Case: SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

I.A. No. 247 of 2015 in WP(C) No. 562 of 2009 [Application For Clarification/directions On Behalf of Federation Of Indian Mineral Industries, Southern Region (Fimi South)] I.A. No. 247 of 2015 has been filed, inter alia, seeking following reliefs: a. Direct/clarify that iron ore lessees in the State of Karnataka will not be required to contribute ten percent of the sale proceeds, ex mines, to the SPV established pursuant to orders of this Honble Court, from the date on which the said lessees become liable to make payment, under Section 9B of the Act, to the DMF; 2. We have considered the report of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC for short) dated 25th October, 2017 filed in this regard; affidavit dated 29th November, 2017 filed on behalf of the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries, Southern Region (FIMI South); and the report of the CEC dated 19th March, 2018 (i.e. Report No. 13 of 2018). 3. While FIMI (South) is seeking discontinuation of its obligation to pay ten percent (10%) by way of contribution to the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) in the light of the total accumulation that has accrued as on date, the CEC in its Report (No. 13 of 2018) dated 19th March, 2018 has urged that the contribution towards the SPV should continue, broadly, for the reason that the Comprehensive Environment Plan for the Mining Impact Zone (CEPMIZ) is still a vision document and the exact quantum of funds required for its implementation is not clear. That apart, the CEC in its report (No. 13 of 2018) has stated that the ambit of the CEPMIZ, in the interest of social justice, may expand and, therefore, it would not be prudent at this stage to discontinue the contributions made by the lessees. The CEC has also stated that the CEPMIZ Scheme is envisaged for execution over a period of ten (10) years and various relevant factors including cost-escalation have still to be worked out. Accordingly, it is suggested by the CEC in its aforesaid report (No. 13 of 2018) dated 19th March, 2018 that the Special Purpose Vehicle i.e. M/s. Karnataka Mining Environment Restoration Corporation (M/s KMERC) be directed to submit a project Report before this Court indicating very broadly the different facets of the CEPMIZ Scheme; work to be undertaken and the cost which can be reasonably expected to be incurred. It is only thereafter that the prayers made in I.A. No. 247 ought to be considered.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]2. We have considered the report of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC for short) dated 25th October, 2017 filed in this regard; affidavit dated 29th November, 2017 filed on behalf of the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries, Southern Region (FIMI South); and the report of the CEC dated 19th March, 2018 (i.e. Report No. 13 of 2018).3. While FIMI (South) is seeking discontinuation of its obligation to pay ten percent (10%) by way of contribution to the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) in the light of the total accumulation that has accrued as on date, the CEC in its Report (No. 13 of 2018) dated 19th March, 2018 has urged that the contribution towards the SPV should continue, broadly, for the reason that the Comprehensive Environment Plan for the Mining Impact Zone (CEPMIZ) is still a vision document and the exact quantum of funds required for its implementation is not clear. That apart, the CEC in its report (No. 13 of 2018) has stated that the ambit of the CEPMIZ, in the interest of social justice, may expand and, therefore, it would not be prudent at this stage to discontinue the contributions made by the lessees. The CEC has also stated that the CEPMIZ Scheme is envisaged for execution over a period of ten (10) years and various relevant factors including cost-escalation have still to be worked out. Accordingly, it is suggested by the CEC in its aforesaid report (No. 13 of 2018) dated 19th March, 2018 that the Special Purpose Vehicle i.e. M/s. Karnataka Mining Environment Restoration Corporation (M/s KMERC) be directed to submit a project Report before this Court indicating very broadly the different facets of the CEPMIZ Scheme; work to be undertaken and the cost which can be reasonably expected to be incurred. It is only thereafter that the prayers made in I.A. No. 247 ought to be considered.