Date post: | 03-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | aishwary-sharma |
View: | 225 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 36
7/29/2019 writ petttion
1/36
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
The present Writ Petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation is being filed before this
Honble Court in order to draw the attention of this Honble Court to the continuing illegal
mining in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. The failure of the respective
states to control the illegal mining has led to large scale destruction both of forest land
as well as non-forest land and adversely affected the livelihood of local people
especially the rural poor. The Union of India through both the Ministry of Environment
and Forest and the Ministry of Mines has not exercised enough checks and balances to
curtail the illegal mining in the two states. This process was initiated after the New
Economic Policy which led to dereservation of mining sites meant for exclusive mining
by the State and its agencies to private entities. The process of dereservation was done
in an ad hoc and haphazard manner which led to large scale irregularities including loss
of valuable forest land much against the advice of the Forest Department of the State.
This transfer of areas reserved for exclusive reservation by the State not only meant
loss of revenue but also uncontrolled, unregulated mining. Various modus operandi
were adopted to do the mining, viz., mining beyond the areas leased for mining, illegal
mining in forest land, areas where mining were taking place not corresponding to the
areas approved under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, sub leasing of the mining
lease areas through raising contract and illegal transportation of minerals and the
consequent loss of revenue of the State. All these activities resulted in an
encroachment of 1114.8 Ha of forest lands in Karnataka for purposes of mining. This
problem was recognized by the State of Karnataka when the issues of illegal mining
was raised in the Legislative Assembly and the Justice U.L Bhat Commission of Enquiry
was constituted under the Commission of Enquiries Act to enquire into various aspects
of illegal mining and certain allegations raised against Government of Karnataka.
However, the Justice U.L. Bhat Commission did not function and a Reference was
made to the Lokayukta of Karnataka. The Lokayukta submitted a detailed report on the
large scale mining related irregularities in the State of Karnataka and how through the
active connivance of miners, officials and politicians, established laws and procedures
7/29/2019 writ petttion
2/36
were given a go by to benefit a few mining companies at the cost of the ecology as well
as revenue of the State. Further, the Report highlights how forest area to the extent
over 2000 Sq Km were made available for mining by private entities despite specific
objections by the Forest Department. The entire illegal mining operation had led to a
culture of corruption and a mal administration which threatens the rule of law. Despite
the submission of the Report of the Lokayukta no action seems to have been taken
place and the situation in the ground remains the same with illegal mining continuing. In
particular no action has been taken against the illegal mining along the interstate border
between Karnataka (Bellary district) and Andhra Pradesh (Anantpur district) with
consequences such as (i) illegal transportation of iron ore across the interstate
boundary without payment of royalty to either state, (ii) weakening law enforcement, as
law enforcement agencies work within strict constraints of jurisdiction and (iii)
harassment of the Karnataka Forest Department officials by Obalapuram Mining Co.,
which has encroached into Karnataka from Andhra Pradesh by destroying the pillars
demarcating the interstate border. With respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh, the
blatant illegality is evident with respect to mining and encroachment of 10 Ha of
unalloted forest land in Bellary Reserve Forest by M/s Obulapuram Mining Company
(OMC). The Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment and Forests which did the
site visit of the same were not able to locate the boundary demarcation of the site where
mining was supposed to take place legally. In the absence of the boundary demarcation
it was concluded, that it was not possible to ascertain as to whether the mining was
within the leased area. The Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF), directed the
state of Andhra Pradesh to stop mining in the area of 5 mining leases until a survey is
done by the Survey of India and proper boundaries fixed including those of the unalloted
10 Ha of forest land as per the sketch of the Indian Bureau of Mines. However undue
pressure was brought to bear upon the MOEF, Govt. of India to keep the letter
containing the above direction in abeyance. Nevertheless, MOEF has continued to insist
on the completion of the survey by the Survey of India. The interstate boundary
between Karnataka (Bellary district) and Andhra Pradesh (Anantpur district) also needs
to be surveyed by the Survey of India as the boundaries between some of the mines is
also the interstate boundary. Thus, the illegal mining and encroachment in the Bellary
7/29/2019 writ petttion
3/36
Reserve Forests continues in violation of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 as well as the various orders, especially the order dated 12-12-1996, passed
by the Honble Supreme Court in T. N Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India (WP
No. 202 / 1995)
LIST OF DATES
1956 Industrial Policy Resolution, which provides for reservation of mining
areas for exploitation by the State and its agencies. The reservation
was done by means of 11 GOs issued over the period 1958 to 1983.
1960 Mineral Concession Rules under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation
and Development) Act, 1957 & Mineral Concession Rules,
Government of Karnataka reserved 42 Blocks of 26,781 sq. kms.
1966 Mysore Mineral Ltd. (MML) incorporated for optimal exploitation of
industrial minerals and ornamental granites in State of Karnataka
1993 The National Mineral Policy 1993 liberalized the restrictions imposed
by the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956. According to the new
policy, mining of 13 minerals including iron ore was thrown open to
private entities
15.3.2003 GOs No. CI 16 MMM 2003 and CI 33 MMM 1994 issued by the
Government of Karnataka whereby an area of 11,620 Sq Km reserved
for mining by the Government was dereserved for private mining an
area of 11,620 sq. km. in the State out of the reserved areas and
notified the surrender of 6832.48 ha of prime iron ore bearing lands.
April 2004 Report of the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute
(NEERI), Nagpur on the planning and management of scientific mining
in Karnataka.
4.3.2006 Report of PCCF (Wildlife) submitted to the Minister of Forest
Ecology and Environment, Government of Karnataka a report of the
surprise inspection in Bellary division 22-24 February, 2006 & the
irregularities noted in the mining operations in Bellary Division.
7/29/2019 writ petttion
4/36
3-9-2006 Demolition of Sugalamma Devi Temple, situated on the highest hillock
Bellary Reserved Forest, Andhra Pradesh by blasting operations of
M/S Obulapuram Mining company
22/24-7-06 Government Of Karnataka appoints Justice U.L. Bhat Commission of
Enquiry to enquire into various aspects of illegal mining and certain
allegations raised against Government of Karnataka.
12.3.2007 GO No. CI 164 MMM 2006 referring the matter to Lokayukta defining
the scope of investigation from 1-1-2000 to 22-7-2006
27.7.2007 Lease of 25.98 Ha of land to M/S Obulapuram Mining Company vide
AP GO. No. 4 APC 335 / 2007 BAN
29-8-2007 Letter from Conservator of Forest to PCCF, Andhra Pradesh
complaining about the abusive language used by M/s. Obalapuram
Mining Company (OMC) and how the company people used threats to
prevent them from inspecting the reserve forest land along the
Karnataka-Andhra Pradesh border, where M/s. OMC had illegally mined
28 acres of land in Karnataka after encroachment.
20.9.2007 Letter from PCCF to Principal Secretary, Forest Ecology
and Environment, Government of Karnataka forwarding the
information of the letter of 29-8-2007 and further urging for the swift and
efficient resolution of the border problem failing which, there is a
possibility of serious breakdown of law and order.
9.9.2008 GO No. CI 164 MMM 2006 extending the scope of Honble Lokayukta
up to 9-9-2008
17.9.2008 Complaint made by Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI), New
Delhi to DG of Forests, MoEF, Government of India regarding violation of
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 by DFO Kallol Biswas in connivance with
OMC by encroaching 10 acres of Reserve Forest land.
22.1.2009 Site Inspection of mining leases located at Bellary Reserve Forest of
Anantpur Forest Division, Andhra Pradesh by Regional office of MoEF. The report
stated that forest area between the mining leases could not be shown by the local
forest officials. Some of the mining areas do not have demarcation pillars.
7/29/2019 writ petttion
5/36
28.1.2009 Letter by DCF (Central) MOEF to Special Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra
Pradesh communicating the report dated 22-1-2009.
17.3.2009 Letter of Sr. Asst. IG of Forests, MOEF, to Member Secretary, CEC
regarding the inspection report of 22-1-2009.
20.3.2009 Letter of Member Secretary, CEC to DG of Forests Ministry
of Environment and Forests stating that the survey of mining areas be
done by Survey of India and in the meantime no mining should be
undertaken.
22.4.2009 Letter from Sr. Asst. IG of Forests, MoEF, to Principal Secretary (Forests),
Andhra Pradesh to get the survey conducted by Survey of India and also
conveying the suspension of the permission given under Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 to carry out mining operations.
28.4.2009 Letter of special Chief Secretary to Government, Environment, Forest,
Science & Technology Department, Andhra Pradesh to Inspector
General of Forests, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of
India stating that all the lease boundaries are properly marked and
maintained, safety zones are clearly marked with barbed wire fencing and
thus denying the existence of any unallotted reserve forest land.
1.5.2009 Letter from Sr. Asst. IG of Forests, MOEF, Government of India to
Principal Secretary (Forests), Govt. of Andhra Pradesh revoking the
suspension of approval under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in respect
of the five mines until further orders.
1.5.2009 Honble Supreme Court recording in the matter of WP No. 201 / 2009, that
the survey will be completed within six weeks. This submission is made by
the Counsel appearing for the Ministry of Environment and Forest.
10.5.2009 Letter from National Committee for Protection of Natural Resources to
Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of Karnataka
on the issue of illegal mining .
13.5.2009 Letter from National Committee for Protection of Natural Resources to
Secretary, MoEF, Government of India, requesting urgent actions against
7/29/2019 writ petttion
6/36
illegal mining in Bellary (Karnataka) and effective implementation of Forest
(Conservation) Act,1980 and other laws applicable in the border areas.
13.6.2009 Letter from the Secretary, Industries and Commerce, Department, Andhra
Pradesh to the Director, Andhra Pradesh-Geo-Spatial Data Centre
communicating that the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has not
directed for the survey.
18.6.2009 Government of Karnataka withdraws the cases filed with reference to
demolition of Sugalamma Devi Temple.
27.6.2009 Letter from Special Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh to
the Inspector General of Forests, MoEF communicating the decision of
the Andhra Pradesh Government that no survey is required by Survey of
India.
8.7.2009 Letter from Sr. Asst. I.G of Forests to the Principal Secretary, (FEE),
Government of Andhra Pradesh instructing that the MoEF, Government of
India does not agree to the proposal of Government of Andhra Pradesh as
proposed in the letter of 27-6-2009 and further insisting that the survey of
the mining area should be done by 16-7-2009.
14.7.2009 Letter from NCPNR to the Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka urging
urgent action.
14.7.2009 Press clipping reporting Lokayuktas reaction to the Action Taken Report
(ATR) of the Government of Karnataka. ATR is silent on 39 raising
contracts on mining leases. That according to the Lokayukta the ATR is
Action to be taken report.
15.7.2009 Letter from Special Chief Secretary to Government, Environment Forest,
Science and Technology Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh to
IG of Forests, MOEF, Government of India firmly rejecting the survey by
Survey of India and withdrawal of the statement made by the counsel,
MOEF in the Supreme Court on completing the survey by six weeks.
24.7.2009 The MOEF changes it stand completely with respect to survey of mining
areas by Survey of India. No action against illegal mining
Hence this Writ Petition
7/29/2019 writ petttion
7/36
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION]
WRIT PETITION [CIVIL] No. OF 2009
[PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]
IN THE MATTER :
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS
With
I.A. NO. OF 2009
An Application for Stay with Interim Relief
P A P E R B O O K
[ FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE ]
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION]
WRIT PETITION [CIVIL] No. OF 2009
[PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]
7/29/2019 writ petttion
8/36
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION]
WRIT PETITION [CIVIL] No. OF 2009
[PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]
IN THE MATTER :
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Samaj Parivartan Samudaya
Through Shri S.R Hiremath
Honorary Executive Director
Ashadeep Jayanagar Cross
Saptapur, Dharwad 580001
2. Dr Ravindranath Ramachandrao Kongovi
S/o Dr. Ramchandra Rao Kongovi
1, Sarovar Nagar, IIIrd Cross
Shri Raja NeleDharwad 580008
3. P. Vishnu Kamath
S/o P. Venkatesh Kamath
315 SRINIKET APTS,
7/29/2019 writ petttion
9/36
MSR College Road,
Mathikere, Bangalore
Karnataka-560054
Versus
1. State of Karnataka
Through the Chief Secretary
State Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore 560 001
2. State of Andhra Pradesh
Through the Chief Secretary
State Secretariat,
Hyderabad
3. Ministry Of Environment And Forests
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Environment and Forests
CGO Complex, Lodi Road
New Delhi
4. Ministry of Mines
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Mines
New Delhi
5. Ministry of Railways,
Through the Secretary,
7/29/2019 writ petttion
10/36
Ministry of Railways
Rail Bhavan
New Delhi Respondents
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
To
The Honble the Chief Justice of India and His Honble Companion Justices of
the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
The Humble Petition of the Petitioner
above named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed
to draw the attention of this Honble Court to the large scale illegal mining in the
States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh which not only raises issues of serious
concerns about the ecology and environment but also on issues concerning
transparency and accountability in the functioning of the government.
