
leases in respect of land in which the minerals vest exclusively in
a person other than the Government.
42. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting licence and
mining lease:- (1) No prospecting licence or mining lease shall
F be granted to any person unless he has filed an affidavit stating
that he has–
(i) filed up-to-date income tax returns;
(ii) paid the income tax assessed on him, and
(iii) paid the income tax on the basis of self-assessment as
G
provided in the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961). (2)
Except with the previous approval of the Central
Government, no prospecting licence or mining lease shall
be granted in respect of any mineral specified in the First
Schedule to the Act.”
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 391
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

105. The statutory scheme delineated by Section 13(2)(f) and the A
Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960 clearly contemplate grant of mining
lease, with regard to boththe categories of land, that is, land in which
minerals vest in the Government, and the land in which minerals vest in
a person other than the Government. In statutory provisions there is no
kind of exception as contended by the learned counsel of the appellant
B
that when owner himself wants to win the minerals he does not require
any mining lease. The submission is contrary to the express statutory
scheme, in the event submission of appellant is accepted that with
regard to minerals which vest in a private person no mining lease is
required,the whole object of the Union by which it declared to have
taken under its control regulation of mines and development of minerals C
shall be frustrated.
106. Another limb of submission of the appellant needs to be
noticed here. Shri Naphade submits that there is no concept of owner of
a land granting lease to himself. He submits that concept of lease is well
known and well recognised concept as contained in Section 105 of D
Transfer of Property Act. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act is
as follows:
“Section 105. Lease defined. A lease of immovable property is
a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain
time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a E
price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or
any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on
specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who
accepts the transfer on such terms.
Lessor, lessee, premium and rent defined: The transferor is F
called the lessor, the transferee is called the lessee, the price is
called the premium, and the money, share, service or other thing
to be so rendered is called the rent.”
107. Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition Para 321
defines nature of mining lease in the following manner: G
“321. Nature of mining lease. A lease may be granted of land
or any part of land, and since minerals are a part of the land it
follows that a lease can be granted of the surface of the land and
the minerals below, or of the surface alone, or of the minerals
H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A alone. It has been said that a contract for the working and getting
of minerals, although for convenience called a mining lease, is not
in reality a lease at all in the sense in which one speaks of an
agricultural lease, and that such a contract, properly considered,
is really a sale of a portion of the land at a price payable by
instalments, that is, by way of rent or royalty, spread over a number
B
of years.”
108. This Court had occasion to consider the concept of mining
lease under Act, 1957 in SRI TARKESHWAR SIO THAKUR JIU
vs. DAR DASS DEY & CO. AND OTHERS, 1979(3) SCC 106,
this Court held that term lease occurring in Section 3(C) of Act 67 of
C 1957 does not appear to have been used in the narrow technical
sense in which it is defined in Section 105 of the Transfer of
Property Act but it has all the characteristics of a lease as
defined in the Transfer of Property Act. In paragraph 31 following
was laid down:
D “31. It is important to bear in mind that the term “lease” occurring
in the definition of “mining lease” given in Section 3(c) of Act 67
of 1957 does not appear to have been used in the narrow technical
sense in which it is defined in Section 105 of the Transfer of
Property Act. But, as rightly pointed out by a Bench of the Calcutta
E High Court in Fala Krishna Pal v. Jagannath Marwari. a
settlement of the character of a mining lease is everywhere in
India regarded as “lease”. A mining lease, therefore, may be
meticulously and strictly satisfy in all cases, all the characteristics
of a “lease” as defined in the Transfer of Property Act.
Nevertheless, in the legal accepted sense, it has always been
F regarded as a lease in this country.”
109. This Court proceeded further to consider Section 105 of the
Transfer of Property Act and opined following in paragraphs 37:
“37. A right to carry on mining operations in land to extract a
G specified mineral and to remove and appropriate that mineral, is a
“right to enjoy immovable property” within the meaning of Section
105; more so, when — as in the instant case — it is coupled with
a right to be in its exclusive khas possession for a specified period.
The “right to enjoy immovable property” spoken of in Section

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 393
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

105, means the right to enjoy the property in the manner in which A
that property can be enjoyed. If the subject-matter of the lease is
mineral land or a sand-mine, as in the case before us, it can only
be enjoyed and occupied by the lessee by working it, as indicated
in Section 108, Transfer of Property Act, which regulates the rights
and liabilities of lessors and lessees of immovable property.”
B
110. This Court further following the Nageshwar Bux Roy vs.
Bengal Coal Co., LR (1930) 58 IA 29, in State of Karanataka and
others vs. Subhash Rukmayya Guttedar and others, 1993 Supp.(3)
290 laid down following in paragraph 6:
“6………The question, therefore, is whether the grant of the right C
to extract the minor mineral from Government quarry is a lease
or a licence and whether the contractor is liable to pay the royalty
in respect of minor mineral extracted from the Government quarry.
Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act defines a lease of
immovable property as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property
made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in D
consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of
crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered
periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the
transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. The normal
connotation of the term lease is the preservation of the demised E
estate to be in occupation and enjoyment thereof for a specified
period or in perpetuities for consideration; the corpus by user
thereof does not disappear and at the expiry of the term or on
termination the same is handed over to the lessor subject to the
terms of the contract, express or implied. A right to carry on mining
operations in the land on surface or sub-soil is to extract the F
specified quantity of the minerals found therein, to remove and
appropriate that mineral. Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals
(Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 affords the guidance in
this behalf. It says that the holder of a mining lease or agent, etc.
is entitled to remove or consume the mineral. It would mean G
destruction of the estate leased out and appropriation thereof on
payment of consideration i.e. royalty. Therefore, it is a right to
enjoy immovable property within the meaning of Section 105 more

H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A so when, as in the instant case, it is coupled with a right to be in
occupation or enter into possession for a specified period. Section
3(d) of the Act defines ‘mining operations’ to mean any operation
undertaken for the purpose of winning any minerals. It is true that
no right, title or interest has been created in the contractor over
the mining area. But he has been permitted to remove and use the
B
minor minerals in the execution of the works as its (sic his) right
to enjoy immovable property spoken of in Section 105 which means
the right to enjoy the property in the manner in which that property
can be enjoyed. In Nageshwar Bux Roy v. Bengal Coal Co.1
Lord Macmillan speaking for the Board held that:
C “In considering the character and effect of acts of possession
in the case of a mineral field, it is necessary to bear in mind the
nature of the subject and the possession of which it is
susceptible. Owing to the inaccessibility of minerals in the earth,
it is not possible to take actual physical possession at once of a
D whole mineral field: it can be occupied only by extracting the
minerals and until the whole minerals are exhausted the physical
occupation must necessarily be partial.”
111. The word mining lease has been given specific meaning
under Act, 1957. It is well settled principle of interpretation that the
E provisions of an Act including definition of a term is to be interpreted in
a manner which may advance the object of the legislation. The essential
characteristic of mining lease is that it is granted for the purpose of
undertaking mining operation and mining operation means any operation
undertaken for the purpose of winning the mineral. Applying aforesaid
definition in the Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960 under Chapter V
F it cannot be said that no mining lease is contemplated with respect to
land where mineral vests exclusively in a private person.
112. The examination of a statutory scheme applicable in Tribal
areas of State of Meghalaya shall not be complete unless we notice two
more aspects, they are (i) the Mines Act, 1952 and the Regulations
G framed thereunder; (2) Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and the no-
tification issued thereunder with regard to mining project.
113. The Mines Act, 1952 is an Act to amend and consolidate the
law relating to the regulation of labour and safety of mines. The act

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 395
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

contains various provisions regarding inspection of mining operation and A
management of mines. Section 16 provides a notice to be given to
mining operations by the owner agent or manager of a mine. Section 16
is as follows:
“Section 16. Notice to be given of mining
operations.-(1) The owner, agent or manager of a mine shall, B
before the commencement of any mining operation, give to the
Chief Inspector, the Controller, Indian Bureau of Mines and the
district magistrate of the district in which the mine is situate, notice
in writing in such form and containing such particulars relating to
the mine as may be prescribed.
C
(2) Any notice given under sub-section (1) shall be so given
as to reach the persons concerned at least one month before the
commencement of any mining operation.”
114. Section 18 contains duties and responsibilities of owners,
agents and managers. There are various other provisions in the Mines D
Act, 1952 which are mandatory to be followed before working any mine.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed that the provisions of
the Mines Act, 1952 are applicable with regard to the coal mining in the
State of Meghalaya. He, however, submits that there are no powers
with the District Magistrate or State Officials under the Mines Act, 1952. E
Chapter II of the Mines Act, 1952 deals with Inspectors and Certifying
Surgeons. Section 5(3) provided that the District Magistrate may
exercise the powers and perform the duties of an Inspector subject to
the general or special orders of the Central Government. Section 5(3) is
as follows:-
F
“5(3)The district magistrate may exercise the powers and
perform the duties of an Inspector subject to the general or
special orders of the Central Government.”
115. The above provision clearly empowers the District
Magistrate to exercise the powers and perform the duties of an G
Inspector but subject to general and special orders of Central
Government, which means that there may be some restriction on the
power of the District Magistrate as directed by Central Government. In
this context, Shri Naphade has referred to a notification dated 18.09.1953

H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A issued under sub-section 3 of Section 5 of the Mines Act, 1952, which is
to the following effect:-
“New Delhi, the 18th September, 1953
S.R.O. 1789 – In pursuance of sub-section 3 of section 5 of the
Mines Act, 1952 (XXXV of 1952), the Central Government hereby
B directs that in exercising the powers and performing the duties of
an Inspector, the District Magistrate shall not, without prior
reference to the Chief Inspector, take direct action or issue any
order in respect of any matter solely connected with the technical
direction, management or supervision of any mine, even though
C such direction, management or supervision may appear to him to
be dangerous or defective.
[No.M-41(370 52.]
P.N. SHARMA, Under Secy.”

