Karnataka High Court
Jsw Steel Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO. 15264 OF 2025 (GM-FOR)
C/W.
WRIT PETITION NO. 19712 OF 2025 (GM-FOR)
WRIT PETITION NO. 19744 OF 2025 (GM-FOR)
IN WRIT PETITION NO.15264 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
JSW STEEL LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
JSW CENTRE, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX
BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400 051
MAHARASHTRA
AND HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT
6TH FLOOR, EAST WING
RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE/
GENERAL MANAGER-LEGAL
MR. ASHISHKUMAR S. NAIR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ADITYA NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENT
-
2
AND ECOLOGY
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
ROOM No.431, 4TH FLOOR
GATE No.2, M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
No.49, SOUTH BLOCK
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FOREST
HEAD OF FOREST FORCE
ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003
4. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
CHITRADURGA
V.P. LAYOUT
CHITRADURGA
KARNATAKA-577 501
5. RANGE FOREST OFFICER
V.P. LAYOUT
CHITRADURGA
KARNATAKA-577 501
6. DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER
HOLALKERE RANGE
CHITRADURGA-577 501
7. VEDANTA LTD.
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SESA GOA AND
SESA STERLITE)
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
-
3
INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
REGISTERED OFFICE ON THE
1ST FLOOR, 'C' WING, UNIT 103
CORPORATE AVENUE
ATUL PROJECTS, CHAKALA
ANDHERI (EAST)
MUMBAI-400 093
MAHARASHTRA, INDIA
OFFICE AT MEGALAHALLY OFFICE COMPLEX
MEGALAHALLY VILLAGE
HIREGUNTANUR HOBLI
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND
DISTRICT-577 520
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
8. MR. R. PRAVIN CHANDRA
7TH B MAIN, 4TH BLOCK
JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 041
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BHANUPRAKASH B.G., AAG FOR
SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R7 & R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (a) A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION, MANDATING THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE/TAKE
NECESSARY STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THE PETITIONER IS
PROVIDED UNRESTRICTED UTILIZATION OF THE APPROACH
ROAD MARKED AT POINT B TO F IN THE MAP (ANNEXURE E
SUPRA) - INCLUDING THE PORTION THEREOF PASSING
THROUGH INTER ALIA THE APPROVED MINING AREA OF THE
RESPONDENT No.7 (FROM GATE-2 TO GATE-1 MARKED AS POINT
C TO POINT D IN THE MAP AT ANNEXURE E SUPRA) AND THE
APPROACH ROAD TO THE LEASE OF THE RESPONDENT No.8
(POINT E TO POINT F IN THE MAP AT ANNEXURE E, SUPRA) - AS
PER PERMISSION GRANTED BY RESPONDENT No.1 VIDE LETTER
DATED 28.02.2025 (ANNEXURE P SUPRA) AND ETC.
-
4
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 19712 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
SRI. R. PRAVEEN CHANDRA
S/O LATE SRI. E. RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
No.4006, "ERM HOUSE"
K.R. ROAD, BANASHANKARI II STAGE
BENGALURU-560 070
M: 8026655930/8069013370
[email protected]
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE)
ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS
MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003
EMAIL: [email protected]
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS (FOREST CONSERVATION)
AND NODAL OFFICER (FCA)
ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS
MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003
EMAIL: [email protected]
-
5
4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
CHITRADURGA DIVISION
V.P. LAYOUT
CHITRADURGA-577 501
EMAIL: [email protected]
5. RANGE FOREST OFFICER
HOLALKERE RANGE
HOLALKERE-577 526
EMAIL: [email protected]
6. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA-577 001
8. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST
AND CLIMATE CHANGE
(FOREST CONSERVATION DIVISION)
INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN
JOR BAGH, ALIGANJ
NEW DELHI-110 003
9. JSW STEEL LIMITED
(COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
JSW CENTRE, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX
BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400 051
AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT
6TH FLOOR, EAST WING, RAHEJA TOWERS
M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BHANUPRAKASH B.G., AAG FOR
MRS. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R7;
-
6
SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH, ASG A/W
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, CGC FOR R8;
SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ADITYA NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (i) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER/COMMUNICATION DATED
28.02.2025, BEARING No.FEE 61 FFO 2024 (E) ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-'A', AND THE LETTER DATED
13.03.2025, BEARING No.A6/FC/JSW/Sasalu/Road/2025-26/4919
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT-DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF
FORESTS TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT - RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
VIDE ANNEXURE-'A2' AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO
AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 19744 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
VEDANTA LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SESA STERLITE LIMITED
AND SESA GOA LIMITED)
REGD. OFFICE AT: 1ST FLOOR
'C' WING, UNIT 103
CORPORATE AVENUE, ATUL PROJECTS
CHAKALA, ANDHERI (EAST)
MUMBAI-400 093
MAHARASHTRA
REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
MR. NARAYANA M.P.