2. ARRAY OF PARTIES:
2.1 That the Petitioner No.1 is Samaj Parivartan Samudaya (SPS for short) which is
a registered Society. The Petitioner NGO has been at the forefront of various
environmental movements in the Country having received from the Prime
Minister of India, the Indira Gandhi Paryavaran Puraskar (IGPP) of Ministry of
Environment and Forest in 1992. SPS has also taken up a number of issues
before different Courts such as with respect to the pollution of Tungabhadra river
(WP No:19483 of 1985) in the High Court of Karnataka. The Member of the
Society, Shri S. R. Hiremath is the recipient of the Government of Karnataka
7/29/2019 writ petttion
11/36
Rajyotsava award for environment and rural development in 1987 . He has also
served on the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board(KSPCB) as a Board
Member, on the National committee on Voluntary Organizations of CAPART and
a member of the State level Steering Committee of Government of Karnataka on
Western Ghats Forestry Project. He was also the Petitioner for the Bastar (Malik
Makbuja) forestry issue PIL (IA No:60 of 1997 in WP No:202 of 1995).
2.2 The Petitioner No. 2 is Dr Ravindranath Ramchandrarao Kongovi is a scientist
with a Doctorate Degree in Chemistry from Indian Institute of Technology,
Powai, Mumbai. He is concerned with the environmental protection issues and
has helped furthering the cause of the environmental movement by providing
analysis of the situations in Pollution, Forest and Mining issues connected with
Karnataka State. He has actively participated in the huge efforts of Petitioner
No.1 in the effective containment of pollution caused by the Harihar Polyfibre
and Grasim Industries into the Tungabhadra River, a main line river of
Karnataka, brought about by a combination of peoples actions, representation to
the government and Public Interest Litigation, WP 19483 of 1985 before the
Karnataka High Court. He is also associated with Protection of Consumer
Rights through the local groups at Dharwad and in the issue of Protection of
people from the injustices relating to Drugs through Drug Action Forum,
Dharwad. He has been an author /Co-author of Reports on Case Study of
Tungabhadra Pollution sponsored by National Law School of India University,
Bangalore, Book on Heamatinics and other scientific papers.
2.3 That the Petitioner No 3 is P Vishnu Kamath who teaches chemistry at the
University of Bangalore. He has been actively involved with the environmental
movement since the last two decades and has been active in the Save the
Western Ghats Movement. He has also been involved in the collection of
baseline data on health around the Kaiga Nuclear Plant and was part of the
group which led a movement for restoration of common land in Karnataka and
initiate a process of joint management by the people. He has brought many
issues before the Courts covering a range of issues of environmental and social
importance.
7/29/2019 writ petttion
12/36
3. That the Respondent No. 1 is the State of Karnataka and the Respondent No 2 is
the State of Andhra Pradesh where the illegal mining is taking place. The
respondent No 3 is the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests which is
responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980 is implemented. The Respondent No. 4 is the Ministry of Mines which is the
nodal ministry so far as Mining is concerned. While respondent No. 5 is the
Ministry of Railways which has been included as a Respondent since significant
transportation of illegally mined ores take place through the Railways
4 . FACTS IN BRIEF
i. That the subject matter of the present petition relates to the issue of illegal mining
in Forest areas as well as non forest areas in the States of Karnataka and
Andhra Pradesh. This illegal mining has been possible due to blatant
disregard for the rule of law as well as connivance of miners, officials and
politicians. This has resulted in loss of valuable lands, both forest as well as
agricultural land. There has been loss of revenue for the States in view of this
continuing illegal mining and the illegal transportation of the same. Further,
the illegal mining has also led to an atmosphere of corruption and mal-
administration which threatens to disrupt the ethical fabric of the society. The
petitioners are approaching this Honble Court since Governments of both the
States including the Central Government have failed to take remedial
measures to curb this illegal mining.
ii. Specifically, the Petitioners would like to highlight the following issues :
a) Various specific instances of mining related illegalities and irregularities
viz. Mining in Forest land in violation of various Forest Acts including the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and in violation of the orders of the
Honble Supreme Court in WP No. 202/1995 especially the order dated
12-12-1996, Mining in patta lands, Mining beyond the Leased area,
trespassing into the forest areas for mining, Illegal dumping and mining
contrary to the parameters laid down by the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM),
illegal Construction of roads in forest areas.
7/29/2019 writ petttion
13/36
b) Various different modus operandi to continue to do illegal mining which
included Raising Contract. The term Raising Contract is not found in the
Indian Contract Act, 1872 or in the mining regulation viz. M & M (D & R)
Act, Mineral Concession Rules and the Karnataka Minor Mineral
Concession Rules 1994.
c) The illegal mining in Bellary Reserve Forest, Andhra Pradesh comprising
of an area of 10 Ha which have been allowed to be encroached for
purposes of mining in violation of the orders of this Honble Court in T. N
Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India (W.P No. 202 of 1995) dated
12-12-1996 as well as the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980. This has been due the fact that no clear demarcation of the mining
lease areas exists. In the process of encroachment and the resultant
illegal mining, there has been destruction of centuries old Sugalamma
Devi temple as well as the GTS station. Despite, recording the violation no
action has taken place against the violators. On the contrary, the officials
who were trying to enforce the law were harassed by the mining
companies therefore showing a complete breakdown of law and order in
the State. The letter of the Conservator of Forests (Bellary) dated 7-9-
2006 is annexed and marked as Annexure P-1.
iii. That the Government of Karnataka, recognized the problem of illegal mining and
made reference to the Lokayukta of Karnataka under Section 7 (2-A) of the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. One of the specific issues for investigation
was the large scale illegal mining activity in forest areas and the illegal
transportation of illegally mined ores from forest areas. A copy of the Report
(Part-1) of the Lokayukta of the Karnataka dated 18-12-2008 is hereto
annexed and marked as Annexure P-2 .
iv. That the Report of the Karnataka Lokayukta submitted on 18-12-2008 pursuant
to the Reference made by the Government of Karnataka refers to various
7/29/2019 writ petttion
14/36
mining related irregularities had been noticed in the Bellary, Hospet and
Sandur region of the State such as:
(a) Mining beyond the Leased area;
(b) Trespassing into the forest areas for mining;
(c) Illegal dumping and mining contrary to the parameters laid down by the
Indian Bureau of Mines.