D 116. The restriction as is apparent from the above notification is
with regard to matters solely connected with the technical direction,
management or supervision of any mine. The above notification does
not take away all the functions of the District Magistrate but restriction
is with regard to area mentioned therein. As noted above, Section 16
obliged the owner, agent or manager of a mine to give notice before the
E commencement of any mining operation to the district magistrate of the
district in which the mine is situate. Section 75 of the Mines Act, 1952
also empowers the District Magistrate to institute prosecution against
any owner, agent or manager for any offence under the Mines Act,
1952. Section 75 is as follows:-
F “75. Prosecution of owner, agent or manager.—No
prosecution shall be instituted against any owner, agent or manager
for any offence under this Act except at the instance of the Chief
Inspector or of the district magistrate or of an Inspector authorised
in this behalf by general or special order in writing by the Chief
Inspector;
G
Provided that the Chief Inspector or the district magistrate or the
Inspector as so authorised shall, before instituting such prosecution,
satisfy himself that the owner, agent or manager had failed to

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 397
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

exercise all due diligence to prevent the commission of such A
offence.
Provided further that in respect of an offence committed in the
course of the technical direction and management of a mine, the
district magistrate shall not institute any prosecution against an
owner, agent or manager without the previous approval of the B
Chief Inspector.”
117. We, thus, do not accept the submission of Shri Naphade that
District Magistrate has no jurisdiction under the Mines Act, 1952 to take
any action.
118. In exercise of the power under Section 57 of Mines Act, C
1952 a new set of regulations has been framed, namely, Coal Mines
Regulations, 2017. Regulation 2(r) defines “District Magistrate”. The
Regulations contain various regulatory provisions with regard to mines.
Chapter II deals with returns, notices and records. Chapter IV deals
with Inspectors and Mine Officials. The Regulations contain several D
regulatory provisions which need to be followed while working a mine
by the owner or his agent. The enforcement of Mines Act, 1952 and the
Regulations, 2017 have to be ensured in the public interest by the state
of Meghalaya.
119. Now we come to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. A E
notification dated 14.09.2006 was issued by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests in exercise of power under Section 3(3) of the
Environment Protection Act, 1986. Section 3 of the Act, 1986 which
provided for requirements of prior environmental clearance with regard
to projects enumerates therein. Schedule to the notification listed the
projects or activities requiring prior environmental clearance. “Mining of F
minerals” included at Item No.1(a) but even for mining project
requirement of minimum 5 hectares area was required for applicability
of the project. Substituting Item No.1(a) of Notification dated 14.09.2006
a new notification dated 15.01.2016 has been issued. In place of Item
No.1(a) new entry has been substituted in respect of coal mine lease G
which is to the following effect:

H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
“1(a) (i) Mining of >50 ha of mining <50 ha of General
minerals lease areas in mining lease Conditions
respect of non- area in respect shall apply
coal mine lease of non-coal except:
B mine lease (i) for project
>150 ha of mining <150 ha of or activity of
lease area in mining lease mining of
respect of coal area in respect minor
mine lease of coal lease minerals of
Category
C Asbestos mining ‘B2’(up to 25
irrespective of ha of mining
mining area lease area);

(ii) River bed
mining
projects on
D account of
inter-state
boundary.
120. If the project was under Category ‘A’, environmental
clearance is required from Ministry of Environment and Forests whereas
E as per new notification dated 15.01.2016 for project ‘B’ environmental
clearance is required from State Environmental Assessment Authority
with respect of coal mining lease area of less than or equal to 150
hectares. Now as per statutory regime brought in force by notification
dated 15.01.2016 environmental clearance is required for a project of
coal for mining of any extent of area. We have dealt with the notification
F
dated 15.01.2016, since it was placed before us and submissions were
made by learned counsel for the parties. The notification dated 15.01.2016
being a statutory provision shall operate on its own force and no order of
any Court is required for enforcement of notification dated 15.01.2016.
We have dealt the matter only in view to clarify the statutory regime
G pertaining to mining of coal.
121. While implementing statutory regime for carrying mining
operations in the Hills District of the State of Meghalaya, the State of
Meghalaya has to ensure compliance of not only MMDR Act, 1957 but
Mines Act, 1952 as well as Environment (Protection)Act, 1986.
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 399
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Point No.4 A
122. We having held that for carrying out mining operations in
ns privately owned and community owned land in Hills Districts of
apply Meghalaya, obtaining a mining lease is a mandatory requirement for
carrying out the mining, we have to examine the procedure for grant of
oject such mining lease and the authority/person, who is competent to grant B
ty of such lease.
of
123. Chapter IV of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 deals
of with grant of mining leases in respect of land in which the minerals vest
y in the Government and Chapter V deals with procedure for obtaining a
to 25 prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of land in which the C
ning minerals vest in a person other than the Government. Chapter IV
a); contains Rules 22 to 40 and Chapter V contains Rules 41 to 52 and the
r bed
procedure and manner of applying for mining lease and grant of lease as
contained in Chapter IV is not made applicable to the procedure as
on given in Chapter V except that by virtue of Rule 45(i) certain conditions
of of mining lease as contained in Rule 27 under Chapter IV are made D
e applicable for mining lease under Chapter V.
y.
124. Rule 22(1) provides that an application for the grant of a
mining lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the
Government shall be made to the State Government in Form I through
such officer or authority as the State Government may specify in this E
behalf. In Chapter V, there is no such rule, which requires making an
application for lease to the State Government. There is a marked
difference between the rules contained in Chapter IV and rules
contained in Chapter V, few of which are relevant to notice for the
purposes of this case. Rule 27(2) provides that a mining lease may F
contain such other conditions as the State Government may deem
necessary in regard to the matters enumerated therein. Whereas Rule
45(iii) provides that every mining lease may contain such other
conditions, not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and these
rules, as may be agreed upon between the parties. The above provision
gives an indication that in the lease executed by Chapter V, the omission G
of word “State Government” in Rule 45(iii) is indicative of the fact that
conditions, which are to be added has to be agreed upon between the
parties. Most important rule to be noticed is Rule 45 in this context,
which is to the following effect:-
H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A “45.Conditions of mining lease : - Every mining lease shall be
subject to the following conditions :-
(i) the provisions of clauses (b) to (l) and (p) to (u) of sub-rule (1)
of rule 27 shall apply to such leases with the modification that in
clauses (c) and (d) for the words “State Government” the word
B “lessor” shall be substituted ;
(ia) mining operations shall be undertaken in accordance with the
duly approved mining plan ;
(ii) Omitted.;

C (iii) the lease may contain such other conditions, not being
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and these rules, as may
be agreed upon between the parties;
(iv) if the lessee makes any default in payment of royalty as
required by section 9 or commits a breach of any of the conditions
D of the lease, the lessor shall give notice to the lessee requiring him
to pay the royalty or remedy the breach, as the case may be,
within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the notice and if
the royalty is not paid or the breach is not remedied within such
period, the lessor without prejudice to any proceeding that may be
taken against the lessee determine the lease;
E
(v) the lessee may determine the lease at any time by giving not
less than one year’s notice in writing to lessor.”

125. It is provided in Rule 45(i) that in clauses (c) and (d) of Rule
F 27 for the words “State Government” the word “lessor” shall be
substituted, which gives a clear indication that State Government is not a
lessor in a lease granted under Chapter V. Rule 27(5) and Rule 45(iv) is
also relevant to notice. Rule 27(5) provides as follows:-
“27(5) If the lessee makes any default in the payment of royalty
G as required under section 9 or payment of dead rent as required
under section 9A or commits a breach of any of the conditions
specified in sub-rules (1), (2) and (3), except the condition referred
to in clause (f) of sub-rule (1), the State Government shall give
notice to the lessee requiring him to pay the royalty or dead rent

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 401
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

or remedy the breach, as the case may be, within sixty days from A
the date of the receipt of the notice and if the royalty or dead rent
is not paid or the breach is not remedied within the said period, the
State Government may, without prejudice to any other proceedings
that may be taken against him, determine the lease and forfeit the
whole or part of the security deposit.”
B
126. Under Rule 27(5), if the lessee makes any default in the
payment of the royalty or the payment of dead rent or commits breach
of any of the conditions, the State Government shall give notice to the
lessee and determine the lease and forfeit the whole or part of the
security deposit. Whereas under rule 45(iv), the said power has been
vested in the lessor, which also indicates that it is lessor, who will C
determine the lease and not the State Government. Other provisions of
Chapter V also support the above conclusion. Rule 47 provides for
submission of copy of licence or lease to the State Government within
three months of the grant of such licence or lease. Requirement of
submitting the licence or lease copy to the State Government indicate D
that the State Government is not the authority, who is granting the lease,
otherwise there was no requirement of submitting a copy to the State
Government, if it was contemplated that State Government shall grant
the lease. Rule 63 in Chapter V provides that previous approval of the
Central Government to be obtained through State Government, which is
to the following effect:- E

“63. Previous approval of the Central Government to be
obtained through State Government:- Where in any case
previous approval of the Central Government is required under
the Act or these rules, the application for such approval shall be
made to the Central Government through the State F
Government .”
127. Our above conclusion is reinforced when we look into the
statutory regime regarding grant of mining lease as per the Mineral
Concession Rules, which were inforce prior to enforcement of Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960. Prior to MMDR Act, 1957, earlier Central G
Legislation which was governing the field was Mines and Minerals
(Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, under which rules have been
framed by Central Government namely, Mineral Concession Rules, 1949.

H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A Rule 14 of Chapter III contemplated application for prospecting license.
Chapter IV of the Rules, 1949 contained the heading “grant of Mining
Lease in respect of land in which the minerals belong to Government”.
The provisions of Rule 27 of Chapter IV provide for application for
mining lease and there were several other rules under Chapter IV, which
in substance have been retained in Chapter IV of Rules, 1960. Chapter
B
V of Rules, 1949 contained the heading “grant of mineral concessions
by private persons.” As noted above, the heading of Chapter V under
Rules, 1960 is “procedure for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining
lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in a person other than
the Government.” Rule 47 of Chapter V of Rules, 1949 provide for
C “conditions in a mining lease”, which are in substance similar as Rule 45
of Rules, 1960. Rule 47(iv) of the Rules, 1949 was akin to present Rule
45(i) of the Rules, 1960. Rule 47(iv) of the Rules, 1949 is as follows:-
“47.Conditions of mining lease : - A mining lease granted by a
private person shall be subject to the following condition:-
D XXXXXXX
(iv) the provisions of clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vii), (viii),
(ix), (x), (xi0 and (xv) of sub-rule (1) of rule 41 shall apply to such
lease with the modification that in clauses (ii), (iii), (iv) and (xv)
for the words “State Government” the word “lessor” shall be
E substituted;
XXXXXXXXX”
128. Thus, the Chapter V of Rules, 1949 dealt with the mining
lease granted by private persons, i.e., the category where the minerals
F were not owned by the Government but was owned by private persons.
Chapter V of the Rules, 1960 contains substantially similar provisions.
Thus, Chapter V of Rules, 1960 has to be treated to be dealing with
minerals owned by private owners. The earlier statutory regime, which
was enforced as per Rules, 1949 made it amply clear that mineral
concessions are to be granted by private persons also, which is in
G substances retained in Chapter V of Rules, 1960. Thus, mining lease to
be granted as per Chapter V of Rules, 1960 is mining lease by the owner
of mineral and similar concept has to be borrowed and read in Chapter
V as noted above. Absence of any procedure to make an application
for mining lease to the State Government in Chapter V of the Rules,
1960 and lessor being the private persons and not the State Government,
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 403
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

clearly indicates that State Government is not to grant the lease in A
respect of land of privately owned/community owned owners.
129. Another reason for not providing any application to State
Government for grant of mining lease in respect of minerals, which vests
in the private owners and community owners is that; without consent or
willingness of private owners/community owners of minerals, no B
authority is empowered to grant any mining lease with regard to
minerals, of which he is the owner, it is the owner of the minerals may
be private persons or community owners, who is entitled to grant lease
of minerals as per the provisions of Chapter V of Rules, 1960.
130. We, thus, conclude that as per the statutory provisions C
contained in Rules, 1960 especially Chapter V, a mining lease for
minerals, which belongs to a private owner or a community owner, it is
not the State Government, which is entitled to receive any application or
grant any mining lease,but it is the private owner or community owner,
who is entitled to grant a lease for mining minerals owned by them.
Issue No.4 is answered accordingly. D

