Environmental regulation and mineral lease control shape illegal coal mining oversight, restoration measures, and proprietary rights

The text explains that the National Green Tribunal can act on serious environmental degradation from illegal coal mining, including by constituting expert committees and ordering restorative measures such as a restoration fund. It further states that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 apply in Meghalaya, including tribal areas, and that coal mining on private or community land still requires compliance with the lease and Central approval regime. For minerals in private or community ownership, the lessor is the owner, while the State retains statutory control and District Councils cannot override Parliament's mining framework. The discussion also notes that bans on illegal mining may be upheld, while proprietary rights in unlawfully extracted coal are not automatically extinguished.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the National Green Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the environmental complaints and to pass directions for ban, monitoring, committee constitution and creation of a restoration fund; (ii) Whether the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 apply in the tribal areas of Meghalaya and whether mining of coal in privately owned or community owned land requires a mining lease; (iii) Whether the State Government or the owner of the minerals is competent to grant mining lease and whether the State and Autonomous District Councils have statutory control over coal mining; (iv) Whether the ban on illegal coal mining, the direction regarding vesting of extracted coal, and the direction to deposit Rs. 100 crores required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the National Green Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the environmental complaints and to pass directions for ban, monitoring, committee constitution and creation of a restoration fund.

Analysis: The pleadings before the Tribunal alleged serious environmental degradation caused by unscientific and illegal coal mining, including water, air and land pollution, and expressly linked the grievance to enactments specified in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. That satisfied the statutory requirement of a substantial question relating to environment arising from implementation of Schedule I enactments. The Tribunal could also rely on its procedural powers to seek expert reports, appoint committees for scientific assistance, and pass directions necessary to secure the ends of justice. The creation of a restoration fund was treated as a remedial measure traceable to the Tribunal's power to secure environmental restitution.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the matter and to issue environmental directions, including constitution of committees and creation of the restoration fund.

Issue (ii): Whether the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 apply in the tribal areas of Meghalaya and whether mining of coal in privately owned or community owned land requires a mining lease.

Analysis: The Sixth Schedule contained no Presidential notification exempting Meghalaya from the operation of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The statutory scheme under Sections 4, 5 and 13, read with Chapter V of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, covers land where minerals vest in a person other than the Government as well as Government land. The Rules contemplate a mining lease even where the minerals vest in private or community owners, subject to previous approval of the Central Government for coal. The Mines Act, 1952 and the environmental clearance regime also continue to apply to mining operations.

Conclusion: The Act of 1957 and the Rules of 1960 apply in Meghalaya, and coal mining in privately owned or community owned land requires compliance with the statutory lease and approval regime.

Issue (iii): Whether the State Government or the owner of the minerals is competent to grant mining lease and whether the State and Autonomous District Councils have statutory control over coal mining.

Analysis: In the case of minerals vesting in private or community ownership, Chapter V of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 treats the lessor as the private or community owner, not the State Government. The State Government nevertheless retains statutory control through approval, enforcement, prohibition and prosecution powers under the Act and Rules. The Autonomous District Councils have no power to enact or control mining lease regime in a manner repugnant to the Parliamentary enactment, and their powers under the Sixth Schedule do not displace the mining control framework created by Parliament.

Conclusion: The mining lease is to be granted by the private or community owner of the mineral, not by the State Government, but the State retains statutory control; the District Councils do not have independent authority to override the mining regime.

Issue (iv): Whether the ban on illegal coal mining, the direction regarding vesting of extracted coal, and the direction to deposit Rs. 100 crores required interference.

Analysis: The blanket ban on illegal coal mining was upheld in principle because the record established severe environmental harm and persistent non-compliance. However, the direction that all coal remaining after 15.05.2016 would vest in the State was not sustained, since the owners did not lose proprietary rights merely because the coal had been illegally extracted. The direction to deposit Rs. 100 crores was also modified because the amount was meant for environmental restoration and the State's limited finances warranted use of money already lying in the restoration fund rather than a fresh cash burden. The disposal mechanism for extracted coal was directed through Coal India Ltd. under a supervised process.

Conclusion: The ban was upheld for illegal mining, the vesting direction was set aside, and the Rs. 100 crores direction was modified to permit transfer from the restoration fund for environmental restoration.

Final Conclusion: The batch of appeals was disposed of by sustaining the environmental regulatory framework and the prohibition against illegal mining, while giving limited relief on vesting of coal and on the mode of funding environmental restoration. The extracted coal was to be dealt with through a supervised disposal mechanism, and the State's fresh cash deposit obligation was replaced by transfer from the existing restoration fund.

Ratio Decidendi: Where mining causes substantial environmental harm, the Tribunal may exercise its statutory environmental jurisdiction to impose a ban, seek expert assistance, and order restorative measures, but proprietary rights in minerals are not extinguished merely because extraction was unlawful unless the law expressly so provides.

---