The Lokayukata of Karnataka in order to investigate the issue sought the
services of officer of different departments. Of particular significance was the
report of Dr U. V Singh, Conservator of Forest (Annexure P3). The Report of Dr
U.V Singh, Conservator of Forests which is enclosed as annexure to the
Lokayukta Report mentions different types of encroachments and the same has
been mentioned in the report of the Lokayukta. The main findings are:
a. Encroachment due to shifting of location of the notified lease area: In
Bellary, Hospet and Sandur (BHS) region the majority of encroachments have
taken place due to shifting of the notified leased area to a different convenient
location by the lessees.
b. Encroachments due to different lease sketch under two different
Acts. It has been observed during the survey and on examination of records
that the lease drawings (Sketches) notified under the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 are different that the lease sketches notified under the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The lessees have not
adhered to these sketches. Petitioners submit that as result of this areas
much in excess of those approved under the provisions of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 are being mined. Further, there is every possibility
that areas of much lesser tree density was shown while seeking approval
from the Central Government under the provisions of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. This is leading to destruction of forests in the
States and also large scale diversion of forest land for non forest purpose. It
is further pertinent to point out that the mining in forest areas as well as non
7/29/2019 writ petttion
15/36
forest areas which take place without approved plans and sketches also have
larger negative consequences since no mitigation plan is in place and neither
are there any Environment Management Plans or Mine Closure Plan. Further,
in view of recent decision of the Honble Supreme Court with respect to
payment of Net Present Value (NPV), by understating the total forest area
involved, the miners are able to evade payment of NPV and depositing the
same to CAMPA.
c. Extraction of Iron Ore in the adjoining areas and refilling of the pits
by encroaching on Forest land
It was observed that some of the lessees have encroached the adjoining
forest areas/ government land and removed iron ore. After removing the large
quantities of iron ore from such encroached areas, the lessees have refilled
the pits and in some cases even planting has been done over the refilled
areas.
d. Encroachment by Extending the lease boundaries and extraction of
Iron ore involving in many instances Forest Land
In many situations, the ore deposit is located at the periphery of notified lease
boundaries and also on adjoining lands. The lessees have extracted the iron
ores by encroaching such adjoining areas which are forest/ government land
beyond the lease boundary. Such encroachments are found common in the
Bellary, Hospet and Sandur region.
e. Violation of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Karnataka Forest
Act, 1963 and the orders of the Honble Supreme Court in W.P 202 of
1995 through illegal construction of roads.
The Report states that the lessees have formed Kacchha Roads from
PWD/ZP roads to their mines without obtaining prior approval under the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 or Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The roads so
formed have damaged the forest to a large extent. The report categorically
7/29/2019 writ petttion
16/36
7/29/2019 writ petttion
17/36
j. Encroachment of forest areas by the mine lease holders Details of 99
instances of encroachments to the tune of 1114.8 Ha are listed in pages 68
A-K of Report of Dr U.V Singh. The Government of Karnataka has filed Forest
Offence Cases (FOC) against 36 violators. 7 cases had been filed earlier. No
cases have been filed against 17 major violators. The Government of
Karnataka has not submitted the names involved in any of these cases. There
is reasonable suspicion that prominent and powerful violators with political
influence have been let off and symbolic action has been taken against a few.
The copy of the reports of Dr. U.V. Singh, Conservator of Forests is filed and
annexed and marked as Annexure P-3.
v. The peculiar issue of Raising Contract and subleasing is hereby explained
by the Petitioners.
(a) That the Report of Dr U.V Singh (at page 55-56) provides list of 37 cases of
raising contracts. These are clear violations of Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. No action has been taken for
cancellation of the raising contract.
(b) That the Lokayukta Report refers to the issue of Raising Contract. During
the survey and investigation by the Lokayukta it was revealed that many of
the lessees have given their leases on contract popularly known in the field
of mining as Raising Contract. The term Raising Contract is not found in
the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or in the mining regulation viz. M & M (D & R)
Act, Mineral Concession Rules and the Karnataka Minor Mineral
Concession Rules 1994. In this system, the raising contractor carries out all
the mining operations. It is also observed that some of the lessees have
transferred their leases to some other persons/ agencies on annual basis
and sometimes for periods more than one year. This type of irregular
transfer of mining is contrary to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act and the relevant Rules and which also
7/29/2019 writ petttion
18/36
lead to other irregularities like excess loading, transportation of minerals
without permits and sale of unaccounted iron ore, sale of bul permits
issued by the Mines Department and Way permits in Form No. 31 issued
by the Forest Department to other parties, which documents are used for
illegal transportation of Iron ore from Patta Lands. All the illegal activities
are carried out in the name of the original lessees. In reality, none of the
Raising Contract agreements have been entered into with the prior
sanction of the Government and in many cases no document is
forthcoming to show the terms of agreement between the original lessee
and the Raising Contractor.
(c) That the Report of the Lokayukta mentions in detail about the issue of ill
effects of Raising Contracts and the system of Absentee lessee that has
developed. The Report states the following:
It has to be mentioned that at the time of the mining lease, the lessee
provides information that he has all the expertise in the mining and has
sufficient infrastructure and funds to carry out mining operations and it is
only on considering such qualifications of the Applicant for grant of lease,
the mining leases are granted by the Government. It is further noticed that
the Government has given lease for extraction of minerals on payment of
royalty which is very minimum and far below the value of the mineral in the
open market. As a matter of fact, the State has not executed a lease
bearing in mind the commercial or profit motive of the lessees. In such
circumstances, giving further lease by the original lessee for extraction of
minerals which is a public property will be against the object and term of
the lease. By this process, the original lessee even without making any
investment and putting any effort makes a fortune. It also creates
unhealthy competition in the mining trade leading to people applying for
mining lease without making proper prospecting study as to the existence
of minerals, which in turn leads to lessees or his agents indulging in
mining activities outside the leased areas. In the districts of Bellary and
Chitradurga and Tumkur, the lessees have entered into commercial
7/29/2019 writ petttion
19/36
transactions with middlemen who also do not have any experience in
mining, thus leading to unscientific mining. This arrangement actually
makes the original lessee an absentee lessee.
(d) The manifestation of Raising Contract is also visible with respect to
the transportation of ores. The Lokayukta Report states that the
Mines/Forest Department are issuing permits in the name of the lessees
or his agents for transportation. But in reality, these permits are being
used by the Raising Contractors and other persons to transport ores from
areas totally unconnected with the original lessees. According to the report
the Department officials have closed their eyes and are ignoring totally
the illegal activities. Such system from outside looks as if the lessee
himself is doing the mining operation but the facts are otherwise. This is
one of the serious concerns which have to be stopped forthwith. The
report of the Lokayukta mentions of a list of lessees who have transferred
their mining lease in favour of others who are either raising contractors or
Sub Lessees.
(e) The report concludes that the arrangement under Raising
Contract is literally a transfer of lease without the permission of the
Government is opposed to law, in all such cases, the original leases
should be terminated.
vi. As described in detail Chapter IX of the report of Dr. U.V.Singh filed as
Annexure P-3, several serious irregularities are taking place in the transportation
of ore, such as:
Transportation using fake Way Permits (Form 31)
Transportation of iron ore on risk
Transportation by use of Photostat copies of Mineral Dispatch Permit
(MDP or Bulk Permits)
Transportation without use of Trip Sheet
Transportation by way of overloading
7/29/2019 writ petttion
20/36
Transport of iron ore by sea or rail
(a) There are many serious irregularities in the transportation of iron ore and other
minerals from mine head to various destinations by using the services of trucks
and railway, the vehicle is supposed to have a way permit (Form No 31) issued
by the Forest Department in bulk, the Mineral Dispatch Permit (MDP or Bulk
Permit) and trip issued by the Mines Department. The irregularities include
transportation using fake Way Permits, transportation by using Photostat copy of
MDP or bulk permit, transportation without use of the trip sheet, transportation by
way of over loading. That the transport of iron ore has taken place by railways
also to the tune of 20% of the total of the iron ore without authorized way permit
issued by the competent authority.