Point No.5
131. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing for
the State of Meghalaya has submitted that State of Meghalaya has no
control over the mining of the coal by owners of the minerals since it is E
the owners, who have right to carry on mining, which has been
traditionally going on in the State of Meghalaya for last several decades.
To find out as to whether State of Meghalaya has any statutory control
over the mining operations in State of Meghalaya, which is going on for
last several decades, we have to examine the statutory provisions
governing the field. F
132. We have already held that provisions of MMRD Act, 1957
and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 are applicable in the Hills Districts
of the State of Meghalaya. We, in the present case, are concerned with
the mining of coal, which is a major mineral as per the Act, 1957 and
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Rule 42 of Chapter V of the Rules, G
1960 provides for restrictions on the grant of prospecting licence and
mining lease, which is to the following effect:-
“42. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting licence and
mining lease:- (1) No prospecting licence or mining lease shall
H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A be granted to any person unless he has filed an affidavit stating
that he has–
(i) filed up-to-date income tax returns;
(ii) paid the income tax assessed on him, and
B (iii) paid the income tax on the basis of self-assessment as
provided in the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961).
(2) Except with the previous approval of the Central Government,
no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted in respect
of any mineral specified in the First Schedule to the Act.”
C 133. As per Rule 42(2), except with the previous approval of the
Central Government, no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be
granted in respect of any mineral specified in the First Schedule to the
Act. Thus, previous approval of Central Government is mandatory
before grant of mining lease of coal. Rule 63 provides that the approval
D of the Central Government has to be obtained through the State
Government. Thus, the State Government has to be aware that any
previous approval of the Central Government for mining coal has been
obtained or not. Thus, restriction being statutory and without any
exception State Government cannot say that it has no role to play with
regard to mining of coal. All applications for previous approval of
E Central Government has to be routed through State Government. There
are other rules in Chapter V itself, which provides for control of the
State government in the mining of coal. Rule 50 empowers the
provision for prohibition of working of mines by the State Government,
which is to the following effect:-
F “50. Prohibition of working of mines:- If the State Government
has reason to believe that the grant or transfer of a prospecting
licence or a mining lease or of any right, title or interest in such
licence or lease is in contravention of any of the provisions of this
chapter, the State Government may, after giving the parties an
opportunity to represent their views and with the approval of the
G
Central Government, direct the parties concerned not to undertake
any prospecting or mining operations in the area to which the
licence or lease relates.”
134. The above rule empowers the State Government with the
approval of the Central Government to direct the parties concerned not
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 405
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

to undertake any mining operations, if it has reasons to believe that the A
grant or transfer of mining lease is in contravention of any of the
provisions of Chapter V. Thus, when mining operations of coal are
being conducted without prior approval of Central Government, State is
not powerless to direct the parties not to undertake any prospective
mining operations in the area. The power given under Rule 50 is not
B
only enabling power, but is a statutory obligation on the State to exercise
the power in the public interest. Rule 51 requires a mining lease to
furnish to the State Government such returns and statements as may be
prescribed. Rule 52 provides for penalty, which is to the following
effect:-
“52. Penalty:- (1) If the holder of a prospecting licence or a C
mining lease or his transferee or assignee fails, without sufficient
cause, to furnish the documents or information, or returns referred
to in rule 46, rule 47, rule 48, or rule 51, or acts in any manner in
contravention of rule 49 or rule 50, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or fine D
which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.
(2) If any person grants or transfers or obtains a prospecting
licence or mining lease or any right, title or interest therein, in
contravention of any of the provisions of this chapter, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or
E
fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or both.”
135. Rule 52 gives the State Government ample power to
prosecute and punish mining leases or his transferees or assignees on
violation of the rules or contravention of any of the provisions of
Chapter V, which is ample power to the State to ensure that the Act is
faithfully followed. F
136. The State was advised by the Comptroller and Auditor
General of India in its report ended 31st March, 2013 in para 4.5.1 that to
regulate mining by following Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957.Para 7.5.8 of the same report has made the
following as recommendation No.1: G
“Recommendation No.1: The M&G Department should take
necessary measures to regulate mining in the State in accordance
with the provisions of the MMDR Act and Rules thereunder.”
137. The State is thus well aware of its statutory obligation which
is reflected in Mining Policy of 2012 and Draft Guidelines, 2015 but still H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A before this Court their contention that no mining lease is to be obtained
for privately owned/community owned land in Hills District of State of
Meghalaya is unacceptable and not in a good spirit.Our country being
governed by the Constitution of India all the States are to implement
Parliamentary Acts in true spirit and in the present case the State having
been advised time and again by Comptroller and Auditor General and
B
being well aware of its statutory obligation as noticed above it comes ill
from the State to contend before this Court that there is no requirement
of mining lease for winning the minerals. The above stand of the State
taken before this Court gives the impression that instead of
implementing the Parliamentary enactment and regulatory regime for
C mineral regulation some vested interests wants to continue the illegal
regime of illegal mining to the benefit of the few persons which is
unacceptable and condemnable. We, thus, conclude that the State of
Meghalaya has jurisdiction and power to ensure that no mining of coal
should take place except when a mining lease granted under Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960, Chapter V, as discussed above.
D
Point No.6
138. One more point which needs to be considered is as to whether
power to allot land for mining purpose is vested in Autonomous District
Council? The submission on behalf of one of the Autonomous District
E Council which is the appellant before us as well as on behalf of State of
Meghalaya is that Autonomous District Council being constitutional
authority constituted under Schedule VI of the Constitution has legisla-
tive and administrative power. Reference to various legislation framed
by Autonomous District Council which received the assent of the
Governor has also been relied on. Para 3 of Schedule VI enumerates
F the power of District Council and regional council to make laws which
we have extracted above.
139. Certain legislation framed by District Council has also been
referred namely the Khasi Hills District (Trading by Non Tribals)
Regulation, 1954, the United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous
G District(Management and Control of Forest) Rules, 1960. The Khasi
Hills Autonomous District (Trading by Non Tribals) Rules, 1959, all
framed in exercise of power under para 3 of Sixth Schedule. The power
to make law entrusted to Autonomous District Council under para 3 of
Schedule VI is power to make law referable to List 2 and List 3 of the
H Seventh Schedule. We have already noticed above that with regard to
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 407
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

regulation and development of mineral, the Union has made declaration A
by Section 2 of 1957 Act and the power of the State Legislature is
denuded in that respect. The logical corollary of the above principle is
that power of Autonomous District Council shall also be denuded in so
far as regulation and development of minerals to the extent which is
covered by 1957 Act. We may refer to one Rule 4 of United Khasi
B
Jaintia Hills District (Trading by non Tribals) Rules,1959, which
contemplates form of licence and one of the licence referred to is under
Rule 4 is licence in Form E. Rule 4 is as follows:
“4. Form of License.-
.... C
(5) License in form ‘E’ shall be issued for the mining of minerals
and the sale or purchase of minerals accruing from the autonomous
district and for the import of minerals into the autonomous district
for sale therein as specified in Part ‘E’ of the First Schedule on
payment of prescribed license fee subject to the conditions specified D
in the license..
. . . .“
140. It is relevant to notice that the United Khasi Jaintia Hills
District (Trading by Non-Tribal) Rules, 1959 has been repealed insofar
as Jaintia Hills Districts are concerned by the Jaintia Hills Autonomous E
District (Trading by Non-Tribal) Regulation Act, 2011, Section 18. Rules,
1959 is still in force in Khasi Hills Autonomous Districts, since, no other
regulations have been placed before us repealing the Rules, 1959. In
Regulations, 2011, one aspect needs to be noted in Section 2, which is
definition clause.By clause (viii), “trade” has been defined, which is to F
the following effect:-
“(viii) “Trade” means any trade involving buying and selling or business
for profit and includes exchange of goods or commodities or business
or import, export and transport of goods/commodities or entry of goods
into market for sale or trade and business such as construction works
G
or other work rendered by the contractor or his agent and it also
includes person and persons engaged by such contractor or agent or
any other profession or vocation such as barber, cobbler, tailoring,
cattle rearing (which include piggery, goatary, poultry) milk and dairy
products, automobiles making or repairing, electrician, furniture makers,
H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A pharmacist, physician, transport and any other similar vocation or
profession and the term “trade” and “trading” shall be construed
accordingly.”
141. The grant of licenses contemplated by Regulations are only
with respect to the “trade” as defined in 2(viii). The entire Regulations
B do not refer to any kind of trade in mining of coal or mining operations.
Thus, the Regulations, 2011 have nothing to do with the mining of coal.
142. Constitutional provisions of Schedule VI are also relevant to
be noticed. Paragraph 9 of the Schedule VI refers to Licences or leases
for the purpose of prospecting for, or extraction of, minerals. Para 9 is
C as follows: -
“9. Licences or leases for the purpose of prospecting for, or
extraction of, minerals. -
(1) Such share of the royalties accruing each year from
licences or leases for the purpose of prospecting for, or the
D extraction of, minerals granted by [the Government of the
State] in respect of any area within an autonomous district as
may be agreed upon between [the Government of the State]
and the District Court of such district shall be made over to
that District Council.
E (2) If any dispute arises as to the share of such royalties to be
made over to a District Council, it shall be referred to the
Governor for determination and the amount determined by
the Governor in his discretion shall be deemed to be the
amount payable under sub-paragraph(1) of this paragraph
F to the District Council and the decision of the Governor shall
be final.”
143. Para 9(1) confines to the licences or leases of minerals
granted by government of the State. Schedule VI which constitute the
District Councils and Regional Councils enumerates their powers. Para
9 refers to licences or leases for extraction of minerals granted by the
G
Government of the State. Para 9 only deals with share of the royalties to
District Councils as agreed upon between the Government of the State
and the District Councils. Further paragraph 12(A)(a) itself
contemplates that any law made by District Council or Regional Council
which is repugnant to any law of the State shall be void. Thus, the status
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 409
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

of law made by District Council or Regional councils has to give way to A
the law made by the State. There can be no doubt that District Council
and Regional Council cannot make any law which may be repugnant to
the provisions of the Parliamentary Act.
144. We, thus, are of the view that District Council does not have
any power to make any law with regard to grant of mining lease. The B
mining leases for winning the major minerals has to be granted in
accordance with 1957 Act and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
POINT NOS. 7 & 8
145. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu versus M/s Hind Stone
and others,1981 (2) SCC 205, speaking through Chinnappa Reddy,J., C
has made following weighty observations: -
“6. Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other resources
constitute a Nation’s natural wealth. These resources are not
to be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation.
Every generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations D
to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation
in the best possible way. It is in the interest of mankind. It is in
the interest of the nation. It is recognised by Parliament.
Parliament has declared that it is expedient in the public
interest that the Union should take under its control the E
regulation of mines and the development of minerals. It has
enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and
Development) Act, 1957.....”
146. No one can dispute the underlying object in the above
observations of this Court. The use of natural resources also plays F
major role in carrying out development. A fine balance has to be
maintained in utilisation of natural resources and its conservation and
preservation. One cannot be sacrificed for the interest of other. The
concept of Sustainable Development has been evolved and is being
pursued. In this context, reference be made to the three-Judge Bench
judgment of this Court in Lafarge Umiam Mining (pvt.) Ltd. Versus G
Union of India & Others, 2011(7) SCC 338. In para 75, following
legal position was noticed: -
“75. Universal human dependence on the use of environmental
resources for the most basic needs renders it impossible to refrain
H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A from altering the environment. As a result, environmental conflicts
are ineradicable and environmental protection is always a matter
of degree, inescapably requiring choices as to the appropriate level
of environmental protection and the risks which are to be
regulated. This aspect is recognised by the concepts of “sustainable
development”. It is equally well settled by the decision of this
B
Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India that
environment has different facets and care of the environment is
an ongoing process. These concepts rule out the formulation of
an across-the-board principle as it would depend on the facts of
each case whether diversion in a given case should be permitted
C or not, barring “no go” areas (whose identification would again
depend on undertaking of due diligence exercise). In such cases,
the margin of appreciation doctrine would apply.”
147. Now we come back to the order of NGT dated 17.04.2014
by which Tribunal prohibited the Rathole mining/illegal mining
D throughout the State of Meghalaya. We have noticed above that in OA
No.73 of 2014 wherein the above order was passed, sufficient
materialswere brought on the record including experts report which proved
that illegal coal mining in the State of Meghalaya is degrading the
environment. The Court also noticed the report of Professor Dr.O.P.Singh
which noticed that the Meghalaya Pollution Control Board in the year
E 1997 has submitted the report about the environmental pollution
consequent to illegal mining.
148. Learned Amicus Curiae has invited our attention to report of
Comptroller and Auditor General for the year ending 31st March, 2013,
where the Comptroller and Auditor General has noticed that due to Acid
F Mine Drainage several locations of Lukha River were severally
polluted. The report also referred to investigation by the Meghalaya State
Pollution Control Board in November 2011 and noticed that no effective
steps were taken to control AMD. Paragraph 7.5.23.1 of the report is as
follows: -
G “7.5.23.1 Pollution of rivers due to Acid Mine Drainage from
coal mines
Based on media reports relating to pollution of Lukha
river in Jaintia Hills, the Meghalaya State Pollution Board

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 411
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

(MSPCB) conducted (November 2011) an investigation to A
ascertain the water quality of the Lukha River and its feeding
streams in Jaintia Hills District vis-a-vis a similar investigation
carried out in February 2007. For this purpose, eight water
and sediment samples were collected from the same sampling
locations investigated during 2007. The findings are as
B
follows: -
Station pH Table 1.6
Iron(mg/I) Sulphate(mg/I)
BIS norms 6.5-8.5 BIS norms:0.3 BIS norms:200.0
2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011
St.1 3.0 2.7 3.6 6.2 254.0 566.5 C
St.2 7.5 5.0 0.13 5.4 13.4 305.0
St.3 6.8 7.3 0.17 0.4 62.0 8.69
St.4 4.5 4.3 0.46 4.8 211.8 265.0
St.5 6.3 5.0 0.32 1.2 188.8 200.0
St.6 4.3 6.2 0.372 0.26 192.1 118.2
D
St.7 7.9 8.2 1.35 0.18 99.0 29.04
St.8 7.8 8.1 0.3 0.28 101.5 45.6

E
The water quality characteristics in terms of pH, Sulphate
and Iron concentrations with respect to Stations 1,2,4 and 5
indicated that there is significant deterioration of water quality
in comparison to that of the year 2007 the major cause of
which was the AMD from coal mining in these areas. F
The investigation made by the MSPCB further revealed that
the river water on the entire stretch of the sampling locations
was not suitable for drinking purpose......”
149. Tribunal being satisfied from the materials on record has
issued the order dated 17.04.2014 which cannot be faulted in the facts G
and materials which are on record in the present case. One more fact in
the above context need to be noticed i.e. after the order dated 17.04.2014,
several applicants including the appellants of Civil Appeal No.5272 of
2016 filed application for vacating the ban which was not acceded to by
H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A the Tribunal. Subsequently the NGT permitted transportation of coal till
15.05.2016 and directed that after 15.05.2016, all coal within the State
of Meghalaya shall vest in the State.
150. The tribunal after considering all pleas and materials
including reports submitted by the committees affirmed the order dated
B 17.04.2014 and refused to withdraw the ban. We do not find any error in
the order of NGT reaffirming its ban order in the facts of the present
case. But the question which has been raised by the appellant before
this Court is that whether the complete ban as imposed by the NGT
deserves to be vacated or modified in the interest of the State and tribals.
The revenue earned by the State from coal mining plays substantial part
C in the economy of the State. It is also amply demonstrated from the
record that tribals are the owners of the land who carry on mining of
coal in their land by which they earn their substantial livelihood.
151. Though as discussed above the manner in which the mining
is being carried out by the tribals cannot be approved which is clearly in
D violation of statutory regime under 1957 Act and 1960 Rules but in event
the mining is carried out by tribals or their assignees as per the
provisions of 1957 Act and 1960 Rules, there can be no objections in
carrying such mining under the regulation and control of State of
Meghalaya. We thus clarify that in event mining operations are
E undertaken by the tribals or other owners of hills districts of Meghalaya
in accordance with mining lease obtained from the State of Meghalaya
as per 1957 Act and Mineral Concessions Rule, 1960, the ban order
dated 17.04.2014 of the tribunal shall not come in its way of carrying
mining operations. The ban order is for the illegal coal mining which was
rampant in the State of Meghalaya and the ban order cannot be
F extended to valid and legal mining as per 1957 Act and 1960 Rules.
Point Nos.9 and 10
152. The appellants contend that the NGT has no jurisdiction to
constitute any committee. The NGT vide its different orders has
G constituted different committees for submitting reports for different
purposes. The Constitution of which committees are sought to be
challenged on the ground that the NGT has no jurisdiction to constitute a
committee. Similarly, order of the Tribunal directing for constituting a

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 413
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

fund, namely, Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund A
has been challenged on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
constitute any fund.
153. What are the powers and jurisdiction of the Tribunal given
under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 has to be looked into to
consider the above submission? In so far as jurisdiction of the Tribunal is B
concerned, we have already noticed Sections 14, 15, and 16 of the Act.
Section 19 of the Act deals with procedure and powers of the of the
Tribunal. Section 19 which is relevant for the present case is as follows:
“19. Procedure and powers of Tribunal. –(1). The Tribunal
shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of C
Civil Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the principles of natural
justice.
(2). Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Tribunal shall have
power to regulate its own procedure.
(3). The Tribunal shall also not be bound by the rules of evidence D
contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(4). The Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its
functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil
court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit,
in respect of the following matters, namely:- E
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person
and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits; F
(d) subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requisitioning any public record or
document or copy of such record or document from any office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or
documents; G

(f) reviewing its decision;
(g) dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex parte;

H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A (h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for
default or any order passed by it ex parte;
(i) pass an interim order (including granting an injunction or
stay) after providing the parties concerned an opportunity to
be heard, on any application made or appeal filed under this
B Act;
(j) pass an order requiring any person to cease and desist from
committing or causing any violation of any enactment specified
in Schedule I;
(k) any other matter which may be prescribed.
C
5. All proceedings before the Tribunal shall be deemed to be the
judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193, 219 and
228 for the purposes of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code and
the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of
section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
D 1973.”
154. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 provides that Tribunal shall not
be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure but
shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. What sub-section (1)
meant to convey is that Tribunal is not shackled with the procedure laid
E down by the CPC for conducting its proceedings. Sub-section (2) of
Section 19 empowers the Tribunal, powers to regulate its own
procedure. Section 19(2) confers wide powers on the Tribunal in so far
as its procedure is concerned. Section 19(4) vests some powers as are
vested in civil court, while trying a suit, in respect of matters enumerated
F therein. The use of expression “shall not be bound by the procedure laid
down by the CPC” is not akin to saying that procedure as laid down by
the CPC is in no manner relevant to the Tribunal. Further, Section 19(1)
also does not mean that Tribunal cannot follow any procedure given in
the CPC. One provision of CPC inserted by Act 104 of 1976 with effect
from 01.02.1977 is Order XXVI, which is relevant for present inquiry.
G Order XXVI Rule 10A provides as follows:
“Order XXVI Rule 10A.Commission for scientific
investigations”- (1) Where any question arising in a suit involves
any scientific investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 415
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Court, be conveniently conducted before the Court, the Court may, A
if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice so to
do, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit, directing him
to inquire into such question and report thereon to the Court.

