Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Karnataka vs B.L. Rani Samyuktha on 10 May, 2023
Bench: M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2023)
(@ Diary No. 34012/2017)
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
B.L. RANI SAMYUKTHA & ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2023)
(@ Diary No. 36057/2017)
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
We have heard Shri Nikhil Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Karnataka and Shri Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent(s)/original writ petitioner(s).
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 09-01-2017 passed by the High Court of of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition Nos. 431/2017 (GM-MMS) and 430/2017 (GM-MMS), by which the High Court has directed the State to consider, grant, execute and register the mining lease in favour of the respective writ petitioners, the State of Signature Not Verified Karnataka & others have preferred the present appeals. Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2023.05.11 16:38:21 IST Reason: Shri Nikhil Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that, as such, in view of contd..
- 2 -
the direct decision of this Court in Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited Vs. Union of India & others (2012) 11 SCC 1, no Writ of Mandamus could have been issued by the High Court directing the State to grant the mining lease. It is submitted that at the most, the High Court could have issued the direction to the State to consider the application for mining lease. Shri Nikhil Goel, learned counsel has submitted that even otherwise the approval granted by the Central Government on 04.07.2008 was subject to compliance of the amended provisions of the Act and Rules and other applicable Acts and Rules including Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Environment Notification dated 27.01.1994, as issued and amended by the MoEF. It is submitted that, therefore, unless and until the authorities are satisfied that the conditions mentioned in approval letter dated 04.07.2008 are complied with, no such direction could have been issued by the High Court directing the State to grant the mining lease.
Shri Nikhil Goel, learned counsel has further submitted that even according to the original writ petitioners, the Ordinance under which the original writ petitioners were praying for mining lease had expired on 11.01.2017 in view of Section 10(A)(2)(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (as amended in 2015), now grant of mining lease is not permitted.
Shri Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocate has fairly contd..
- 3 -
conceded that there could not have been any direction to the State Government to grant the mining lease. However, the direction which could have been issued by the High Court was to consider the application of the original writ petitioners for mining lease in accordance with the Acts and the Rules.
Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the law laid down by this Court in the case of Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited (supra), at the outset, no Writ of Mandamus could have been issued by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant the mining lease. At the most, the order which could have been passed was to consider the application for mining lease in accordance with Mines and Minerals Act and Rules.
Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that even the approval by the Central Government dated 04.07.2008 was subject to ensuring the compliance of the amended provisions of the Act and Rules (Mines and Minerals Act) and other applicable Acts and Rules including Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Environment Notification dated 27.01.1994, as issued and amended by the MoEF. Therefore, also the State Government could not have been directed to grant the mining lease straightway.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, both the appeals are allowed to the extent modifying the impugned directions issued by the High Court contd..
- 4 -
directing the State to grant the mining lease to the original writ petitioners and instead the State is directed to consider the application of the original writ petitioners for mining lease in accordance with Mining Act and the Rules, as amended from time to time and the other applicable Acts and the Rules including the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Environment Notification dated 27.01.1994, as issued and amended by the MoEF and if now permissible under the amended Act and the Rules.
The said exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of present order.
The present Appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No cost.
………………………………………J. [M.R. SHAH] ………..……………………………………J. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR] NEW DELHI MAY 10, 2023 ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.4 SECTION IV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 34012/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-01-2017 in WP No. 431/2017 (GM-MMS) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS B.L. RANI SAMYUKTHA & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No. 113247/2017 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 113249/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 113248/2017 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) WITH Diary No(s). 36057/2017 (IV-A) (IA FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 120115/2017 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES ON IA 120116/2017 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 120118/2017, IA No.120115/2017
- CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 120118/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 120116/2017 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES) Date : 10-05-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nikhil Goel, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv.
Mrs. Ansha Varma, Adv.
Mr. Adithya Roy, Adv.
Mr. Varun Varma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv.
Mrs. Supreeta Patil, Adv.
M/S. S-legal Associates, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeals are partly allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
(NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)