B.R. Surendranath Singh vs Dy.Director Dept. Of Mines & Geology ...

6. Brief facts according to the appellant are as under:

7. The appellant is continuing with the quarrying operations and accordingly the appellant has been filing monthly reports with the first respondent - Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Railway Station Road, Tumkur.

8. Adjacent to the property leased in favour of the appellant, certain persons have illegally conducted mining operations and extracted iron ore. According to the appellant he immediately wrote a letter-cum-undertaking to the respondents that this iron ore of approximately one lakh ton can be taken away by the respondents and the appellant herein has no claim whatsoever over it. The 4 letter/undertaking dated 20-12-2004 of the appellant is setout as under:

9. During the month of January, 2005, the respondents found that about one lakh ton of iron ore has been illegally quarried and this illegal material was kept in the appellant's land and the appellant was directed to protect the said one 5 lakh ton of iron ore. The appellant immediately acknowledged the approximate stock of one lakh ton of iron ore for which the appellant gave an undertaking to protect the same. The relevant portion of the undertaking is reproduced as under:

12. According to the appellant, the Deputy Director - the first respondent brought some people on 22.12.2005 who were interested in purchasing the iron ore, for which the first respondent herein actually showed the iron ore legally quarried and stacked by the appellant instead of showing the illegally mined iron ore lying within the borders of the appellant's leased land.

13. The appellant submitted a representation to the respondent No. 1 stating that the error has been rectified and appropriate action be taken in this regard. The appellant made a complaint that instead of illegally mined iron ore, the respondent no. 1 was contemplating to sell the iron ore which was legally mined and accumulated by the appellant.

14. The appellant wrote a letter to the Chief Minister of Karnataka on 23.12.2005 and thereafter filed a writ petition No. 27521 of 2005 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamous restraining the respondents from auctioning the iron ore fines stacked in Survey No. 130, Honnebagi and Bellenhali Village, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District and direct the respondents to conduct an inspection, and thereafter determine the iron ore fines, which have been legally extracted by the appellant, and the iron ore fines, which are illegally dumped in the area of the appellant.

16. A letter dated 25.02.2006 was issued by the respondent - Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Tumkur, stating that on a complaint of illegal mining activity and on a visit to the site by the Joint Director, Mysore, it was found that in an area adjacent to the lease of appellant, one Basanth Poddar was doing illegal mining in the area using sophisticated mining machineries and the said Basanth Poddar transported the iron ore, illegally removed it, by using permits of Mining Lease No. 2187 which belongs to the appellant. The letter further states that after inspecting the stock of iron ore unauthorisedly piled by the accused persons the same was quantified at about one lakh metric ton. The letter further states that from the preliminary enquiry it was learnt that one M/s. Balaji Producing Company has been granted the mining lease under Mining Lease No. 2208 covering Survey No. 130 of Honnebagi Village and in Survey No. 12 of Gollarahalli Village and he had given the raising contract for extraction of iron ore to Selvaraj of Sun Minerals and the said Selvaraj claims to have dug a pit at `Biscuit Pit' and 9 removed the iron ore and stacked the ore in the area of Mining Lease No. 2187, which is adjacent and owned by the appellant herein. The first respondent thereafter submitted the complaint for prosecution of M/s. Karnataka Mining Company, M/s. Balaji Produce Company, Chennai and their contractor Selvaraj of M/s. Sun Minerals and the appellant herein, who are involved in committing the act of illegal quarrying. The above complaint was registered as Crime No. 52/2006 before the Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station.

18. The appellant submitted that the respondents filed an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner to identify the iron ore extracted from the area covered by the lease of the appellant. The High Court on 12.10.2006 passed the following order:

27. In pursuance to the said complaint, the officials of the Department of Mines and Geology visited Mining Lease No.2187 on 17.12.2004 and found illegal mining and as such the same was seized and stored in Survey No.130, which is the subject matter of the lease in Mining Lease No.2187. The illegal mining ore which is stored is also depicted in the mahazar dated 17.12.2004 and the same is endorsed by the representative of the holder of Mining Lease No.2187. Perhaps, on the appellant fearing some action on the complaint of Selvaraju, sent a letter dated 20.12.2004 wherein he disowned the iron ore seized. The letter dated 20.12.2004 has been set out earlier in which it is mentioned that 1 lakh ton of iron ore was found lying in Mining Lease No.2187 and the department can take possession and do whatever they deem it fit. He also mentioned that the 19 appellant has no claim of the above stock. Thereafter on 10.1.2005 the appellant submitted an affidavit with the Government of Karnataka in which it is mentioned that the appellant is undertaking to safeguard and safe keep the said stocks. Respondent no.1 issued a notification on 23.12.2004 but the same could not be acted upon due to various reasons resulting in another notification of 14.12.2005. It seems that the appellant from this point wanted to take advantage of the l lakh ton iron ore which could not be lifted by the respondent or sold by him. The notification dated 14.12.2005 was challenged in writ petition No.27521/2005 by the appellant. The appellant obtained an interim stay. The said writ petition was dismissed on 25.06.2009. Thereafter, he filed a Review Petition No.418 of 2009 in writ petition No. 27521 of 2005 which was also dismissed on 12.04.2010. All these orders are the subject matter of these appeals. Since there was no stay granted in the review petition No.418 of 2009, the third notification regarding public auction was issued on 09.12.2009 fixing the date of auction on 24.02.2010. The appellant again moved an interim application in review 20 petition No.418 of 2009 seeking for stay of auction. The same was declined by the court. From the record of the case, it is quite evident that the appellant went on filing writ petition, review petition and the interim application challenging the third public notification resulting in a direction issued by the High Court for getting an inventory of quantity of iron ore lifted and to be lifted by the successful bidder and surveyed by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology. The appellant was ready to deposit a sum of Rs.15 crores as to the value of the material and execute an undertaking not to lift the material. This is another new contention raised by him in Writ Petition No.15079 of 2010. The High Court did not grant any interim relief at that stage resulting in filing of these appeals against the order dated 29.04.2010 and subsequently writ petition no. 15079 of 2010 was dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to raise all contentions in Criminal Petition No.2104 of 2010.

33. The respondents further submitted that the continuous act of the appellant involving himself to grab the iron ore from the seized dump resulted in the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology to visit once again the leased area on 28.01.2006 and found that though the appellant 26 was not permitted to carry out any mining activity or using of crushing unit factually, it was seen that the appellant was engaged in such activities resulting in a notice issued to the appellant on 29.3.2006. The respondent filed a criminal complaint on 25.2.2006 before the Chikkanayakanahalli Police against six persons including the appellant for having indulged in illegal mining activities and committed theft of iron ore and the same was registered in Criminal No.20 of 2006 for an offence punishable under section 21 of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the auction was completed on 24.02.2010. The respondents also mentioned that the appellant has also filed criminal petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court when the court directed the Fast Track Court to dispose of the criminal revision petition within a stipulated period. At this juncture, the appellant withdrew his Criminal Petition No.2104 of 2010 seeking liberty to file criminal revision petition before the District Court, Tumkur challenging the order of the learned Magistrate dated 30.03.2010 and he 27 has filed criminal revision petition before the District Judge, Tumkur against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 30.03.2010 alleging that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was one behind his back. Though the order specifically stated that the counsel for the appellant was present and produced the copy of the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Review Petition No.418 of 2009, the respondent also mentioned that the appellant is venturing all kinds of petitions suppressing the facts. The appellant has an evil desire to grab the iron ore seized and auctioned. According to the respondent, filing of this petition is an ultimate result of abuse of the process of law.

This is the very same boundary mentioned in mahazar drawn by the police in the year 2006 and the mahazar drawn at the time of handing over of the iron ore to the possession of the highest bidder also reveals the same boundaries. Thus, boundaries in all the three mahazars are one and the same, thereby, establishing that the stand of 28 the respondent regarding the place where actually iron ore auctioned is situated also negates the stand taken by the appellant in regard to his claim. The respondents further submitted that even the prayer sought in these appeals was never a subject matter in Writ Petition No. 27521 of 2005 and thus the appellant is estopped from seeking this claim as the auction process dated 24.2.2010 is completed and further he had challenged the auction proceedings in writ petition No.15079 of 2010 wherein the High Court refused to interfere with the auction proceedings and the appellant having withdrawn the writ petition No.15079 of 2010. It is mentioned by the respondents that auction of 24.2.2010 was in consonance with the rules and regulations. The respondents also submitted that the appellant having failed in all attempts to stop the public auction, came forward with a plea to deposit Rs.15 crores in Writ Petition No.15079 of 2010, spent some time and allowed the successful bidder to commence lifting of iron ore after depositing the entire amount of Rs.10.10 crores and allowing the bidder to transport the iron ore. The respondents relied on the Audit Report of Kamalabai, 29 Mining Lease No.2187 from 2000-01 to 2005-06. The same is reproduced as under :

State, this is a clear case of illegal mining on a massive scale by the appellant.

39. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and examined these appeals from various angles. In our considered view, this court ought not to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution in a matter of this nature. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. These appeals are totally devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed with costs.

April 11, 2011