(2) The provisions of rule 10 of this Order shall, as far as may be,
B
apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under this rule as
they apply in relation to a Commissioner appointed under rule 9.”
155. Rule 10A provides that where any question arising in a suit
involves any scientific investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the
Court, be conveniently conducted before the Court, the Court may, if it
thinks necessary or expedient in the interests of justice so to do, issue a C
commission to such person as it thinks fit, directing him to inquire into
such question and report thereon to the Court. Rule 10A is enabling
power to the courts to obtain report from such persons as it thinks fit
when any question involves with the scientific investigation. The powers
under Rule 10A which are to be exercised by the Court can very well be D
used by the NGT to obtain reports by experts. The NGT as per the
statutory scheme of the NGT has to decide several complex questions
pertaining to pollution and environment. The scientific investigation and
report by experts are necessary requirement in appropriate cases to
come to correct conclusion to find out measures to remedy the pollution
and environment. We do not, thus, find any dearth of jurisdiction in the E
NGT to appoint a committee to submit a report. We may further say that
while asking expert to give a report the NGT is not confined to the four
corners of Rule 10A rather its jurisdiction is not shackled by strict terms
of Order 26 Rule 10A s per Section 19(1) as noticed above.
156. There is one more provision which throws considerable light F
on the above. Under Section 35 of the NGT Act, 2010 Central
Government is empowered to make rule for carrying out the provisions
of the Act. Rules have been framed in exercise of powers under Section
35, namely, National Green Tribunal(Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011.
The said Rules have been framed in exercise of powers under Section G
4(4) as well as Section 35. The Rules, 2011 are Rules also for practices
and procedure of the Tribunal. Rule 24 which is relevant for the present
case is as follows:

H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A “Section 24. Order and directions in certain cases.- The
Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be
necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to prevent
abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.”
157. Rule 24 empowers the Tribunal to make such orders or give
B such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its
orderor to secure the ends of justice. Rule 24 gives wide powers to the
Tribunal to secure the ends of justice. Rule 24 vests special power to
Tribunal to pass orders and issue directions to secure ends of justice.
Use of words ‘may’, ‘such orders’, ‘gives such directions’, ‘as may be
necessary or expedient’, ‘to give effect to its orders’, ‘order to prevent
C abuse of process’, are words which enable the Tribunal to pass orders
and the above words confer wide discretion.
158. Professor Justice G.P. Singh, in Principles of Statutory
Interpretation, 14th Edition while dealing with enabling word says:

D “Ordinarily, the words ‘May’ and ‘It shall be lawful’ are not words
of compulsion. They are enabling words and they only confer
capacity, power or authority and imply discretion. “They are both
used in a statute to indicate that something may be done which
prior to it could not be done”. The use of words ‘Shall have power”
also connotes the same idea.”
E
159. The enabling powers give to the Tribunal under Rule 24 is
for purpose and object to decide the subjects which are to be examined,
decided andan appropriate relief is to be granted by the Tribunal.Further,
subjects contain wide range of subjects which require technical and
scientific inputs. The Tribunal can pass such orders as it may think fit
F necessary or expedient to secure ends of justice.
160. The object for which said power is given is not far to seek.
To fulfil objective of the NGT Act, 2010. NGT has to exercise a wide
range of jurisdiction and has to possess wide range of powers to do
justice in a given case. The power is given to exercise for the benefit of
G those who have right for clean environment which right they have to
establish before the Tribunal. The power given to the Tribunal is coupled
with duty to exercise such powers for achieving the objects. In this
regard reference is made to judgment of this Court in L. Hirday Narain
vs. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly, 1970(2)SCC 355,where this Court
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 417
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

was examining provision empowering authority to do something. This A
Court laid down in paragraph 14:
“14. The High Court observed that under Section 35 of the Indian
Income Tax. Act, 1922, the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer
is discretionary. If thereby it is intended that the Income Tax Officer
has discretion to exercise or not to exercise the power to rectify, B
that view is in our judgment erroneous. Section 35 enacts that the
Commissioner or Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Income
Tax Officer may rectify any mistake apparent from the record. If
a statute invests a public officer with authority to do an act in a
specified set of circumstances, it is imperative upon him to exercise
his authority in a manner appropriate to the case when a party C
interested and having a right to apply moves in that behalf and
circumstances for exercise of authority are shown to exist. Even
if the words used in the statute are prima facie enabling the Courts
will readily infer a duty to exercise power which is invested in aid
of enforcement of a right — public or private — of a citizen.” D
161. We, thus, are of the considered opinion that there is no lack
of jurisdiction in the NGT to direct for appointment of committee or to
obtain a report from a committee in given facts of the case.
162. Now coming to the challenge to the Fund which has been
constituted by the Tribunal, namely, “Meghalaya Environment E
Protection and Restoration Fund”, it is useful to notice the observation
of the Tribunal in its order dated March 25, 2015 by which the said Fund
was created. The reasons for constitution of Fund are self-explanatory
which are to the following effect:
“It is also undisputable that there has been huge environmental F
degradation and pollution of the waterbody in the State of
Meghalaya, because of this illegal, unscientific mining. No one
has even thought of restoration of the area in question, to bring to
some 16 extent, if not completely, restoration of ecology and
environment in question. Serious steps are required to be taken G
for cleaning polluted waterbodies and ensure that no further
pollution is caused by this activity and the activity which would be
permitted to be carried on finally including transportation of coal.
On the basis of `Polluter Pay Principle’. We direct that the State

H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A Government shall in addition to the royalty payable to it, shall also
collect 10% on the market value of the coal for every consignment.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
keeping in view the notifications of the Central Government dated
10.05.2012 and that of the State Government dated 22.06.2012,
we may notice that in the report of Comptroller and Auditor
B
General of India for the period ending 31st March, 2013 under
7.5.18 of Chapter 7 of which the invoice value of the coal has
been taken Rs. 4850/- per metric tonne. Thus, we direct that the
State Government shall in addition to the royalty payable to it, also
collect 10% of the said market value of the coal per metric tonne
C from each person. The amount so collected shall be deposited in
the account to be titled as ‘Meghalaya Environment Protection
and Restoration Fund’ to be maintained by the State under the
direct control of the Chief Secretary of the State of Meghalaya.
This amount shall only be used for restoration of environment and
D for necessary remedial and preventive measures in regard to environment
and matters related thereto”
163. As noticed above the NGT could have passed any order or
direction to secure ends of justice which power especially conferred by
Rule 24 as noticed above,direction to constitute Fund is thus also saved
E under such power.
Point No.11
164. In respect of constitution of committee by the Tribunal there
are two other limbs of submission; that,(1) NGT by constituting
committees has delegated essential judicial power to the committee; (2)
F the Constitution of committees encroaches the constitutional scheme of
administration of Tribal areas under Article 244(2) read with Sixth
Schedule of the Constitution.
165. The Tribunal vide its various directions has asked for reports
from State officials and the committees. The various instances where
G the NGT directed for report or investigation and submission of report by
committees were with the object of ensuring the implementation of the
orders passed by it and to decide the environmental issues raised before
it. In no manner constitution of committee can be said to be delegation
of essential judicial powers of the NGT to the committee.
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 419
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

166. Now, we come to the Katakey committee which was A
constituted by the Tribunal on 31.08.2018. In paragraphs 14 and 15, the
Tribunal while directing for constitution of committee headed by Justice
B.P. Katakey directed:
“14. Only last question which remains is of restoration of the
environment and rehabilitation of the victims for which funds are B
available. We are of the view that for this task, it will appropriate
that we constitute an independent Committee. This Committee
will be headed by Justice B.P. Katoki, Former Judge of the
Guwahati 8 Item Nos. 06 to 10 August 31, 2018 R High Court
with representatives from Central Pollution Control Board and
Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad. C

15. The Committee will take the following steps:
· Take stock of all actions taken so far in this regard.
· Prepare time bound action plan to deal with the issue and ensure
its implementation.” D
167. The Constitution of the committee and its functions entrusted
were with the object to implement the orders passed by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has already directed for preparing a scheme for the
restoration of the environment and ecology. The environment and
ecology restoration plan was submitted before the Tribunal along with E
the affidavit dated 03.10.2017 as has been noticed in the order dated
02.01.2018 of the NGT. In the constitution of Katakey committee, thus,
it cannot be said that essential judicial functions were delegated to the
committee by the Tribunal. For the restoration of environment NGT vide
its order dated 31.08.2018 has directed the committee to submit its F
action plan and reports by e-mail. The Tribunal, thus, had kept complete
control on all steps which were required to be taken by the committee
and issued directions from time to time. We, thus, do not accept the
submission of the appellant that the essential judicial powers of the NGT
had been delegated to the committee. Looking to the enormous work of
restoration of environment which has to be supervised on the spot the G
committee was constituted. We, however, observe that the State is
always at liberty to obtain particular direction if aggrieved by any act of
the committee. The matter being pending before the Tribunal of acts of
the committee are under direct control of the Tribunal and if the
H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A committee oversteps in any direction the same can very well be
corrected by the Tribunal on the matter being brought before it.
168. Now, we come to the second limb, that the constitution of
the committee encroaches the constitutional scheme of the Tribal areas.
We revert back to the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. Para 3 of the
B Sixth Schedule enumerates the powers of the District Council and
Regional Council to make laws.The powers of the District and Regional
Councils are enumerated under paragraph 3. In the directions of the
Tribunal to constitute committee for transportation of extracted minerals
or for preparing time bound action to deal with the restoration of
environment and to ensure its implementation, there is no interference in
C the powers of the District or Regional Councils. Action plan for
restoration of environment is consequence of Tribunal finding out that
an unregulated coal mining has damaged environment and has caused
the pollution including water pollution. It is not case of the appellant that
District and Regional Councils have framed any law for restoration of
D environment which is being breached by the committee or its acts. The
District and Regional Councils are free to exercise all their powers and
the committee constituted by the Tribunal is only concerned with the
Environmental degradation and illegal coal mining. The committees’
report or direction of the Tribunal in no manner encroaches upon the
administration of Tribal areas by the District and Regional Councils.
E
Point No.12
169. The NGT vide its order dated 04.01.2019 directed the State
of Meghalaya to deposit an amount of Rs.100 Crores with the Central
Pollution Control Board, which was to be spent for restoration of
F environment. The State of Meghalaya aggrieved by above direction has
filed Civil Appeal No.2968 of 2019. We have already noticed the
submission of Shri Amrendra Sharan, Senior Advocate.
170. Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned Amicus Curiae has refuted the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is
G submitted that despite the specific ban on coal mining by order dated
17.04.2014 in the entire State, illegal coal mining had been going on,
which was proved from the reports and pictures referred to in the
report. The State is responsible and constitutionally obligated to
provide clean environment to every citizen. They having entirely failed
to stop the illegal mining, which is cause of degradation of pollution
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 421
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

