IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.44645 OF 2018 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.41376 OF 2010 (GM-MM-S)
IN W.P.No.44645/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAM RAO M.POAL S/O LATE MANSINGH RAO POAL AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.210, 2ND CROSS 13TH MAIN, BANK OFFICERS COLONY B.T.M. 1ST STAGE BENGALURU – 560 029 (BY SRI RAVI L. VAIDYA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE (FOREST CONSERVATION DIVISION) INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN ALIGANJ, JORBAGH ROAD NEW DELHI – 110 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS DY.INSPECTOR GENERAL OF FORESTS (FC) 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 ... PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY 3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 4. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD SY.NO.597P, WARD NO.25 4TH MAIN, NEAR DR.VISHNUVARDHANA PARK KUVEMPU NAGAR BALLARI – 583 104 5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BALLARI DISTRICT BALLARI – 583 104 6. M/S. JSW STEEL LIMITED TORANGALLU BALLARI DISTRICT – 583 104 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ... RESPONDENTS (SRI K.A.ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP FOR RESPONDNET NOS.2, 3 & 5 SRI GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4 SRI K.G.RAGHAVAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI ADARSH GANGAL, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.6) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE APPROVAL DATED 27.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-AK) AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.41376/2010
BETWEEN:
RAM RAO M.POAL S/O LATE MANSINGH RAO POAL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO.14, WARD NO.9 SUNDUR – 583 119 BELLERY DISTRICT (BY SRI RAVI L. VAIDYA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 ... PETITIONER 3. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BELLARY DIVISION BELLARY 4. RANGE FOREST OFFICER SUNDUR RANGE, SUNDUR TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) ---
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER DATED 17.08.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS DATED 26.8.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Both the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertain to the same land. A mining lease was granted to the petitioner. By the judgment and order passed by the Apex Court on 18th April 2013 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.562/2009 SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., the Apex Court accepted the recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee (for short “CEC”) and held that the leases in respect of ‘C’ category mines will stand cancelled and the recommendations of the CEC with regard to the said leases are accepted. It is not in dispute that the lease granted to the petitioner in respect of the subject land was included in category ‘C’. Therefore, the lease granted to the petitioner stands cancelled. A review petition was filed by the petitioner before the Apex Court seeking review of the said direction concerning the petitioner. The review petition was dismissed by the Apex Court by the order dated 29th July 2015. Thereafter, a curative petition was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the order dated 29th March 2016. In terms of the order of the Apex Court dated 18th April 2013, the Government of Karnataka passed an order/notification dated 12th September 2013 cancelling the leases covered under ‘C’ category in the order of the Apex Court including the lease granted to the petitioner.
3. As far as W.P.No.41376/2010 is concerned, the petitioner has challenged the notices issued for stopping the mining activities as the same cannot be conducted without prior permission of the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
4. It appears that after cancellation of the lease, the sixth respondent in W.P.No.44645/2018 was granted lease in respect of the subject land. The petitioner by filing W.P.No.44645/2018 had challenged the communication dated 27th July 2018 issued by the Government of India conveying approval for diversion of an area of 32.56 hectares of forest land for iron ore mining. The said letter was issued on the basis of the auction sale of the land earlier leased to the petitioner which was allotted to the sixth respondent in the auction. The subsequent actions taken place have been also challenged in the said writ petition.
5. Both the petitions proceed on the footing that the petitioner has been granted a mining lease. As stated earlier, as per the directions of the Apex Court, the mining lease has been cancelled. The petition for review as well as the subsequent curative petition filed by the petitioner have been dismissed by the Apex Court.
6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the orders of the Apex Court are based on misrepresentation of the facts and incorrect statements made by the State Government and the subsequent documents obtained by the petitioner show that the land subject of lease was not a forest land.
7. The direction issued by the Apex Court accepting the recommendation of CEC to cancel the lease has attained finality by virtue of dismissal of the review petition as well as the curative petition filed by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is not concerned in any manner with the subject land. As stated earlier, the mining lease has been subsequently granted to the sixth respondent in W.P.No.44645/2018.
8. This Court cannot go into the question whether the order of the Apex Court is based on incorrect statements made by the Government of Karnataka or the incorrect information supplied by the State Government to the Apex Court. Suffice it to say that in view of cancellation of the lease in the year 2013, now, the petitioner has no locus to proceed with both the petitions. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.
Misc.W.No.51691/2011 in W.P.No.41376/2010 does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB