2002 (10) TMI 784 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court ruling on environmental violations by a mining company in a national park

The Supreme Court addressed violations of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, by Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. in Kudremukh National Park. Despite court ... Prior approval for diversion of forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - non-obstante clause in Section 2(ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act - renewal of mining lease is not a vested right - requirement of environment impact assessment - public trust doctrine - precautionary principle - sustainable development - no de-reservation of forests/sanctuaries/national parks pending court orders - role and primacy of the Forest Advisory Committee/Central Empowered Committee in decisions on forest diversionPrior approval for diversion of forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - non-obstante clause in Section 2(ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act - renewal of mining lease is not a vested right - Validity of renewal/continuation of mining operations without prior concurrence of the Central Government under the Conservation Act and whether Rule 24B of the Mineral Concession Rules or prior administrative acts can override that requirement. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that renewal of mining lease in an area falling within forest/reserved area requires compliance with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as a condition precedent and that renewal is not a vested right of the lessee. The non-obstante clause in Section 2(ii) bars State action permitting use of forest land for non-forest purposes except with prior approval of the Central Government; consequently, Rule 24B of the Mineral Concession Rules cannot operate to circumvent the statutory requirement of prior central approval. Earlier administrative communications in favour of renewal did not negate the statutory requirement, particularly in the absence of mandated approvals and environmental impact assessments.Renewal or continuation of mining could not be validated without compliance with the Conservation Act and prior Central approval; the company's plea that renewal is a vested right was rejected.Requirement of environment impact assessment - precautionary principle - sustainable development - Whether mining/renewal could be permitted in the absence of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and without taking precautionary measures. - HELD THAT: - The Court emphasised the centrality of Environment Impact Assessment and the precautionary and sustainable development principles in environmental decision-making. The record showed no EIA having been obtained from the institutes named by the State; therefore, administrative acts premised on incomplete environmental appraisal lacked proper foundation. International conventions and constitutional obligations reinforce the need for EIA and precautionary action before permitting potentially damaging activity in ecologically sensitive areas.Mining/renewal could not be treated as properly authorised in the absence of requisite environmental impact assessments and compliance with precautionary/sustainable development obligations.No de-reservation of forests/sanctuaries/national parks pending court orders - role and primacy of the Forest Advisory Committee/Central Empowered Committee in decisions on forest diversion - Validity of exclusion of the company's land from the Notification under Section 35(4) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and whether such exclusion could be effected contrary to earlier orders prohibiting de-reservation. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the exclusion of the land from the Notification was not in order to the extent it contravened the earlier direction that no de-reservation of forests/sanctuaries/national parks be effected. The matter involved statutory processes under the Conservation Act and the Wildlife Act and required conformity with existing judicial directions and the advice/processes of statutory committees. Administrative exclusion effected while judicially pending prohibition on de-reservation could not stand.The exclusion of the company's land from the Notification was not in order insofar as it contravened the Court's earlier prohibition on de-reservation; statutory committee processes must be followed.Role and primacy of the Forest Advisory Committee/Central Empowered Committee in decisions on forest diversion - public trust doctrine - Appropriate temporal scope of permission to continue mining and the Court's acceptance of the Committee's recommendation on a time-bound winding up. - HELD THAT: - The Court accepted the majority recommendation of the Central Empowered/Forest Advisory Committee which was based on factual assessment and statutory competence, and observed that the Forest Advisory Committee's independent statutory recommendation merited deference. Taking into account the factual materials and the Committee's statutory role, the Court held that mining should be allowed only till the end of 2005 to enable exhaustion of the weathered secondary ore in the already broken-up area, subject to fulfilment of ecological and rehabilitation conditions and supervision of implementation by the Committee and Ministry.Mining operations permitted only until the end of 2005 in the already broken-up area, subject to the Committee's conditions and oversight; the Committee's time-bound recommendation was accepted.Renewal of mining lease is not a vested right - prior approval for diversion of forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Effect of inconsistent administrative positions of State and Central authorities and related correspondence on the legality of mining permissions. - HELD THAT: - The Court criticised the inconsistent stances taken by the State and Central Governments at different points but held that such administrative inconsistency did not override statutory requirements. Communications seeking temporary permission or proposing renewals without required statutory approvals and EIAs were insufficient to confer lawful entitlement. The letter of the State seeking temporary working permission and longer renewal could not validate mining where statutory compliance was absent.Administrative inconsistencies did not cure statutory non-compliance; prior statutory approvals and environmental clearances remained mandatory.Final Conclusion: Interlocutory application disposed: the Court accepted the statutory Committee's recommendation and allowed mining only in the already broken-up area until the end of 2005 subject to ecological, rehabilitation and monitoring conditions and implementation under the supervision of the Ministry/State and the Committee; renewals or continuations without prior Central approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act and without required environmental impact assessment were not permissible, and exclusion/de reservation measures inconsistent with earlier court directions were held not in order. Proceedings initiated against the company on other statutes to be decided by appropriate forums independently. Issues Involved:1. Violation of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.2. Continuation of mining activities despite court orders.3. Environmental impact and pollution caused by mining.4. Legal validity of lease renewal under various Acts.5. Compliance with environmental and forest conservation laws.Summary:1. Violation of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972:The case involves the alleged violation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, due to mining activities by Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. (KIOCL) in Kudremukh National Park, a biodiversity hotspot. The I.A. 670 of 2001 was filed questioning the correctness of orders issued by the States of Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh, which were claimed to be in violation of the Act.2. Continuation of Mining Activities Despite Court Orders:Despite the Supreme Court's orders dated 12.12.1996 and 14.2.2000, mining activities continued in the Kudremukh National Park. The main reliefs sought included directing the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to withdraw the 'temporary working permission' and stop mining activities, pollution of the Bhadra river, illegal encroachment, and laying of new slurry pipelines.3. Environmental Impact and Pollution Caused by Mining:The Central Empowered Committee recommended that KIOCL wind up its operations within five years or upon exhaustion of the oxidized weathered secondary ore, whichever is earlier. Conditions included preparing a rehabilitation and reclamation plan, monetary compensation of Rs. 25 crores, and monitoring by a committee comprising representatives from MoEF, the State of Karnataka, and NGOs.4. Legal Validity of Lease Renewal Under Various Acts:KIOCL argued that under Rule 24(B) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the lease was to be renewed for twenty years. However, the final Notification under Section 35(4) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, excluded the land under mining. The company also cited a Notification under Section 349 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, to claim the land was outside the purview of the Act.5. Compliance with Environmental and Forest Conservation Laws:The Supreme Court noted the necessity of compliance with Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, even for lease renewals. The Forest Advisory Committee recommended allowing mining until 2005, subject to fulfilling ecological and other conditions. The Court accepted this recommendation, emphasizing the need for sustainable development and adherence to environmental laws.The judgment highlighted the importance of balancing economic development with environmental protection, emphasizing the constitutional duty to safeguard the environment for future generations. The application was disposed of with directions to implement the Committee's recommendations under the supervision of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the State Government, and the company.