HEAD-CORPORATE AFFAIRS-
IRON ORE KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
M: 8194238100
EMAIL: NIL
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
-
7
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE)
ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003
EMAIL: [email protected]
3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS (FOREST CONSERVATION)
AND NODAL OFFICER (FCA)
ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS
MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003
EMAIL: [email protected]
4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
CHITRADURGA DIVISION
V.P. LAYOUT
CHITRADURGA-577 501
EMAIL: [email protected]
5. RANGE FOREST OFFICER
HOLALKERE RANGE
HOLALKERE-577 526
EMAIL: [email protected]
6. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
7. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
-
8
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE
(FOREST CONSERVATION DIVISION)
INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN
JOR BAGH, ALIGANJ
NEW DELHI-110 003
8. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF MINES
DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD
SHASTRI BHAVAN
NEW DELHI-110 001
9. THE CONTROLLER OF MINES (S.Z.)
INDIAN BUREAU OF MINES
MINISTRY OF MINES
No.29, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
2ND STAGE, TUMAKURU ROAD
GORAGUNTEPALYA, YESHWANTHAPUR
BENGALURU-560 022
10 . THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF MINES SAFETY
(SOUTH ZONE), 7TH FLOOR
SIR M. VISVESVARAYA KENDRIYA BHAVAN
1ST STAGE, NEAR DOMLUR FLYOVER
BENGALURU-560 071
EMAIL: [email protected]
11 . JSW STEEL LIMITED
(COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
JSW CENTRE, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX
BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400 051
AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT
6TH FLOOR, EAST WING
RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BHANUPRAKASH B.G., AAG FOR
-
9
SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH, ASG A/W.
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, CGC FOR R7 TO R10;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ADITYA NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R11)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (i) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER / COMMUNICATION DATED
28.02.2025 BEARING No.FEE 61 FFM 2024 (E) ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-'A' THE COMMUNICATION /
LETTER DATED 09.03.2025 BEARING No.KFD/HOFF/A5-
ND
1(MNG)/432/2023-FC ADDRESSED BY THE 2 RESPONDENT-
PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (HEAD OF FOREST
FORCE) TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT-DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF
FORESTS VIDE ANNEXURE-'A1' THE COMMUNICATION DATED
21.04.2025 BEARING No.A6/FC/JSW/SASALU/ROAD/ CR/2024-
25/130, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT - DEPUTY
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND ADDRESSED TO THE
PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-'A2' AND THE NOTICE DATED
26.06.2025 BEARING No.VA.A.A/HO.VA/ M/S. VEDNATA/2025-
26/180, ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT - RFO TO THE
PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-'A4' AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS THERETO AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
-
10
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) The question which requires consideration of this Court in these Writ Petitions is regarding the validity of a Government Order dated 28.02.2025. Writ Petition No.15264/2025 is filed seeking implementation and enforcement of the order dated 28.02.2025, while Writ Petitions No.19744/2025 and 19712/2025 are filed challenging the same. By virtue of the said order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure - 'A'), the Government allowed M/s. JSW Steel Limited (writ petitioner in W.P.No.15264/2025) to use the existing approach roads from its mining area (Bomman Mines) to Sasalu Railway Siding, passing through the mining area of M/s. Vedanta Limited (formerly known as SESA Sterlite Limited and SESA Goa Limited) to the extent of 2.025 hectares and the other portion of the roads used by M/s. Vedanta Limited as well as R. Praveen Chandra (writ petitioner in W.P.No.19712/2025) located in the forest area, however with certain conditions.