(b) The Department of Mines and Geology issues bulk permits under section 4(a) of
the MMDR Act valid for 30 days by inspection of the material dumped in the
stock yard. These permits are photocopied and used repeatedly with the
connivance of the local officials. On all these materials no royalty is paid.
(c) Trip sheets are issued with a one-week validity for a load of 10 MT per trip. Each
lorry is however overloaded to at least up to 20 mT and no royalty is paid on the
overloading. Further with a one week validity, enables more than one trip to be
completed on a single trip sheet. Also once the loading is done there are no
check posts up to the ports in Mangalore and Goa. All the field staff are corrupt
and no checking is done.
(d) Regarding transport of ore mined in the forest area, Way Permit has to be issued
by the Forest Department for the transport of ore up to the stock yard in the form
31. Blank Form 31 forms are issued in bulk with the signature and stamp of the
forest officials and the transporters are free to transport any amount of ore from
forest areas. All most all of this ore is illegally mined and no royalty is paid on any
of these.
7/29/2019 writ petttion
21/36
(vii) The reservation of mineral bearing areas in Karnataka was done in accordance
with the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1956. The Government of Karnataka issued
11 Govt. orders from 1958-1983 and kept an extent of 43,630 sqKm. under
reservation. The National Mineral Policy 1993 liberalized the restrictions imposed
by the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956. According to the new policy, mining of
13 minerals including iron ore was thrown open to public. That the following
sequence of events show how the dereservation was done which lead to forest
land being included in the same :
(a) The Director of Mines and Geology submitted a report to the
Government of Karnataka on 21/28-07-1998 wherein, it was proposed
to de-reserve 9802.83 sq Km and retain an area of 1391.58 sq Km.
under reservation. In view of certain clarifications sought by the state
government, a revised proposal was submitted on 29-11-2000. A
meeting was held by the Government of India with the Government of
Karnataka which also included Indian Bureau of Mines on 30-11-2000.
It was decided by the Minister for Mines and Geology to change the
category of six blocks namely 13, 14, 15,17,16 and 18A for iron
titaniferrous iron and china clay in Bellary and Hassan District from the
reservation list to the de-reservation list. The Minister for Mines and
Geology had in his instructions for de-reservation of reserved blocks of
13, 14, 15, and 17 by holding that there are no forest on the leased
areas. However, this was suppression of factual information as
mentioned in the report of Shri. Gaikwad submitted to the Lokayukta.
(b) The aspect of illegality and arbitrariness arises from the fact that
although the Minister had asked for de-reservation of blocks no.
13,14,15,17,16 and 18 only, the Director Mines and Geology added
Block 5 from reserved category to de-reserved category for which
there was neither any instructions from the Minister nor any justification
was given by the Director of Mines and Geology.
7/29/2019 writ petttion
22/36
(c) At the instructions of the Minister of Mines and Geology Shri V.
Muniyappa the lists were sent by the Director of Mines and Geology to
the Secretary, Commerce and Industry. It also included a draft
Cabinet Note with stated that the de-reservation is mostly in respect
of non- forest areas and not so forest thick area excluding western
Ghats. The draft cabinet note clearly stated that the de-reservation is
proposed mostly in respect of non-forest areas and forest areas which
have lost vegetative cover. The Chief Secretary referred the file to the
Forest, Ecology and Environment department (FEE) wherein the
department stated that forest areas may not be included in proposal
for de-reservation. This was endorsed by the Minister of the
Department of Forest, Ecology Environment department who noted
that In view of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 which prohibits
non-forest activity and recent observation of the Honble Supreme
Court, mining in forestland is Precluded. Thus the FEE department
gave a categorical opinion to exclude forestland from de-reservation.
(d) After receiving the comments of FEE, the Secretary, Commerce and
Industries revised the Draft Cabinet note and incorporated the
observation of FEE and placed before the cabinet with following note:
the forest area proposed for de-reservation along with non-forest area
is that which is bereft of forest cover.
(e) The Secretary, Commerce and Industries, after receiving the opinion of
the Forest, Ecology and Environment should have taken into account
and accordingly excluded the blocks coming under forest area, instead
he placed the same blocks and sought cabinet approval. This resulted
in the following blocks coming under forest area being de-reserved
against the opinion of the Forest, Ecology and Environment.
i) Block no. 5 for manganese ore in the forests of kukwadi and
Ubrani forests of Chikmagalur district over an extent of
196.35sq. Km.
7/29/2019 writ petttion
23/36
ii) ) Block No. 8 for Titaniferous iron ore which partly include
reserve forest and partly minor forest, over an extent of 115.75
Sq. Km.
iii) Block No. 9 for Titaniferous iron ore in Shimoga district over an
extent of 325.77 Sq. Km. which includes Rangaiahnagiri State
forest, Kulwadi Ubrani State forest and Hadikere East State
forest.
iv) Block No. 13,14,15and 17 for iron ore in Bellary district over an
extent of 188.47 Sq. Km. which includes Ramgad Reserve
Forest, Gunda Reserved Forest, Hospet Reserved, Donimalai
Reserved Forest and Kumaraswamy Reserved Forest.
v) Block No. 18C for Fire Clay over an extent of 203 Sq. Km. in
Bangalore and Kolar District which includes Gollahalli State
Forest and Nandagudi State Forest.
vi) Block No.22 for the mineral magnesite, was reserved over an
extent of 808.67 sq. Km. in Mysore District. This block includes
Chikkanahalli Reserve Forest and Bolegowdanakatte Tiger
preserve reserve Forest.
vii) Block No. 24 for Feldspar in Hassan and Mandya District over
an extent of 203.04 Sq. Km. which includes Kolal Bore State
Forest.
viii) Block No. 25 for vermiculite in Hassan district over an extent
of 203.25 sq. Km. which includes Gaudanagere State Forest.
ix) Block No. 27 was reserved for the mineral pyrite over an extent
in 125.35 sq. Km. in Chitradurga District. This block includes
Jogimatti reserve Forest in the reservation area.
7/29/2019 writ petttion
24/36
x) Block No. 29 for limestone in Chitradurga district over an extent
of 300.45 Sq. Km. includes Lakkihalli State Forest and
Kudurekanive Kaval Forest.
(f) While preparing the Draft Cabinet Note the Director, Mines and
Geology stated that the de-reservation is mostly in respect of non-
forest areas and not so thick forest area. This was reiterated in the
Draft Cabinet Note proposed by Secretary, Commerce and Industries
the forest area proposed for de-reservation along with non-forest area
is that which is bereft of any forest cover.
(g) But the fact is different from what is stated by the above 2 officers in
Draft Cabinet Note. Some of the blocks especially block No. 13 and 17
proposed for de-reserve, have thick vegetative cover. It is pertinent to
quote the remarks of Chief Conservator of Forests, Bellary to
Conservator of Forests, Bellary over the areas covered under these
blocks (vide letter No. M2-MNG-NM/96-97 dated 5-11-1998) in the
case of Nadeem Minerals, Donomalai) Sandur forests of Bellary
District have already got 62 MLS covering an area. Recent floristic
study by M/s Foundation for Revitalization of Local Health Traditions.
(FRLHT) reveal that there are 234 species of plants belonging to 60
different families in the area. Out of this, 43 species have proven
medicinal properties. This vegetation density is 0.4.
(h) On the Draft Cabinet Note based on the remarks of Director of Mines
and Geology that the de-reservation is proposed in not so thick forest
area. The secretary went a step further and added that .. the area
proposed for de-reservation along is that which is bereft of any
forest cover. This point was observed by the Chief Secretary and
referred the file to Forest, Ecology and Environment with a request to
peruse the Draft Cabinet Note and offer its remarks. The forest,
Ecology and Environment categorically offered its general opinion to
exclude forest areas from de-reservation.
7/29/2019 writ petttion
25/36
(i) Even after the observation/remarks of Forest, Ecology and
Environment Department, the forest blocks in Draft Cabinet Note were
changed. The Draft Cabinet Note just included the remarks of the
Forest, Ecology and Environment as it is and placed before the
Cabinet and got the approval and finally notification was issued.
Therefore, de-reserving of 13 blocks over an extent of 2670.50 Sq.
Km. in forest area took place. Out of these 6 blocks over 1112.88 Sq.
Km. extents are in reserve and the remaining 7 blocks are in state
Forests.
These facts were stated in the Chapter 4 Observation and Finding of the report
of Gaikwad and his team titled Irregularities In Dereservation Of Mining Areas
For Grant To The General Public Which Were Reserved For State Exploitation-
An Evaluation. The copy of the and the reports of Gaikwad and his team are
filed and annexed as Annexure P-4(Colly).
(viii) There has been illegal mining going on along the border of Andhra Pradesh and
Karnataka as reported in detail in Annexure P2 [at pages 100-101] and
Annexure P 3[at pages 122-127]. Since this involves the integrity of the Inter
state border and illegal transportation of the ore it is of outmost importance that
the survey of India be directed to survey the area and also the demarcation of the
mines whose boundaries coincide with the interstate boundaries.
(a) There exists 10 ha of land forming part of the Bellary Reserve
Forest in Andhra Pradesh, this forms a patch of Reserve forest land
which is surrounded by three mining leases viz. M/s Obulapuram Mining
Company (OMC for short), Bellary Iron Ore Pvt Ltd (BIOP for short
and M/s Y. Mahabaleshwar and sons, Bellary. This patch of 10 ha, is an
unalloted forest land as clearly acknowledged in the report of Indian
Bureau of Mines and reported in Para 42 of the order dated 15-12-2008
of the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No 1540 of
2008 and W.P No 645 of 2008, which reads as follows:
7/29/2019 writ petttion
26/36
It is pertinent to note here that the Indian Bureau of Mines (for brevity
the IBM) which is a central organization, had conducted an inspection
and submitted its report. Some of the excerpts of the report as under:
During the site inspection representatives of both M/s Obulapuram Mining
Company and M/s Obalapuram Mining Company and M/s Bellary Iron Ore
(P) Ltd have informed that there is a piece of no mans land upto an extent
of about 10 acres in between the leaseholds of an unsigned combined
lease sketch depicting the no mans land alongwith the neighbouring
lease areas of M/s Obulapuram mining company, M/s Bellary Iron Ore (P)
Ltd and M/s Y.M and Sons (Refer to Plate) was obtained. It shows part of
the common boundary land from pillar No 1 to 6 to 5 does not actually
conform to the so called common boundary line between M/S
Obalapuram Mining Company and M/s Bellary Iron Ore (P) Ltd leasehold.
However, this needs to be checked and demarcated on the ground by a
through survey through the competent authority using high precision
survey instruments in order to fix up the actual common boundary
between the leaseholds of M/s Obulapuram Mining Company and M/s
Bellary Iron Ore (P) Ltd.
A copy of the sketch showing the location of the 10 acre Reserve Forest
Land is enclosed as Annexure P-5.
(b) That prior to this, the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI
for short) had written to the Director General of Forests, Government of
India bringing to his knowledge about the case wherein the Divisional
Forest Officer, Ananthpur (Andhra Pradesh) in connivance with M/s
Obulapuram Mining Company (P) Ltd had encroached on a Reserve forest
land measuring 10 acres and subsequently encroached on mine lease
areas of other mines. Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-6 is a
copy of the letter dated 17-9-2008 written by FIMI to the DG Forests,
Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India.
7/29/2019 writ petttion
27/36
(c) That based on the letter of FIMI to DG Forest, the Regional Office
of the Ministry of Environment and Forests sent a letter to the Special
Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh requesting that a factual
report of the matter be made available at the earliest on top priority. A
copy of the letter dated 3-11-2008 from the Regional Office of MoEF to the
Special Chief Secretary is hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-7.
(d) That the Government of Andhra Pradesh in response to the letter
sent by the Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment and Forests did
not address the main issue of 10 acres of forest land being encroached by
OMC in connivance with DFO, Ananthpur and diverted the issue by
showing that Bellary Iron Ore Pvt Ltd (BIOP) had encroached into
Obulapuram Village to the extent of 2.7 hectres. Further, the Andhra
Pradesh Government has diverted the main issue of encroachment of 10
acres of Reserve Forest land and did not reply to the key queries raised by
the MoEF through its letter dated 3-11-2008. Instead of making the focus
on the 10 acre Reserve Forest land, the Andhra Pradesh Government
sought to divert the focus through constituting a High Level Committee
headed by Chief Conservator of Forests, Ananthpur which in turn focused
its attention to the alleged encroachment of 2.7 hectres of land by BIOP
and keeping silent on the 10 acres issues by not dealing with the other
leases in the area and this is evident through the sketch of the lease area
which is limited to only one lease (i.e BIOP) and not to the combined
stretch of three lease holder and the 10 acre Reserve Forest land A copy
of the letter of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the Special
Chief Secretary which is marked to the Regional Office of MoEF dated 13-
11-2008 is hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-8.
