- (1.) LEAVE granted. Heard.
(2.) THE first respondent was the holder of a mining lease (No.593/993) for the period 6.7.1965 to 5.7.1985 under registered lease dated 6.7.1965 in respect of an area of 80.94 hectares in Survey No. 35(Part) of Tanigehalli and Survey No.107(Part) of Hirekandawadi villages, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District, Karnataka. THE first respondent filed an application for renewing the mining lease, on 22.6.1984, without seeking clearance under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. THE application for renewal was rejected on 30.9.1996. However subsequently by two notifications dated 23.8.2007, the State Government accorded sanction for the first renewal of the mining lease retrospectively for a period of twenty years (from 5.7.1985 to 4.7.2005) and for the second renewal for another period of twenty years (from 5.7.2005 to 4.7.2025) subject to clearance under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and environment clearance under Environment Protection Act, 1986. But the said renewals have not been granted as the first respondent did not obtain the required clearances. In fact, the proposals submitted by the first respondent, for obtaining forest clearance were returned several times for not submitting a complete proposal. In view of it, the first respondent alleges that mining activity has been carried on by the first respondent in the mining lease area, after 5.7.1985. The first respondent produced before the Director, Mines & Geology, State of Karnataka, an alleged permission letter dated 14.2.2008 purportedly issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, (for short 'MoEF') Government of India, addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Karnataka according permission to the first respondent for lifting up to one lakh Tonnes of old waste dumped in the leased area, made up of natural soil erosions and waste thrown by neighbouring mining lessees. On routine verification about the genuineness of the said communication, the MoEF informed the Secretary (Forests),Government of Karnataka, that the said letter dated 14.2.2008 was a fake letter and directed the state government to initiate criminal action against the first respondent and others responsible for the same. The first respondent subsequently admitted that the letter dated 14.2.2008 was not genuine. According to the first respondent, one Irfan Shaikh representing himself to be a clerk working at MoEF, had represented to the first respondent that he would be able to get any clearance from MoEF that the first respondent explained its case to him; that the said Irfan Shaikh thereafter provided the said letter dated 14.2.2008 authorising lifting the old waste dumps; and that believing the said letter to be a genuine letter issued by MoEF, the first respondent had furnished it to the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, State of Karnataka. The first respondent submitted that once it came to know that the letter was a fake, it neither relied on it nor used it. The first respondent filed IA Nos.2419 and 2420 of 2008 in WP (C) No.202 of 1995 (T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad v. Union of India) in this Court, seeking permission to intervene and seeking direction for grant of approval of its proposal for diversion of 80.94 Hectares of forest land, for non forest mining activity under the Forests (Conservation) Act and permission to lift 75000 MT of iron ore and 25000 MT of Manganese ore which had been previously mined and lying in the dump area of the mine. In the said applications, the petitioner averred as under: "That in the mine in question, around 75000 MT of iron ore and 25000 MT of manganese which were previously mined and stored in the dump area are lying there (material mined before 1980). The appellant prays that it may be permitted to lift the same from the dump and sell it. 4.1. The first respondent also offered to pay the NPV for the said forest area of 80.94 Hectare, as also the amount to be paid for carrying out compensatory afforestation. The said applications were however dismissed by this court, as withdrawn, on 20.3.2009.
(3.) THE first respondent thereafter filed a writ petition on 30.3.2009 before the Karnataka High Court (WP No.8094/2009) seeking the following relief: "Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to lift the dumped material lying in the mining yard of ML 593/993 at Hirekandawadi & Thanigehalli village of Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District, by collecting the requisite fee and royalty." 5.1. THE State of Karnataka, Director of Mines and Geology (Karnataka), Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, (Government of India), Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Karnataka and the Conservator of Forests, Chitradurga Division were arrayed as respondents 1 to 5 in the said writ petition. THE first respondent alleged as follows in support of the said prayer in the writ petition: (a) THE leased area under ML No.593/993 had been declared as reserved forest area wherein mining or other non-forest activities were prohibited without obtaining necessary clearance. (b) When the mining activities were carried on by the first respondent between 1965 and 1980, there was no value for iron ore of grades less than 62% or 63% and the excavated material of lesser grades were dumped as waste in the mining area. THEre were nine such old dumps containing 1,17,800 metric tonnes of waste material, in the leased area, consisting of material extracted prior to 1985 when the mining lease was validly in force. (c) In view of the gradual appreciation in value of iron ore, the said dumped material became valuable and the first respondent decided to dispose of the said waste. But in spite of repeated requests, necessary clearances/transportation permits, were not issued to the first respondent who was the owner thereof, even though there was no legal impediment for grant of such clearances/permits. The said writ petition came up for consideration before a division bench of the High Court on 24.4.2009 for preliminary hearing. The High Court directed issue of notice to the respondents and also issued an ex parte interim direction to the forest department, to furnish the following details to the court: (i) What was the actual quantity of dumped material available in the mining yard? (ii) What would be the royalty, EPF, NPV which the writ petitioner was otherwise liable to pay? (iii) What was the damage they had caused to the flora and fauna? And (iv) What was the extent of afforestation, if the writ petitioner was liable to make it? ;