-
11
2. We have heard Shri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Aditya Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners (that is, M/s JSW Steel Limited) in W.P.No.15264/2025 and Shri. K.G.Raghavan, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Aditya Narayan appearing for the private respondent (that is, M/s JSW Steel Limited) in W.P.No.19712/2025 and W.P.No.19744/2025. Shri. K. N. Phanindra, learned senior counsel as instructed by Mrs. Vaishali Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners (that is, M/s Vedanta Limited) in W.P.No.19712/2025 and W.P.No.19744/2025. Shri. Bhanuprakash B.G, learned Additional Advocate General as instructed by Mrs. Swetha Krishnappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Official Respondents, Shri. Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General along with Shri. Shivakumar, learned Central Government Counsel for Union of India and for Director and Controller of Mines.
3. It is contended by Shri. K. N. Phanindra, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in
-
12 W.P.No.19712/2025 and W.P.No.19744/2025 (that is, M/s. Vedanta Limited and Shri. R. Praveen Chandra) that the impugned order/communication dated 28.02.2025 at Annexure 'A' is in gross violation of principles of natural justice, as it was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing and without considering the petitioner's detailed representations and objections. It is also contrary to the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, The Mine Act, 1952, Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017, Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 ('Mineral Concession Rules, 2016' for short), as well as in violation of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 154.
4. Despite the petitioner repeatedly pointing out the Apex Court's directions mandating that mining and transportation operations have to strictly conform to the Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plan ('R & R Plan' for short)
-
13 prepared by the Indian Council for Forestry Research and Education ('ICFRE' for short) and approved by the Central Empowered Committee ('CEC' for short), neither the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests ('PCCF' for short) nor the State Government considered or even referred to these objections while passing the order. Respondents No.1 to 4 failed to consider that the terms and conditions of a mining lease are governed by Rule 12 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, and that permitting respondent No.9 to use forest land diverted exclusively for the petitioner's lease without hearing the petitioner is wholly illegal.
5. The Apex Court in Samaj Parivartana Samudaya's case (supra) had accepted the objectives of the R & R Plan to ensure scientific, sustainable and environmentally safe mining, including fixing annual production limits based on road capacity.
6. It is contended that permitting respondent No.9 to transport iron-ore through a route neither approved under its own R & R Plan nor permissible under the Ministry of Environment and Forests ('MOEF' for short) conditions is
-
14 illegal. The MOEF's Final Approval Order dated 17.05.2022 at Annexure D in W.P.No.19712/2025 categorically stipulated that the layout shall not be altered without prior approval of the Central Government, the diversion period shall be co-terminus with the lease period, the forest land shall be used only for the specified purpose and the diverted land shall not, under any circumstances, be transferred to another agency or person without prior approval of the Government of India.
7. The impugned order violates these conditions, as no Central Government approval was obtained before permitting such use by respondent No.9. The Annual Production Capacity of the petitioner had been fixed after considering the available road facility and load factor to minimize forest damage. Permitting respondent No.9 to use the same approach road nullifies this protection, risks illegal transportation, revenue loss, environmental degradation and disruption of the petitioner's mining operations.
8. The PCCF's recommendation dated 28.11.2024 at Annexure L, issued even before obtaining the opinion or
-
15 NOC of the Director of Mines and Geology, is arbitrary, illegal and made without application of mind. The reliance on MOEF guidelines/clarifications dated 15.11.2001 and 22.07.2015 are totally flawed and erroneous in view of the specific conditions of the petitioner's forest clearance and the binding Apex Court's directions requiring strict adherence to the approved R & R Plan. These crucial distinctions were ignored by respondents No.1 to 4 while granting permission to respondent No.9. It is further contended that the map showing the specific routes and areas through which M/s. JSW Steel Limited is permitted to use the forest roads even within the mining area of M/s. Vedanta Limited has not been made available to either M/s. Vedanta Limited or Shri. R. Praveen Chandra and that they were unable to raise proper objections in the absence of such details.
9. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Samaj Parivartana Samudaya's case (supra). It is contended that the forest clearance having been granted
-
16 by the Central Government only for the use of the roads within the mining area by the lessee concerned, there can be no encroachment by any other person into the mining area without the express consent of the lessee. Relying on the provisions of Clause IV of Part II, Clauses I to V of Part III and Clause I and II of Part IV of the Mining Lease Deed, the learned senior counsel contends that the State Government could not have granted the permission even temporarily. It is contended that the R & R Plan will be completely jeopardized by the present action of the State Government and this would be in violation of the directions of the Apex Court in Samaj Parivartana Samudaya's case (supra). The specific directions issued by the Apex Court in the said case are brought to our notice by the learned senior counsel.
10. It is contended by Shri. K. G. Raghavan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondent in W.P.No.19712/2025 and W.P.No.19744/2025 (that is, M/s. JSW Steel Limited) that the impugned order allowing M/s. JSW Steel Limited to use the forest road, as depicted in
-
17 the relevant map, was granted due to operational impediments faced since end of 2023 in using the southern road connecting its lease to SH-48. The State Government balancing ecological concerns of forest conservations with the public interest of local villagers, granted the permission. The objections by M/s. Vedanta Limited are alleged to be commercially motivated, aimed at curtailing M/s. JSW Steel Limited's production. M/s. Vedanta Limited was aware of the order since March 2025 but neither challenged it nor complied, instead physically obstructing M/s. JSW Steel Limited's operations despite clear Government directions in April 2025 to implement the order.
11. It is further contended that the State Government possesses the statutory authority under Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 to grant such permission which is valid, legal and binding. The MOEF and CEC, in a counter affidavit dated 18.07.2025, have confirmed that the State Government retains the power to permit others to use the road. M/s. Vedanta Limited itself has been using the same forest approach road initially granted to Shri. R. Praveen Chandra
-
18 without obtaining any separate prior Central Government approval. Therefore, the objection that the impugned order required prior Central Government approval is, untenable.
12. It is also contended that Government's power to allow others the right to use existing roads within lease areas is indisputable. Rule 12(1)(s) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 obliges a lessee to provide access to adjoining lessees or licensees. Similarly, Clause 3.2(b) of Schedule VII expressly reserves, in favour of the Government, the privilege to permit any other person to use the existing roads within the lease area.
13. In it's writ petition, M/s. Vedanta Limited initially asserted that no designated road existed within the lease and only upon production of the surface plan showing a road connecting Gate-1 to Gate-2 did M/s. Vedanta Limited attempt to distinguish between public roads and haulage roads and the distinction is legally unsustainable. The Government's authority to permit usage of existing roads within the lease area remains unaffected by such claims.
-
19
14. It is further contended that the contention that M/s. Vedanta Limited has not been given an opportunity of hearing is totally incorrect. The impugned order has been passed only after giving a full opportunity to M/s. Vedanta Limited to state any objections they may have. Such opportunity is granted although there is no right whatsoever involved in the grant of permission and it is instead an exercise of right/power/privilege reserved by the State Government.
15. In support of the contention that public interest should prevail over all private interest, the learned senior counsel places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Mohd. Murtaza and Others v. State of Assam and Others reported in (2011) 12 SCC 413 and Tarak Singh and Another v. Jyoti Basu and Others reported in (2005) 1 SCC 201. Article 261(1) of the Constitution of India, which provides that full faith and credit shall be given to public acts, records and judicial proceedings of the Union and the States is also relied on. Further, the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta and Another v. State of
-
20 U.P. and Others reported in (1997) 5 SCC 201, is relied on to contend that when an authority has a power coupled with the constitutional duty, the doctrine of full faith and credit under Article 261 of the Constitution of India gets due acceptance.
16. Further, in support of the contention that, it is not in every case that the exercise of discretion under Article 226 Constitution of India is called for and that even in case of a violation of a right unless substantial injustice has been caused, interference can be declined by this Court, the learned senior counsel has relied on the following decisions:-
• Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others v. Bajrangi Rabidas reported in (2014) 13 SCC 681;
• Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and Another reported in (1955) 1 SCC 323;
• The Newbganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd and others v. The Union of India and Others reported in (1976) 1 SCC 120;
• J.R. Vohra v. India Export House Pvt. Ltd and Another reported in (1985) 1 SCC 712- is relied on in support of the proposition that the audi alteram partem rule would be
-21
applicable when an order prejudicially effects a person's right and where there is no right at all, the rule is inapplicable.
17. Shri. Dhyan Chinnappa, the learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.No.15264/2025 (that is M/s. JSW Steel Limited) contends that respondent No.1 after due consultation and detailed consideration granted permission to the petitioner to utilize the approach road for traversing through forest areas within its jurisdiction, subject to specified conditions.
The said permission was duly communicated to all jurisdictional authorities vide letters dated 09.03.2025 and 13.03.2025 and the petitioner has paid the requisite fees as directed. All respondents are bound to ensure that the petitioner is permitted to utilize the road in accordance with law. Respondent No.1 has retained it's right to authorize and grant permission to persons other than respondents No.7 and 8 to utilize areas comprised in the leases. Respondent No.7 is duty bound to comply with the directions of respondent No.1 and ensure that the petitioner is granted necessary access through its lease area and permit
-
22 unrestricted utilization of the said road for the aforesaid purposes.
18. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Bishamber Das Dogra reported in (2009) 13 SCC 102, wherein, it is held that where no real prejudice is caused due to the lack of providing an opportunity for hearing, the order cannot be set aside on the ground of non- compliance with principles of natural justice. It is contended that the observation of the principles of natural justice would depend upon the fact situation of each case and that their application will have to be understood with reference to the relevant facts of the case. The case of Union of India and Others v. E.G. Nambudiri reported in (1991) 3 SCC 38 is also relied on.
19. It is contended by Shri. Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Union of India that diversion of forest land is permitted only for the bare minimum area required under unavoidable circumstances. As far as possible, existing roads/rails/belts should be
-
23 strengthened to minimize forest/tree cover loss. It is for the State Government to take a considered decision to permit the use of an already diverted forest road, rather than seeking diversion of fresh forest land for approach access, which would otherwise cause greater ecological harm to the landscape.
20. Shri. Bhanuprakash B.G, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents submits that the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 is granted by the Forest Department for usage of the approach road formed on diverted land outside the mining area of the petitioner and R. Praveen Chandra in all measuring 7.795 hectares, and the permission was also granted for usage of the internal road formed inside the petitioner's mining lease area. The permission was granted after due consideration of the representation given by respondent No.11 seeking such permission for transportation from their mining head to Sasalu Railway Siding. Respondent No.11 based on the clarifications issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest had sought for permission to use the existing
-
24 approach road pertaining to the petitioner for transportation of iron ore from the mining head towards Sasalu Railway Siding. In spite of the communication by respondent No.2 to the petitioner, there were no objections or NOC issued from the petitioner regarding the request sought for by respondent No.11 for usage of the approach road.
21. The impugned order permitted respondent No.11 to transport iron ore through the existing forest road, ensuring forest conservation, optimal use of the existing route and avoiding diversion of additional forest land for new roads. The alternative route via SH-48 passed through several villages, posing inconvenience to residents and was only about 3 km longer than the existing route. Respondent No.11 had initially proposed diverting 3 hectares of additional forest land to create a new road, but considering the practical difficulties, potential forest loss and inconvenience to villagers, the respondents granted permission to use the existing forest road.
22. The respondents assessed the forest road's capacity to handle mineral transportation by three lessees,
-
25 while also noting its necessity for public use. Considering that the southern road is already used by nearby villagers, they found it appropriate to permit use of the existing road, which had been lawfully created under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and accordingly, the impugned order was granted.
23. The Apex Court has directed the use of conveyor belts for mineral transportation to prevent road formation in forest areas. The respondents have previously allowed shared use of forest roads, including access for different mining lessee. While the R & R plan indicated that the lessee should use the specified road, the interpretation is that once a road is created in the forest with due permission under the Karnataka Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, it becomes open for use by all leaseholders. Accordingly, there is no impediment for other lessees to utilize the said road.
24. We have considered the contentions advanced, the pleadings and the materials on record as well as the legal propositions urged by the learned counsel appearing on all sides. We have given our anxious consideration to the
-
26 direction of the Apex Court in Samaj Parivartana Samudaya's case (supra), especially with specific regard to the role of the R & R plan and its impact on the power of the State Government to grant the permission as has been done in the instant case. We have also noticed the relevant clauses of the mining lease, which has been brought to our attention by Shri. K.N. Phanindra, the learned senior Counsel.
25. It is the admitted case of the parties that the roads in question are forest roads. It is also not in dispute that by virtue of the temporary permission granted as per Annexure A Order, M/s. JSW is being permitted to actually enter the mining lease area of M/s. Vedanta and the vehicles of M/s. JSW are permitted to use the roads within the mining area of M/s. Vedanta at least for an extent of 2.025 hectares.
26. Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 provides that no State Government or other Authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central
-
27 Government, any order directing that any land or portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. The Union Government vide order dated 30.12.2014 at Annexure 'D' had granted final approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for renewal of mining lease and for 3.25 hectares of approach road in favour of M/s. Sesa Sterlite Limited on specific conditions, the appropriate permissions had been granted in respect of the other extents of forest road in question as well. The Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 has provisions with regard to prohibited activities in reserved and other forests. Rule 69 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 authorizes the Chief Conservator of Forests to permit acts otherwise prohibited in a reserved forest. The Central Government, having permitted the use of the forest roads in question for non- forest purposes, the question therefore is whether a fresh permission is required from the Central Government for the use of the very same roads for the very same purpose by another mining lessee. It is pertinent to note that the
-
28 Central Government has placed the statement of objections on record, wherein, it is specifically stated as follows:-
"The Government of Karnataka (Respondent No.1) vide its letter no.FEE/91/FFM/2012 dated 23.02.2013 had sought prior approval of the Central Government for renewal of mining lease over an area of 164.79 ha (161.54 ha for renewal of mining lease and 3.25 ha for approach road) of forest land in favour of M/s Sesa Sterlite Limited, Chitradurga in Nirthadi Reserve Forest, Holalkere Range, Chitradurga. The proposal submitted by the State Government was examined by the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as "MoEF&CC"). (Respondent No.7) and accorded in principle approval vide letter No.8-81/1992-FC (pt) dated 31st July, 2013. (A copy of the In-Principle approval dated 31.07.2013 is annexed as "Annexure-R1") After receipt of the compliance report on the conditions of the In-Principle Approval dated 31.07.2013 from the State Government, MoEF&CC, New Delhi vide its letter No.8-81/1992-FC (pt) dated 30.12.2014 granted the final approval in favour of M/s Sesa Sterlite limited subject to certain conditions. (Copy of the final approval dated 30.12.2014 is annexed as "Annexure-R2") That the approval for diversion of forest land is granted for barest minimum required under unavoidable circumstances. Further, the para 7.8
-29
f(2) of Chapter 7 titled Mining Projects of the Consolidated Guidelines and Clarifications issued under Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 and Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023 states that "2. As far as possible, existing roads/rails/belts should be strengthened to minimise forest/tree cover loss."
That, keeping landscape integrity approach in mind, it is for the State Government to take a considered view to allow the use of an existing diverted road instead of seeking diversion of a fresh forest land to provide approach access which would be detrimental to the ecology of the landscape."
27. It is also pertinent to note that it is the consistent stand of the State Government that the permission granted to use the already existing roads is made with the intention of minimizing the use of further forest land for non-forest purposes.
28. Having considered the contentions of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.19744/2025 and with specific reference to the pleadings as well as the contentions urged, we are of the opinion that the State Government has the power, in public interest, to permit the use of forest roads, which are already permitted to be used by the writ petitioners in
-
30 W.P.No.19744/2025 (that is, M/s. Vedanta Limited) and W.P.No.19712/2025 (that is, R. Praveen Chandra) by the writ petitioners in W.P.No.15264/2025 (that is, M/s. JSW Steel Limited) as well. However, we are of the clear opinion that the permission granted by virtue of the order dated 28.02.2025, to actually enter the mining lease area of the petitioner in W.P.No.19744/2025 could not have been granted without hearing the petitioner in W.P.No.19712/2025. Though, it is sought to be contended by the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned senior counsel appearing for M/s. JSW Steel that in the absence of any vested right in the writ petitioner, there would be no requirement to hear such a person on whom no right vests, we are of the opinion that the permission to enter the mining lease area of a particular lessee could not have been granted without putting such lessee on notice and affording an opportunity of hearing. Even if it is admitted that forest roads do not vest in the mining lessee, it is clear that the lessee has the possession and control of the area of the mining lease subject to the rights of the Government in
-
31 the Forest Department or the Mining Department to make necessary inspections and interventions in accordance with law.
29. The permission now granted is only a temporary arrangement. We are of the opinion that the continuance of permission to M/s. JSW Limited to use the forest roads within the mining area of M/s. Vedanta Limited is liable to be re-considered by the Government with due notice to M/s. Vedanta as well. The contentions of M/s. Vedanta with regard to interference with its operations and the actual area through which M/s. JSW is being permitted to operate shall be considered and appropriate orders passed by the first respondent in accordance with law.
30. In case the temporary permission granted is being extended, a map of the mining lease area of M/s. Vedanta Limited, clearly showing the specific roads through which operation is being permitted along with a clear route map shall be prepared in consultation with both M/s. JSW Steel Limited and M/s. Vedanta Limited. Appropriate order shall be passed with notice to M/s. JSW Steel Limited as well
-
32 as M/s. Vedanta Limited and after hearing their authorized representatives within a period of two months from date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Ordered accordingly.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed in all the writ petitions.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(C.M. JOSHI) JUDGE cp*