(e) That pursuant to the letter of DG Forests, to Regional Office of
MoEF, Bangalore a site inspection was conducted on 23-1-2009 by the
Regional Office, MoEF. As part of the inspection, five mining leases in the
same area (i.e in Bellary Reserve Forest) were inspected. The relevant
part of the Inspection Report reads as follows:
7/29/2019 writ petttion
28/36
During the Inspection it was observed that two mines were
having boundary pillars. It was informed that these two mines were of (i)
Anantpur Mining Company having 6.5 Ha and (ii) M/S Oblapuram Mining
Company having 39.65 ha. On the adjoining areas, proper demarcation
pillars were not found. The forest area stated to be exiting between the
mining leases in the complaint could not be shown by the local forest
officials. This will be possible only after proper demarcation of the
boundaries of the mining lease areas. The GTS station was also not
shown. In the absence of demarcation pillar it is not possible to ascertain
whether the mining activity was going on within the allotted area or not.
Chief Conservator of Forests, Anantpur Circle and the Divisional Forest
Officer, Anantpur were asked to ensure the demarcation of the boundary
of all the mining leases immediately. In this regard letters were also sent
to the State Government to demarcate the area on the ground and submit
a combined sketch map duly authenticated of all the mines showing the
mining area and un-allotted forest area . Only after the demarcation is
done on the ground by the State Government, it will be possible to know
the exact position regarding mining activity in the unallotted area (in
violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act,1980[ Emphasis supplied].
(f) The MoEF, Southern Regional Office, Bangalore wrote to the
Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 28-1-2009, wherein it was
emphasized that the Government of Andhra Pradesh should demarcate the
boundary of all the five mining leases in Bellary Reserve Forest,
Kalyandurg Range, Anantpurt Forest Division on the ground immediately
and it was further requested to send combined sketch map duly
authenticated by all the above mines showing the respective lease area
and the (Reserve) forest area (10 acres). It was emphasized that the
matter may be treated as most urgent. A copy of the letter dated
28.01.2009 is filed and annexed and marked as Annexure P-9.
7/29/2019 writ petttion
29/36
(g) That the Site inspection Report was sent to the Director General of
Forests, MoEF by the Regional office of the MoEF dated 30-1-2009. The
relevant part of the letter reads as follows:
..inspecting officers could not ascertain whether mining operation was
restricted to the approved leased forest area or not. Therefore the State
Government of Andhra Pradesh have been asked to demarcate lease
boundaries of the all the mines properly on the ground and also to prepare
combined sketch map of all the mines and submit the same to this office.
Meanwhile State Government have been informed to ensure no illegal
mining takes place in the un-allotted forest area and submit action taken
report on illegal mining activity, if any has taken place
The covering letter of Southern regional office of MoEF to DG Forests
emphasizes Meanwhile State Governments have been informed to
ensure that no illegal mining takes place in the unallotted (Reserve) forest
area (10 acres)after receipt of the combined sketch map of all the mines
and report from the state government, inspection of the disputed mines
will be carried out and report will be submitted on the complaint received
for further necessary action
A copy of the Inspection Report along with the letter dated 30-1-2009
which was sent by Southern Regional Office, MoEF to Director General of
Forests hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-10.
(h) The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) constituted by this Honble
Court in W.P No. (C) 202 of 1995 was kept informed of the developments
with respect to the 10 acre of Reserve Forest land. Some of the key
correspondence of the Central Empowered Committee and the Ministry of
Environment and Forests were as follows:
(a) In the letter of MoEF dated 17-3-2009, to the Member Secretary,
CEC , reference was made to the letter received by the CEC with respect
to the said Reserve Forest land (10 acres) stating that the same has been
7/29/2019 writ petttion
30/36
encroached by M/s Obulapuram Mining Company owned by a very
powerful politician in connivance with a local forest officials ( DFO) and
other senior State Government Officials and that the Company (OMC) has
physically occupied at gun point the adjacent mine owned by Bellary Iron
Ore Pvt Ltd.
(b) The letter further reiterates that the mining lease areas were not found
to be demarcated properly on the ground and that Government of Andhra
Pradesh have been asked to demarcate the lease boundaries of all the
mines properly on the ground and also prepare the combined sketch map.
A copy of the letter dated 17.03.2009 of Shri B.K. Singh, Senior Assistant
Inspector General of Forest to the Member Secretary Central Empowered
Committee is hereto, annexed and marked as Annexure P-11.
(i) That the report of the Lokayukta emphasizes on the need for a joint survey
of the inter-state Border between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh by the
Government of India. It is specifically mentioned in the Report of the
Lokayukta that:
..Because of the proximity of the availability of mineral in this part of the
border of two states, there has been some illegal transportation in and out
of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, of the minerals illegally mined.
There are allegation on one side that the company from Andhra is
encroaching the mining areas within the Karnataka territory. While the
counter allegation is that the areas in which the Andhra Company is
mining really belongs to Andhra Pradesh..this dispute does not confine
itself to the dispute between the few companies, but, involves the
territorial integrity of two States. .I see and urgent need that the
Government of Karnataka to approach the Government of India and get a
joint Survey done to determine the property of the two States, so that the
territorial integrity of the two states are protected..irrespective of the
powers that are, my advice to the Government of Karnataka is to initiate
steps in this regard at the earliest. At the same time, immediate steps
7/29/2019 writ petttion
31/36
should be taken to stop all mining work in the disputed area so that
no loss is caused to either State, forgetting the interests of the
Individuals.[Emphasis supplied]
(j) That the large scale violations have been allowed to continue,
either through connivance of the officials and in instances where there
were efforts were made to implement the law of the land, the same were
met with threats and stopping inspection work to be legitimately carried
out by the forest department.
5. The Petitioners are, therefore, approaching this Honble Court on the
following, among other, grounds.
GROUNDS
A) Because, the illegal mining is continuing in violation of the orders on the Honble
Supreme Court in W.P (C) No 202 and has led to encroachment of forest lands
in the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
B) Because there has been a systematic breakdown of the governance structure
due to the illegal mining in both the states. The illegal mining has taken place in
both forest land as well as non forest land and these have taken various forms
such as mining inpatta lands, mining beyond the leased areas , trespassing into
forest areas for mining and illegal dumping and mining contrary to parameters
laid down by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The illegality has taken place due to
connivance of officials, politicians and miners and has led to not only loss of
ecology, livelihood of the local people, loss of agricultural land and also loss of
revenue of the State through both illegal mining as well as transportation of the
same.
C) Because, the Government of Karnataka recognizing the issue of illegal mining
appointed the Justice U.L Bhat Commission of Inquiry, however the Commission
never functioned. Subsequently, the Government of Karnataka made a reference
to the Lokayukta of Karnataka and a detailed report Part I was submitted by the
Lokayukata to the Government. The Report dealt at length at the various mining
7/29/2019 writ petttion
32/36
related irregularities and illegalities and made recommendations to deal with the
same. The Report highlighted the connivance of the Officials belonging to various
Department at various levels, politicians including holders of Public Offices and
the mining companies, traders, transporters and others which resulted in the
continuing illegal mining in violation of the orders of the Supreme Court as well
as Statutory laws such as the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and many other Rules and
Local Acts.
