Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Technology, and the University of LUND, Sweden. Inkthe im.med.iat'e-f vicinity of its mining activities, the . if"peytitioneir"i.co'mApany's',""iore than Rs.10O crore in Karnataka, and is committed to still further investments (towards machinery, equipment and infrastructure required) to support its mining activities. The petitioner company's activities in the State of Karnataka, it is submitted, involve the direct and indirect engagement of 5,000 people, and as such, impairment in the activities of the petitioner company would directly affect the life and livelihood of more than-.,5,000 families, i.e., approximately 25,000 individuals. mining activity of the petitioner company isV__co.nceirned,% submitted, that its exports to the ex'tent'"of._8-<7"/ci' alre«.of_iron;oreb T. "Fines", whereas, the remaining, 13°/oils "'Lumpy"V_gore». '~Insofar'as iron-ore "Fines" are concerned, llexarrwed cou---nsewlfor the petitioner asserts, that '~7,l;'}~.iY State of Karnataka which can as such, contends that, in the the option is between either wasting iron-'ore"'.VEin,es.l'"o:r_:"exporting them to foreign countries for earning vamablehforeignvexchange, the only option which any ' "reas'onal:~,i'-'.=. person 'would exercise is, to earn profits for the 0'covtiyntlrylf..;it~4"is,_:submitted, that in processing of the iron~ore "Fir.e4sh", coykelijslan essential requirement, but India being deficit 'Kin coke, the only option for India (if it desires to process iron-ore ":0.""_l'i,ne's{') is to first earn foreign exchange (by sale of iron-ore 0 "Fines") and to purchase coke with the foreign exchange earned, so as to be able to process iron-ore "Fines" within the country.

85. In view of the factual position depicted in the impugned orders dated 26.07.2010 and 28.07.2010, it is not for us to concur with the learned counsei for the pet:it"i'ofi¢--r§_," that iliogicai or unreasonable considerations were».-.the"*~i3:asis passing the impugned orders. it is alsonotIpossi'bie~~fo,r as to ' accept, that the action of' -the Staite '.VVJa:'S*' discriminatory in any manner, 'V'Vo'i=_:'th_at, Vthe_VV:petiti'oners were arbitrariiy singied out ad-if/Veris.ei" asviiagxainst those engaged in miningand ore for domestic use within ti'? Df3~E..nT:Aso far as the instant aspect of we are satisfied, that the ieairned Advocate General, that as soon as "ore the territorial jurisdiction of the country, it becomes. hi'-mpossibie to investigate, whether the same . i"'wa§-.,,aijta'ined._out 'oVf"i'égitirnate mining activity, and as such, it wouldiai:s'o,,_beco_me impossibie to prosecute those who may have expoértedyironifoire, obtained out of iilegai mining activities. "hit was attractive to hear iearned counsei for the 0 petitioners canvass, that the State government had used a it "siedge-hammer when it couid have used a hammer, or that, the State government had used a hammer when it couid have used a f|y-fiapper or a fiy-swat. The submission, however, remained been created by the impugned orders dated 26.07.2010 and 28.07.2010, inasmuch as, transportation of ironV~o.r:e.__ for "domestic use" has been allowed to continue,'C.'_w.herea«s transportation of iron-ore for "export" has beer*r*ba':r:ne'd:. .It submitted, that there is no material on the record.,of-.this-..caSe to 0 show, that illegal mining is onlyiibeing carried ouit"a1;Vithe hands of, exporters of iron--ore. It was coln'teruded,V"t~;q.a:_Vt:tvhefllsuppliers of iron-ore for domestic eVi:,ilu'a«i.l_y'..i,,l'beresponsible for the alleged illegal mining. Itwais of the learned counsel for the a'ny.jac.t'io.n.V:taken at the hands of the State the activity of illegal mining However, it is not understandable' of iron~ore, "for export" only, is subject matter ofithe. prohibition envisaged in the impugned 0 i°orders«:'d5a'ted'i~.26.02.2U'10 and 28.07.2010. It was pointed out, "'t.h'a:l;..uby::"p,revewn:t'i_ng honest entrepreneurs, as the petitioners herein, who 'a_.re. engaged in honest mining only, from areas ear- _'=marked fol: licenced mining, and are carrying on the aforesaid within the parameters of the conditions prescribed, can be arbitrarily barred from the process of transportation of iron- ore, and thereby, prevented from honouring the export orders executed by them. This action at the hands of the State government, according to the petitioners, is clearly arbitrary and 3.80 legislator concerned holds or had held at the relevant time. The principle for debarring a holder of office of profit under the Government from being a Member of Parliament is, tlaatsuch person cannot exercise his functions i'ndepende'ntly.g:'of'-the executive of which he becomes a part by receiving ..'ip-ecurziary gain". Under Article 102(1)(a), of course, Parliamentoreover, apart from the_~-office being an "office of profit", it must also.__be an'.office urnvdervtljse State Central Government. "