State Of Karnataka & Ors vs Janthakal Enterprises & Anr

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 2 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. 3

3. 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 upto 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 4 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.

8. At the said hearing on 2.7.2009, when the matter came up for further orders, the Government advocate appeared for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5. There was no representation on behalf of the third respondent (MoEF, Government of India). As only a short time had elapsed after service of notice, the State and its forest and mining departments could not file their statement of objections. The Forest department claims that it could not even appoint a Litigation Conducting Officer nor furnish its parawise remarks to the counsel for preparing the counter-affidavit, for want of time. The High Court however allowed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 2.7.2009, with the following directions :

14. The courts should share the legislative concern to conserve the forests and the mineral wealth of the country. Courts should be vigilant in issuing final or interim orders in forest/mining/Environment matters so that unscrupulous operators do not abuse the process of courts to indulge in large scale violations or rob the country of its mineral wealth or secure orders by misrepresentation to circumvent the procedural safeguards under the relevant statutes. The court should also realise that Central Government and the State Government are huge and complex organizations and many a time require considerable time to secure information and provide them to court, in matters requiring enquiry, investigation or probe. Where writ petitions involving disputed questions of fact in regard to forest/mining/environment matters, come up for 20 consideration, courts should give sufficient time and latitude to the concerned ministries/departments to file their objections/counters after thoroughly verifying the facts. If there is undue hurry, the concerned ministries/departments will not be able to make proper or thorough verifications and place the correct facts. Instances are not wanting where the public interest will be sabotaged, by the officers of the state/central government who are supposed to safeguard the public interest, by colluding with the unscrupulous operators. A wrong decision in such matters may lead to disastrous results - in regard to public interest - financially and ecologically. Therefore, writ petitions involving mineral wealth, forest conservation or environmental protection should not be disposed of without giving due opportunity to the concerned departments to verify the facts and file their counters/objections in writing.

15. This case is a typical example where a writ petition requiring decision of disputed and 21 unascertained factual allegations filed on 30.3.2009 has been disposed of on 2.7.2009 without giving due opportunity to the mining and forest departments of the State Governments and the MoEF, to file their counter-affidavits. When there was delay of nearly a quarter century on the part of the writ petitioner in approaching the court, the writ petition ought not to have been disposed of in hardly three months, without counter-affidavits from the concerned respondents. Even though there were no counter affidavits, nor any opportunity to the respondents in the writ petition to file counter-affidavits, the High court assumed that the State and the Central Governments had conceded the claims of the first respondent in the writ petition and allowed the writ petition on 2.7.2009. Again, the High Court without calling for objections from MoEF or the state government, on an application by the writ petitioner, amended the final order and reduced the Net Present Value (NPV) from Rs.6,49,94,820/- to Rs.4,69,45,200/-. Anxiety to render speedy justice should not result in sacrifice of the public interest.

17. We, accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed before the High Court. We impose costs of Rs.50,000/- upon the first respondent payable to the state government.