Karnataka High Court
Vedanta Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 18941 OF 2016 (GM-MM-S)
AND
WRIT PETITION NOS.19328-19335 OF 2016 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN
VEDANTA LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SESA STERLITE
LIMITED) AND SESA GOA LIMITED)
REGD. OFFICE AT P.O.BOX 125
SESAGHOR, 20, EDC COMPLEX,
PATTO, PANJIM, GOA-403 001
REP BY ITS HEAD-FINANCE, IRON ORE,
KARNATAKA,
SRI.ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT, 4TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
2
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
KHANIJA BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
KARWAR DIVISION, KARWAR,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 339.
4. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH,
NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 032
5. THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
ATIC BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF VETERINARY
SCIENCE,
BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL
BANGALORE-560 032
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3
SRI.P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4
SRI.P.GOVINDAN, SPL. PP FOR R-5)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DT.8.5.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE &
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES IN BANGALORE (CCH 34)
IN SPL. CC.NOS.268/2013, 11, 14,15, 36, 37, 38 53 & 54
OF 2014 VIDE ANNX-A AND ALL FURTHER
CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS THERETO, ONLY IN SO
FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED., AND ETC.
3
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
There was an allegation of illegal mining against various miners including this writ petitioner.
2. A criminal case was registered and in consequence thereof, huge quantities of iron ore were seized in the port area. The said materials were kept by the State.
3. A proceeding was initiated under Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, before the learned Special Judge of Central Bureau of Investigation Court ('the learned CBI Judge,' in short). By the impugned order, the learned CBI judge directed disposal of the seized stock of iron ore in a particular manner.
4. Mr.K.N.Phanindra, learned advocate, in support of the writ petition, submits that the learned CBI judge was 4 wrong, inasmuch as the case against the petitioner has, since, been closed.
5. The Supreme Court of India, by an order dated September 7, 2012, directed the CBI to investigate into the illegal extraction and export of the said iron ore to other countries, and, also, to institute cases, immediately.
6. By a subsequent order dated September 16, 2013, the Supreme Court of India, referring to the recommendations of the Central Empowerment Committee in its report dated September 5, 2012, permitted the CBI to refer the matter to the State Government, and, simultaneously, directed the State Government to take further necessary action under the relevant laws, in cases where the exporters had exported less than 50,000 metric tonnes without valid permits.
7. Admittedly, in the case of the writ petitioner, the iron ore was only 34,000 metric tonnes. Under the order of the Supreme Court of India, the investigation was 5 required to be done by an agency to be appointed by the State.
8. Accordingly, a Special Investigation Team (SIT, for short) was appointed by the State. They submitted a final report, which is in favour of the writ petitioner. The final report has been accepted by the learned CBI judge by an order dated December 15, 2015.
9. Mr.K.N.Phanindra, learned advocate, seeks a direction for release of the materials in favour of his client.
10. Mr.V.G.Bhanuprakash, learned additional government advocate, submits that a case of theft is pending and, therefore, the seized materials could not be released in favour of the petitioner.
11. In the wake of the final report being submitted by the SIT, we do not find any impediment to release the iron ore in favour of the petitioner. An inventory has to be prepared and, thereafter, the iron ore shall be released in 6 favour of the writ petitioner, immediately. The entire process must be completed by four weeks.
12. The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed.
13. Mr.Phanindra, at this stage, expresses an apprehension that the authorities may claim royalty.
14. When the material is in the port area, it is presumed that royalty has, already, been paid, otherwise transport permit would not have been granted. Therefore, his apprehension is unfounded.
15. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE vgh*