including pollution of river streams, the Tribunal has rightly directed the A
State of Meghalaya to deposit Rs.100 Crores. Shri Gonsalves submits
that in spite of State Pollution Control Board as well as Comptroller
Auditor General having invited the attention of the State of Meghalaya
towards serious pollution especially in the river water, no steps were
taken by the State of Meghalaya. It is further submitted that restoration
B
of environment requires carrying out various projects and unless the
State provides for necessary fund and finances, the restoration of dam-
aged environment cannot be undertaken. It is further submitted that
State had collected huge fund Rs.4,33,07,26,731/-, which amount had
not been spent by the State, although, it was required to take steps for
restoration of environment. C
171. The NGT vide its order dated 31.08.2018 constituted a com-
mittee headed by Justice B.P. Katakey, Former Judge of Gauhati High
Court with representatives from Central Pollution Control Board and
Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad. By subsequent order dated 19.09.2018
issued by the Tribunal, additional Chief Secretary to Government of D
Meghalaya was made the Member Secretary/Coordinator for proper
functioning of the committee. The committee visited different sites,
held various meetings, various presentations were also made before the
committee by Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board and other bod-
ies namely North Eastern Centre for Technology Application and Reach,
North Eastern Space Application Centre. In Para 12(g), following has E
been stated by the committee:-
“12(g) Presentation was also made by the Meghalaya State
Pollution Control Board on the coal mine activities and its impact
on the land used, water quality, air quality, ecology as well as
socio-economic impact. The Committee, on the basis of the said F
presentation, found the following:-
(i) Continuation of coal mine activities for a long time in an
unplanned and unscientific manner as well as without any
pollution control measures.
G
(ii) Such mining activities are generating huge ecological
disturbances and negative environmental impacts.
(iii) Water in rivers and streams in the mining areas have
become highly acidic in nature with pH value of 2.7 since
1991-92 due to presence of high percentage of sulphur in
H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A coal, which reacts after mixing with oxygen in air and
water giving rise to AMD problem. No difference of pH
level of water in rivers, streams and mine drains have been
noticed during monsoon.
(iv) pH level of water in springs, taps water and hand pumps
B also found to be less than permissible limit of drinking
water standards.
(v) Absence of biological life in the water bodies.
(vi) Ambient air quality of the coal mining areas and coal
storage areas exceeds the National Ambient Air Quality
C Standards on few occasions.
(vii) Requirement of urgent steps to be taken to generate social
awareness about the adverse environmental impacts and
the health hazards associated with unplanned and
unscientific coal mining activities.
D
172. Action plans for restoration of environment were also
discussed and finalised.
173. On detailed discussion on Issue No.(A), committee with
details including photographs and maps observed following:-
E “(vi) From the aforesaid materials available before the Committee,
it is, therefore, evident that the coal mining activities, which includes
the extraction of coal and transportation, is going on in the State
of Meghalaya, at least in East Jaintia Hills District, where such
mining activities are most, despite the ban imposed by the Hon’ble
NGT vide its order dated 17.04.2014. Very sincere and honest
F
efforts are required on the part of the State Government to stop
the mining activities, which are going on. Such mining activities
are going on without adopting any safety measures for the workers
and without caring for adverse environmental affect. A sincere
desire to stop such illegal mining activities is also necessary on
G the part of the State and Central Government agencies for
implementation and monitoring of health, safety and environmental
regulations.
(vii) The result of ongoing un-abetted illegal mining, despite the
ban imposed by the NGT, is the very tragic incident occurred
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 423
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

very recently on 13.12.2018 in a coal mine in Ksan Village near A
Lytein River under Saipung Police Station in East Jaintia Hills
District, where 15(fifteen) coal mine workers are reported trapped,
while they were working in the mine. Unfortunately, none of them
so far could be rescued. For the said incident, Saipung Police
Station Case No.15(12)/2018 under Section 188/304A/34 IPC read
B
with Section 3(2)(d) of PDPP Act and Section 21(1) of MM(R&D)
Act against the coal mine owner has been registered. A Magisterial
enquiry to find out the facts and circumstances leading to the said
incident, has also been directed.”
174. The fact that on 13.12.2018, 15 coal mine workers were
trapped in an ongoing coal mining operation, who all have been reported C
to be dead itself proves beyond any shade of doubt that order dated
17.04.2014 banningmining in the entire State of Meghalaya was neither
been enforced nor serious endeavours were taken by the State or its
authorities to save the environmental pollution. With regard to
restoration of the environment and restoration of the victims, action plans D
were formulated by the committee.
175. The first submission raised by Shri Amrendra Sharan
challenging the order is violation of principles of natural justice. The
report dated 31.12.2018 of the committee itself in issue No. f(iv)
noticed: - E
“Website has been opened and all the proceedings of the
Committee are uploaded in the said website.”
176. The report being placed on website on 31.12.2018 itself, there
is no question of serving copy of the report of the committee to the
Stakeholders. It is further relevant to notice that Additional Chief F
Secretary of the Government of Meghalaya was himself the Member
Secretary and Coordinator of the committee under the orders of the
Tribunal dated 19.09.2018. All proceedings of the committee, its
meetings and minutes, were with the knowledge and participation of the
coordinator/ Additional Chief Secretary of the State of Meghalaya. G
177. A perusal of the order dated 04.01.2019, which is impugned
in the appeal indicates that although learned counsel for the State of
Meghalaya was present and was heard but no kind of objection was
raised regarding acceptability of the report. The report obtained by the
H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A NGT through the committee was to take effective steps towards
protection of environmental pollution and for restoration of damaged
environment. Pollution of the various rivers and streams and steps for
treating the acidic water was urgently required. Several presentations
before the committee were also made and different steps regarding
restoration of environment were to be taken as noticed and indicated in
B
the report of the committee. As noticed above, the NGT vide its order
dated 25.03.2015 constituted a fund namely ‘Meghalaya Environment
Protection and Restoration Fund’ to be maintained by the State under
the direct control of the Chief Secretary of the State of Meghalaya. It is
reiterated in the report of the committee that an amount of Rs.433 Crores
C is already lying in the said fund, which has not been spent.
178. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much emphasis
that there had been no calculation of the extent of damage nor Tribunal
could have arrived at on the amount of damages to the extent of Rs.100
Crores, which was directed to be deposited by the State of Meghalaya
D with the Central Pollution Control Board.
179. We are of the view that the amount, which has been directed
by NGT to be deposited by State of Meghalaya is neither a penalty nor
a fine imposed on the State. The amount has been directed to be
deposited for carrying out steps regarding restoration of environment.
E We further agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the said amount cannot be said to be amount of damages
to be paid by the State. We further find force in the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant that State of Meghalaya has very
limited source of revenue and putting an extra burden on the State of
Meghalaya to make payment of Rs.100 Crores from its own financial
F resources and budgetary amount may cause great hardship to the State
of Meghalaya. Ends of justice be served in modifying the direction of
NGT dated 04.01.2019 to the extent that State is permitted to transfer
an amount of Rs.100 Crores from the amount lying in the MEPRF to the
Central Pollution Control Board. The Central Pollution Control Board
G as directed by the Tribunal (NGT) shall utilise the aforesaid amount of
Rs.100 Crores only for restoration of the environment. The appeal is
thus, partly allowed to the above extent.
Point No.13
180. Vide order dated 31.03.2016, the NGT had permitted
H transportation of coal till 15.5.2016 under terms and conditions as
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 425
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

enumerated therein. The order dated 31.3.2016 further contemplated A
that no coal in any form whatsoever shall be permitted to be transported
after 15.05.2016 on which date the entire remaining coal shall vest in the
State Government and shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
181. The main grievance of the appellant is that NGT could not
have directed for vesting of coal in the State. The submission is that B
members of the appellant-association have proprietary rights in the coal
with which they could not be divested by the Tribunal. We have already
held that private owners of the land are also owners of the minerals and
the minerals belong to the owners/Tribals. We have also found that coal
mining was illegally going on unregulated by any statutory law in the
Hills District of State of Meghalaya without there being any mining lease. C
The entire mining was, thus, is clear in contravention of Section 4(1) of
Act, 1957 which attracted penalties under Section 21. Section 21 of the
Act is as follows:
“21. Penalties.¯(1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-
section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable D
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and
with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the
area.
(2) Any rule made under any provision of this Act may provide
that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with E
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with
fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both, and in the
case of a continuing contravention, with additional fine which may
extend to fifty thousand rupees for every day during which such
contravention continues after conviction for the first such F
contravention.
(3) Where any person trespasses into any land in contravention
of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4, such trespasser
may be served with an order of eviction by the State Government
or any authority authorised in this behalf by that Government and G
the State Government or such authorised authority may, if
necessary, obtain the help of the police to evict the trespasser
from the land.
(4) Whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised
or transported, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any
H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A land, and, for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or
any other thing, such mineral tool, equipment, vehicle or any other
thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially
empowered in this behalf. (4A) Any mineral, tool, equipment,
vehicle or any other thing seized under sub-section (4), shall be
liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take
B
cognizance of the offence under sub-section (1) and shall be
disposed of in accordance with the directions of such court.
(5) Whenever any person raises, without any lawful authority,
any mineral from any land, the State Government may recover
from such person the mineral so raised, or, where such mineral
C has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also
recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may
be, for the period during which the land was occupied by such
person without any lawful authority.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
D Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence under sub-section (1)
shall be cognizable.”
182. The mining of coal in contravention of Section 4(1) invites
penalties as enumerated in Section 21. The present is not a case where
any kind of penalty has been imposed on the miners except that the
E amount of royalty as payable on mining of coal is being collected by the
State as penalty. It is true that the State Government has power under
Section 21(5) to recover from such person the minerals so raised, or,
where such material has already been disposed of, the price thereof,
and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case
F may be, but it is for the State Government to exercise its power under
Section 21(5) by way of penalty. The NGT has not given any reason as
to how coal shall automatically vest in the State. The right of recovery
of mineral as contemplated under Section 21(5) does not amount to say
that proprietary right of owner of the minerals is lost rather State under
Section 21(5) exercises its power to recover the mineral which has been
G raised without any lawful authority. We, thus, are of the view that coal
extracted and lying in open after 15.05.2016 was not automatically vested
in the State and the owner of the coal or the person who has mined the
coal shall have the proprietary right in the mineral which shall not be
lost.
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 427
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Point No.14 A
183. Several I.A.s have been filed by different applicants seeking
direction to transport already extracted coal lying at different places in
hills districts of State of Meghalaya. Different applicants may claim to
different quantities of coal situate at different places. By our order
dated 10.05.2019, we have already permitted transportation of balance B
coal to the extent of 75050 MTs for which challans were already issued
after the order of this Court dated 04.12.2018. The above quantity of
said 75050 MTs. was balance quantity out of 176655 Mts., for
transportation of which order was passed by this Court on 04.12.2018.
In addition to the aforesaid quantity, claim with regard to different
quantities by different applicants has been laid. It is not necessary for C
the purpose of the present case to notice different quantities and claims
of different persons for transportation. After the order of the NGT
dated 31.08.2018, the State of Meghalaya has constituted committees to
assist the Commissioner and Secretary, Mining and Geology to prepare
a separate inventory with regard to coal not so far recorded in the D
inventory available with the NGT. In pursuance of said direction, as
contained in paragraph No.13 of the order, steps were taken and various
committees had made certain assessments with regard to different
quantities of coal lying in four HillsDistricts of State of Meghalaya.
Katakey committee Report dated 31.12.2018 has in chart noticed the
different quantities as was informed by letter dated 13.11.2018 to E
Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya. While
dealing with issue No.3, in paragraph Nos.(iii), (iv) and (v), following
has been stated:-
“(iii) The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of
Meghalaya, Mining & Geology Department, in the ATR submitted F
on 13.11.2018 has stated about the availability of 176655 MTs of
already inventorised coal for transportation, which has also been
reflected in the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The Commissioner & Secretary, in the said
ATR, has also stated that 23,25,663.54 MTs of coal, other G
than those inventorized coal, remained un-inventorized and
available for transportation, district-wise break up of which is as
follows:-