D) Because, the Report of the Lokayukta refers to specific involvement of the
Former Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka, several Managing Directors of
Mysore Minerals Ltd (MML for short) , Directors of Department of Geology and
Mines and many others. Despite such categorical recommendations of the
Lokayukta, the so called Action Taken Report (ATR), submitted by the
Government of Karnataka, as failed to take any effective measures either to stop
the illegal mining or initiate effective action against the officials. This inaction on
the part of the Government of Karnataka in failing to take strict action will on the
one hand not deter the violators in continuing to indulge in illegal mining and on
the other hand, serve as a precedent for others to violate.
E) Because, the Report of Dr U. V Singh which forms part of the Report of the
Lokayukta has given details in 99 instances of illegal mining outside the leased
area, encroachments into the forest lands, stock yards in forest and other
government lands and the roads in the forest area. Out of the 99 instances cited
by Dr U.V Singh, the Government of Karnataka has filed forest offence cases
against 36 violators and no cases have been filed against the remaining
violators. Thus this lack of action on the part of the Government has led to an
atmosphere of lawlessness and breakdown of Rule of law as a result of which
the illegal mining is continuing.
F) Because, various modus operandiare adopted by the miners in connivance with
officials and politicians and one such instance of blatant irregularity is the issue of
Raising Contract. That the Mysore Minerals Ltd. (MML), which is a public sector
7/29/2019 writ petttion
33/36
undertaking (PSU), which has been leased high quality iron ore areas on a
preferential basis has allowed certain private miners a back door entry through
raising contract. That raising contract itself is illegal since this type of irregular
transfer of mining is contrary to the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 and the relevant rules.
G) That the raising contract is the corner stone of the entire saga of illegal mining
and is the fountainhead of all other illegalities and irregularities. That through the
phenomenon of raising contract, MML has enabled various vested interests,
acting as contractors, to accumulate a fortune through mining operations without
having any technical or other expertise in the matter of scientific and sustainable
mining. That this phenomenon has depleted the MML, a PSU, of valuable
revenue causing immense loss to the public exchequer. That the phenomenon of
raising contracts has created a powerful lobby of contractors who have
pervaded into all political parties and have risen to various positions in the
Government, including the cabinet. That the raising contractors have got passed
a questionable notification dereserving the forest lands to meet their increasing
thirst for private profit at the expense of public good. That this unhealthy lobby
has devoured the mineral wealth of the state by encroaching into forest lands,
patta lands and even violated the interstate boundaries. That all these unhealthy
developments, including engendering a popular culture of disdain for the law of
the land, is a direct result of the umpteen raising contracts made by MML.
H) Because the raising contract is literally a transfer of lease without the permission
of the Government which is opposed to law.
I) Because the large scale illegal mining has caused huge loss of revenue to the
State due to non payment of royalty through illegal mining and transportation of
the same.
J) Because, there are many serious irregularities in the transportation of iron ore
and other minerals from mine head to various destinations by using the services
of trucks and railway, the vehicle is supposed to have a way permit (Form No 31)
issued by the Forest Department in bulk, the Mineral Dispatch Permit (MDP or
7/29/2019 writ petttion
34/36
Bulk Permit) and trip issued by the Mines Department. The irregularities include
transportation using fake Way Permits, transportation by using Photostat copy of
MDP or bulk permit, transportation without use of the trip sheet, transportation by
way of over loading. That the transport of iron ore has taken place by railways
also to the tune of 20% of the total of the iron ore without authorized way permit
issued by the competent authority.
K) Because the Government of Karnataka illegal dereserved forest areas for mining
despite the specific opinion against it by the Department of Forest, Ecology and
Environment. This was made possible due to the Director of Mines and Geology
stating that the dereservation is mostly in respect of non forest areas and not so
thick forest areas whereas the specific opinion of the Department of Forest,
Ecology and Environment was that forest areas may not be included in proposal
for dereservation. Further, the Minister for Ecology and Environment noted that
in view of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 which prohibits non forest activity
and recent observation of the Honble Supreme Court, mining in forest land is
precluded. Thus the Forest, Ecology and Environment Department gave a
categorical opinion to exclude forest land from de reservation.
L) Because, despite the contrary opinion of the Forest Department, the Secretary,
Commerce and industries rather than excluding the areas coming under forest
from the purview of areas for dereservation included the same in the blocks
selected for dereservation. This has led to various blocks having Reserve Forest
being dereserved for the Mining.
M) Because the State of Andhra Pradesh has failed to take action on the illegal
encroachment and mining carried out in 10 acre of the Bellary Reserve Forest of
Andhra Pradesh. This has been possible due to connivance of field level officers
at the level of DFOs as well as higher ups in the Government.
N) Because, the Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment and Forest had
recommended for a survey to be done so that the boundaries of the area leased
to M/S Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) could be ascertained. However,
despite the specific recommendation of the MoEF no survey and demarcation of
7/29/2019 writ petttion
35/36
the boundaries was done as a result the illegal mining continues in the 10 acres
of the unalloted Bellary Reserve Forest.
O) Because, the Government of Andhra Pradesh despite directions of the Regional
Office of the Ministry of Environment and Forest has failed to address the issue
of illegal encroachment and mining in 10 Ha of Reserve Forest land and instead
had constituted a High Level Committee which did not deal with the central issue
of 10 Ha of unalloted forest land between the mines of OMC and others
neighboring mines. It is most disconcerting as to why the Government of Andhra
Pradesh along with OMC are opposing the survey by the Survey of India.
P) Because, however no action has been taken by the Government of Karnataka to
stop the illegal mines or take action against those responsible for the illegal
mining in forest areas as well as other areas.
PRAYERS
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that:
(A) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
directing immediate steps be initiated by both the Respondent States and the
Union of India to stop all mining and other related activities in forest areas of
Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka which are in violation of the orders of this
Honble Court dated 12-12-1996 in W.P (C) No 202 of 1995 and the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980.
(B) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
directing as null and void retrospectively all raising contracts / sub leasing
because which are in violation of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 and initiate penal action against the violators.
(C)To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
directing the stoppage of all mining along the border and in forest areas in the
Bellary Reserve Forest till a systematic survey of both the interstate border and
the mine lease areas along the entire border is completed by the Survey of India
along with a representative of the Lokayukta of Karnataka.
7/29/2019 writ petttion
36/36
(D)To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
directing action against all the violators involved either directly or indirectly in
illegal mining including those named in the Report of the Lokayukta of Karnataka
(Part-I).
(E) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
directing the recovery of the illegal wealth accumulated through the illegal mining
and related activities; and
(F) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
directing null and void notification No. CI 33 MMM 1994 dated 15-3-2003 and
other related notifications/orders dereserving lands for mining operations.
(G)Pass any such order that this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case
Drawn by FILED BY
Ritwick Dutta Aparna Bhatt
Rahul Choudhary ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS