Supreme Court Directs Survey Of Karnataka Mines For Which Rehabilitation & Reclamation Plans Not In Place

In a public interest litigation (PIL) relating to iron ore mining in Karnataka, the Supreme Court recently directed Karnataka's Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to carry out a detailed scrutiny and survey of Category A/B/C mines (in Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur) in respect of which data and/or R&R (rehabilitation and reclamation) plans have not been submitted/approved.

The Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, MM Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi called for a report from PCCF, Karnataka while adding, "The R&R Plans will be thereupon implemented and executed either through KMERC(Karnataka Mining and Environment Restoration Corporation) or if more appropriate, through any other agency". The amount incurred for R&R Plans shall be collected from the erstwhile lease holders in the respective category.

The Court further asked the CEC (Centrally Empowered Committee), alongwith the Monitoring Committee and the Oversight Authority to undertake a complete exercise in the 3 districts and submit a report within 4 months. "While undertaking the said exercise, they shall keep in mind the parameters referred to in the report dated 13.03.2012. The CEC will be entitled to take help and assistance of the scientific domain experts who will examine data, including environmental pollution data available/recorded in the districts from time to time", the court said.

In preparing the aforesaid report, the CEC shall examine if a mining cap needs to be imposed in any particular area. With the help of the Monitoring Committee and Oversight Authority, it shall also see if any system like e-auctioning is required to be put in place for sale of mined material.

The question of whether satellite mappings/images should be undertaken with regard to each mine will also be examined by the CEC, the Monitoring Committee and the Oversight Authority.  

To recap, the petitioner-Samaj Parivartana Samudhaya had approached the court with the present case seeking its intervention on the grounds of illegal mining activity in districts of Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur of Karnataka and consequent harm to environment. By orders dated 29.07.2011 and 26.08.2011, the Supreme Court temporarily banned mining in the 3 districts, based on a report of the CEC.

Through a report in March, 2012, the CEC fixed guidelines for implementation of R&R Plans as a pre-condition to the resumption of mining in the 3 districts.

Following a report of Indian Council of Forest Research and Education (ICFRE) and CEC's recommendations, the Supreme Court granted relaxation on 13.04.2012, but imposed a ceiling of 25 Million Metric Tonnes (MMT) for total production of iron ore in Bellary and 5 MMT for that in Chitradurga and Tumkur collectively.

In 2017, while considering applications seeking lifting of the ceiling, the Court agreed to enhance the ceiling from 25MMT to 28 MMT for Bellary and 5MMT to 7MMT for the other two districts collectively, based on CEC reports.

In August 2022, a Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana and Justices Hima Kohli, CT Ravikumar enhanced the limit from 28 MMT to 35 MMT for iron ore production in Bellary District and from 7 MMT to 15 MMT for Chitradurga and Tumkur Districts collectively. These limits were applicable to Categories A & B only, as licenses of Category C mines were cancelled and e-auctioned.

The same year, ie 2022, the top Court also lifted the curbs imposed in 2011 on sale of iron ore in Karnataka and allowed exports subject to the terms and conditions of the Government of India. Vide this order, it allowed the mine operators to sell the already excavated iron ore by entering into direct contracts without resorting to e-auction.

It may be mentioned that the mines in question were categorized on the basis of extent of encroachment in a CEC report. Category A relates to those with no/marginal illegality and category C relates to those in flagrant violation of laws.

Case Title: SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA AND ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS, W.P.(C) No. 562/2009

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 268