H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A “REPORT ON EXTRACTED COAL REFLECTED AS
UN-ASSESSED OR NIL IN THE INVENTORY
APPROVED BY NGT

Sl. "ame of Declared Quantity in MT Assessed Quantity in
"o. District MT
B 1. East Jaintia 15,46,687.00 13,22,379.00
Hills District
2. West Khasi 7,29,757.00 7,78,297.99
Hills District
3. South-West 1,25,600.63 2,14,145.55
Khasi Hills
C District
4. South Garo 12,834.00 10,841.00
Hills District
Total 24,14,878.63 23,25,663.54”

(iv) From the aforesaid District wise break up of extracted coal,
which was un-inventorised, it appears that the quantity of such
D coal was highest in East Jaintia Hills District, where the Deputy
Commissioner, as noticed above, has admitted ongoing coal mining
activities despite the ban imposed by the Hon’ble NGT vide order
dated 17.04.2014. The stand of the Government that the quantity
of coal, as reflected in the aforesaid chart were mined prior to the
E said ban, appears to be not acceptable, in view of the aforesaid
admission of the Deputy Commissioner and also what the
Committee has noticed during its field visit on 12.11.2018. It seems
that there is an attempt to show the freshly mined coal, i.e. the
coal mined after the ban imposed by the Hon’ble NGT, as the
coal left out from the assessment and remained un-inventorised
F though mined prior to the said ban. The Committee also apprehends
that such freshly mined coal may be transported taking advantage
of the order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
(v) The Hon’ble NGT vide its order dated 31.08.2018 given the
G responsibility of going through the said issue to the Secretary of
Mining, State of Meghalaya in the first instance and to be
cross-checked by the Joint Team of representatives of the Central
Pollution Control Board and India School of Mines, Dhanbad. As
reported, no such cross-check has so far been made.”
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 429
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

184. The State of Meghalaya has filed additional affidavit dated A
06.04.2019 of Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of
Meghalaya, Mining and Geology Department, where details of
assessments made by committees appointed by the State of Meghalaya
has been brought on the record. In the affidavit, it has also been stated
that a technical committee was also constituted to perform the
B
verification of the assessments made by the Deputy Commissioners of
respective districts. As per the affidavit, assessment of extracted coal
stocks in above four districts is 32,56,715 MTs whereas in the report
submitted by Katakey committee, the said figure in the above four
districts is 23,25,663.54 MTs. Technical committee submitted their
report, which have been brought on the record alongwith the Additional C
Affidavit verifying the assessed quantities. In the affidavit of the
Commissioner and Secretary, it has also been sated that the technical
committees have submitted that it is difficult to define with certainty that
which coal was mined prior to ban in 2014 and mined after 2014. From
the above it is clear that the State Government itself has come with a
D
case that huge quantity of coal in the four hills districts, which has been
extracted is lying waiting for orders of transportation. Learned Amicus
Curiae and Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel have refuted the
claim made by the applicants as well as the State of Meghalaya. It is
submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that in fact State is not making any
effort to stop the illegal mining, in spite of the ban of 17.04.2014, illegal E
mining of coal has been permitted and now such illegal mined coal has
also been assessed and State also supports the claim of transportation of
the applicants on the guise that coal lying in open is an environmental
hazard.
185. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for F
private respondents in C.A. No.5272 of 2016 has submitted that the
State auctioned coal on a meagre price, whereas market rate of the coal
is approximately Rs.10,000/- per MT. In the present case, we have
noticed that illegal coal mining is going on in spite of ban by NGT by its
order dated 17.04.2014. The Katakey committee report has also opined
that all the extracted coal lying in different districts is a coal, which has G
been illegally mined after the imposition of ban by the order dated
17.04.2014. All coals being illegally mined, the State is fully entitled to
impose a penalty, i.e., to realise the royalty and the amount of MEPR
Fund. The coal being major mineral and useful for different industries
H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A and projects, appropriate disposal of extracted coal is also of a
paramount importance.
186. We accept the suggestion of learned Amicus Curiae that
entire extracted coal lying at various places be directed to be taken over
by Coal India Ltd, a Government of India unit, who may dispose of the
B same as per its normal method of disposal and proceeds be distributed
as per directions issued by this Court hereinafter. The NGT has already
directed that for all extracted coal lying at different places, it is the State,
which is the receiver-cum-custodian of the coal. The State having car-
ried out the assessment of the coal lying in the aforesaid four districts
including the details of the quantities and the details of owners being
C available with it, it may ensure that the entire coal are handed over to the
Coal India Ltd., as per the mode and manner to be formulated by Katakey
Committee, in consultation with officers of the Coal India Ltd. and State
of Meghalaya.
187. The Katakey committee and its various members and
D participants have done a commendable job in studying and examining
various aspects of environment in the State of Meghalaya and several
valuable suggestions have been given by the committee, which are also
being implemented to mitigate the suffering of the citizens consequent to
the illegal coal mined.
E 188. We direct that Commissioner and Secretary of the State in
the Department of Mining and Geology alongwith the officers of Coal
India Ltd. may deliberate with the Katakey committee to finalise a com-
prehensive plan for transportation and handing over of the coal to Coal
India Ltd. for disposal/auction as per rules of Coal India Ltd. Disposal/
F auction by Coal India Ltd. shall be beneficial to both the owners of the
mines as well as to the State of Meghalaya. Receiving fair value of the
coal should be a concern of both the owners and State. It is for the Coal
India Ltd. to decide as to venue, where they shall receive the coal, i.e.,
either at any of its depot or any other place in State of Meghalaya and it
is for the Coal India Ltd. to finalise the process of disposal and auction
G of the coal. It goes without saying that it shall be the duty of the State of
Meghalaya and its officers especially Deputy Commissioner of the area
concerned to enter details of quantity of the coal, name of the owner
and place from where it is collected. Coal India Ltd. shall also take
steps to ensure weighment of the coal when it is received by it and since
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 431
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

all consequent steps regarding disposal, price grade of the coal shall be A
determined as per the weight of the coal received by the Coal India Ltd.
from different places. The expenses of transportation shall be borne by
the State of Meghalaya, Coal India Ltd. or by both, which expenses
shall be deductible from the price received of the coal. The State of
Meghalaya shall be entitled to royalty and payment towards MERP Fund
B
as well as taxes out of the price of the coal. After deduction of cost of
transportation, the payment of royalty and payment to MERP fund and
taxes plus 10% of value of the coal to be given to Coal India Ltd. for the
above exercise,balance amount shall be disbursed to the owner of the
coal towards its price, which disbursement shall be the responsibility of
the State. The Coal India Ltd. after taking its expenses for C
transportation with 10% of price of the coal shall remit the entire amount
to the State and it is for the State after deducting the royalty and
payment to the MERP Fund and taxes to pay back the balance of the
amount to the owner.
189. Another aspect of the matter is also to be noticed. The coal, D
which has been seized by the State in illegal transportation or illegal
mining for which different cases have been registered by the State, is
not to be dealt with as directed above. The said seized coal shall be
dealt by the State in accordance with Section 21 of the Act, 1957 and on
being satisfied, the State can take a decision to recover the entire
quantity of coal so illegally raised without lawful authority and the said E
cases has to be separately dealt with in accordance with law.
190. We, thus, are of the view that all I.A.s filed by different
applicants seeking order of transportation of the different quantities stand
disposed of in view of the directions as given above. Let the Katakey
committee in consultation with State of Meghalaya and officers of Coal F
India Ltd. finalise appropriate mode and manner to affect the transport
and disposal of the coal in the above manner.
Conclusions: -
191. From the foregoing discussions we arrived at following G
conclusions:-
1) The application O.A.No.73 of 2014 has clearly made out
allegations which were sufficient for the Tribunal to
exercise its jurisdiction as conferred by Section 14 of the
H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Both the component as
appearing in sub-section 1 of Section 14 that is (i) substantial
question relating to environment and (ii) such question arises
out of the implementation of the enactments specified in
Schedule I, were present.
B 2) The allegations of the applicant of O.A.No.73 of 2014 of
environmental degradation by illegal and unregulated coal
mining were fully proved from materials on the record
including the report of the experts, report of the Meghalaya
State Pollution Control Board, the report of Katakey
committee, which all proved environmental degradation of
C water, air and surface.
3) The stand taken on behalf of the State of Meghalaya before
this Court that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction cannot be
approved. The State Government is under constitutional
obligation to ensure clean environment to all its citizens. In
D cases pertaining to environmental matter, the State has to
act as facilitator and not as obstructionist.
4) According to the land tenure system as applicable in the Hills
Districts of State of Meghalaya, the most of the lands are
either privately or community owned in which State does
E not claim any right. The private owners of the land as well
as community owners have both the surface right as well as
sub-soil rights.
5) Para 12A sub-clause (b) of Sixth Schedule of the
Constitution empowers that the President may, with respect
F to any Act of Parliament, by notification, direct that it shall
not apply to an autonomous district or an autonomous region
in the State of Meghalaya, or shall apply to such district or
region or any part thereof subject to such exceptions or
modifications as he may specify in the notification. No
G notification has been issued by the President under Section
12A(b). There is nothing in Sixth Schedule of the
Constitution which may indicate about the inapplicability of
Act, 1957 with regard to the Hills Districts of State of
Meghalaya.

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 433
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

6) There is nothing in Section 4(1) of 1957 Act to indicate that A
restriction contained in Section 4(1) does not apply with
regard to privately owned/community owned land in Hills
Districts of Meghalaya. Further, word ‘any area’ under
Section 4(1) also has significance which does not have any
exception. Further phrase “except under and in accordance
B
with terms and condition with a mining lease granted under
the Act” are also significant which make the intent and
purpose of prohibition clear and loud.
7) The statutory scheme delineated by Section 13(2)(f) and the
Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960 clearly contemplate grant
of mining lease, with regard to both the categories of land, C
i.e., land in which minerals vest in the Government, and the
land in which minerals vest in a person other than the
Government.
8) The Mines Act, 1952 contains various provisions regarding
inspection of mining operation and management of mines. D
The provisions of The Mines Act, 1952 are mandatory to be
followed before working a mine. The regulations namely Coal
Mines Regulations, 2017 also contains several regulatory
provisions which need to be followed while working a mine
by a mining lease holder. The enforcement of Mines Act, E
1952 and the Regulations, 2017 have to be ensured by the
State in the public interest.
9) As per statutory regime brought in force by notification dated
15.01.2016 issued under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,
environmental clearance is required for a project of coal for F
mining of any extent of area. While implementing statutory
regime for carrying mining operations in the Hills Districts
of the State of Meghalaya, the State of Meghalaya has to
ensure compliance of not only MMDR Act, 1957 but Mines
Act, 1952 as well as Environment (Protection)Act, 1986.
G
10) In Hill District of State of Meghalaya for carrying coal
mining operations in privately owned/community owned land
it is not the State Government which shall grant the mining

H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A lease under Chapter V of Rules, 1960, but it is the private
owner/community owner of the land, who is also the owner
of the mineral, who shall grant lease for mining of coal as
per provisions of Chapter V of Rules, 1960 after obtaining
previous approval of the Central Government through the
State Government.
B
11) The State of Meghalaya has ample power and jurisdiction
under the Act, 1957 and Rules, 1960 to check, control and
prohibit coal mining operations in Hill Districts of State of
Meghalaya.
C 12) The Union having made declaration by Section 2 of 1957 Act
taking under its control regulation and development of
mineral, the power of Autonomous District Council to
legislate on the subject shall also be denuded as that of the
State Legislature.

D 13) In event the mining is carried out by a mining lease holder as
per the provisions of Act, 1957 and Rules, 1960 with an
approved mining plan there can be no objections in carrying
of such mining operations under the regulation and control
of the State of Meghalaya. We clarify that in event mining
operations are undertaken in privately owned/community
E owned land in Hills Districts of Meghalaya in accordance
with mining lease with approved mining plan as per Act, 1957
and Mineral Concessions Rule, 1960, the ban order dated
17.04.2014 of the tribunal of the NGT shall not come in way
of carrying mining operations.
F 14) Under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code, a
Court can appoint commission for scientific investigation.
The power which can be exercised by a Court under Order
26 Rule 10A of CPC can very well be exercised by the NGT
also. The NGT while asking expert to give a report is not
G confined to the four corners of Rule 10A and its jurisdiction
is not shackled by strict terms of Order 21 Rule 10A by
virtue of 19(1) of the NGT Act.
15) Rule 24 of National Green Tribunal (Practice and
Procedure) Rules, 2011 empowers the Tribunal to make such
H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 435
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

orders or give such directions as may be necessary or A
expedient to give effect to its order or to secure the ends of
justice. The power given to the Tribunal is coupled with duty
to exercise such powers for achieving the objects. There is
no lack of jurisdiction in NGT in directing for appointment of
a committee and to obtain a report from a Committee.
B
16) The direction to constitute a fund namely “Meghalaya
Environment Protection and Restoration Fund”, is also saved
under the above power.
17) NGT by directing for constitution of committee has not
delegated essential judicial functions. The Tribunal had kept C
complete control on all steps which were required to be taken
by the committees and has issued directions from time to
time. The State is always at liberty to obtain appropriate
directions if aggrieved by any act of the committee. The
matter being pending before the Tribunal all acts of the
committee are under direct control of the Tribunal and if the D
committee oversteps in any direction the same can very well
be corrected by the Tribunal on the matter being brought
before it.
18) NGT by issuing direction to constitute the committee for
transportation of the extracting mineral, for preparing time E
bound action plan to deal with the restoration of
environment and to ensure its implementation does not in
any manner interfere with the powers of the District or
Regional Councils. The District and Regional Councils are
free to exercise all their powers and committee constituted F
by the Tribunal is only concerned with the Environmental
degradation and illegal coal mining. The committees report
or direction of the Tribunal in no manner encroaches upon
the administration of Tribal areas by the District and
Regional Councils.
G
19) The amount which has been directed by NGT to be deposited
by State of Meghalaya is neither a penalty nor a fine
imposed on the State of Meghalaya. We accept the
submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that State

H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A of Meghalaya has very limited source of finances and
putting an extra burden on the State of Meghalaya to make
payment of Rs. 100 Crores from its own financial resources
may cause great hardship to the State of Meghalaya. Ends
of justice be served in modifying the direction of NGT dated
04.01.2019 to the extent that State is permitted to transfer
B
an amount of Rs. 100 Crores from the amount lying in the
MEPRF to the Central Pollution Control Board. The Central
Pollution Control Board as directed by the Tribunal shall
utilize the aforesaid amount of Rs.100 Crores only for
restoration of the environment in the State of Meghalaya.
C 20) The coal extracted and lying in open after 15.05.2016 does
not automatically vest in the State of Meghalaya and the
owner of the coal or the person who has mined the coal shall
have the proprietary right in the mineral which shall not be
lost.
D 21) The suggestion of learned Amicus Curiae that entire
extracted coal lying at various places in hills districts of
Meghalaya be directed to be taken over by Coal India Ltd.
is accepted. The Coal India Ltd. may dispose of the same as
per its normal method of disposal and proceeds be dealt with
E as per directions issued.
22) The State having carried out the assessment of the coal lying
in the aforesaid four districts including the details of the
quantities and the details of owners being available with it, it
may ensure that entire coal is handed over to the Coal India
F Ltd., as per the mode and manner to be formulated by
Katakey Committee in consultation with officers of the Coal
India Ltd. and the State of Meghalaya.
23) It is for Coal India Ltd. to decide as to venue, where they shall
receive the coal, i.e., either at any of its depot or any other
G place in the State of Meghalaya and it is for the Coal India
Ltd. to finalise the process of disposal and auction of the
coal. It shall be the duty of the State of Meghalaya and its
officers especially Deputy Commissioner of the area
concerned to enter details of quantity of the coal, name of

H
STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, 437
DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

the owner and place from where it is collected. All A
concerned shall take steps to ensure weighment of the coal
when it is received by Coal India Ltd.
24) The expenses of transportation shall be borne by the State of
Meghalaya, Coal India Ltd. or by both, which expenses shall
be deductible from the price received of the coal. The State B
of Meghalaya shall be entitled to royalty and payment
towards MERP Fund as well as taxes out of the price of the
coal. After deducting its expenses for transportation with
10% of price of the coal, the Coal India Ltd. shall remit the
balance amount to the State and it is for the State after
deducting the royalty and payment to the MERP Fund and C
taxes to pay back balance the amount to the owner.
25) The coal which has been seized by the State in illegal
transportation and illegal mining for which different cases
have been registered by the State, is not to be dealt with as
directed above. The seized coal shall be dealt by the State in D
accordance with Section 21 of the Act, 1957 and on being
satisfied, the State can take a decision to recover the entire
quantity of coal so illegally raised without lawful authority.
192. In view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions, all these
appeals are decided in the following manner: - E

1) Civil Appeal No. 10720 of 2018, Civil Appeal No. 10611 of
2018, Civil Appeal No. 10907 of 2018 and Civil Appeal
No.5295 of 2019 (arising out of Civil Appeal Diary No. 3067
of 2018) are dismissed subject to declaration and
clarification of law as made above. F
2) Civil Appeal No. 5272 of 2016 is allowed setting aside the
order of NGT dated 31.03.2016 to the extent it declared that
all extracted coal after 15.05.2016 shall vest in the State of
Meghalaya.
G
3) Civil Appeal No. 2968 of 2019 is partly allowed permitting
the State of Meghalaya to transfer the amount of Rs.100
Crores to Central Pollution Control Board from the
Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund

H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A which amount shall be used by Central Pollution Control
Board only for restoration of Environment.
4) All I.As. seeking direction for transportation of coal are
disposed of directing: -
i) All extracted coal as assessed by State of Meghalaya lying
B in different districts of State of Meghalaya which as per
order of NGT is in custody of State of Meghalaya shall be
handed over to Coal India Ltd. for proper disposal.
ii) The Katakey Committee after discussion with Coal India
Ltd. and State of Meghalaya shall formulate a mechanism
C for transport, weighment of all assessed coal.
iii) The Coal India Ltd. shall auction the coal so received by it as
per its best judgment and remit the proceed to State to the
extent as directed above.

D iv) All coal seized by the State for which cases have already
been registered shall be dealt by the State in accordance
with Section 21 of 1957 Act.
193. Before we close, we record our appreciation for valuable
assistance rendered by learned counsel for the parties which enable us
to decide several important issues in these appeals. We also record our
E
appreciation for assistance rendered by learned Amicus Curiae Shri Colin
Gonsalves, Senior Advocate.

Devika Gujral Appeals disposed of.
F

G

H