SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1291, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Directions issued
Segment: Issues
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1291 : 2024 INSC 267
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. 
v. 
State of Karnataka & Ors.
 (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009)
14 March 2024
[Sanjiv Khanna, M.M. Sundresh and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Various applications were filed before the Hon’ble Court seeking 
directions pertaining to demarcation of land for mining leases, 
implementation of R & R [Reclamation and Rehabilitation] Plans, 
imposition of a Maximum permissible annual production [MPAP] 
and District-level production ceiling for mining leases, etc. 
Headnotes
Environmental Law – Background of illegal mining in Bellary, 
Chitradurga and Tumkur in Karnataka – Temporary ban on 
mining in the said Districts – Subsequent imposition of 
production ceiling on mining leases, enhanced from time-to-
time – Categorization of mines into Category ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ 
based on severity of encroachment by the mines – Issue of 
demarcation of seven mining leases.
Held: The Hon’ble Court by an Order dated 28.09.2022 
had directed a Joint Team to prepare sketches of the seven 
mining leases – However, the said Order was deferred till the 
 inter-state boundary was demarcated on the ground – The inter-
state boundaries were fixed on the ground – Thereafter, a Joint 
Team was constituted comprising of Officers from the State of 
Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh to render support to the CEC 
in surveying the seven mining leases – Direction issued to the 
National Institute of Technology, Suratkhal,
Karnataka to carry 
out the survey on the ground level, based on the total station 
method, and satellite images of the seven mining leases – The 
survey was directed to be undertaken for one mining lease at a 
time – The CEC was directed to issue notice to the respective 
lessees after receipt of the survey/demarcation report, and pass 
appropriate orders – The exercise was directed to be undertaken, 
even if the leases had expired – The Monitoring Committee
1292
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
was also directed to be associated with the aforesaid exercise 
undertaken by the CEC, after the submission of the survey / 
demarcation reports. [Paras 5-14]
Environmental law – Maximum permissible annual production 
[MPAP] and District-level production ceiling for mining 
leases – CEC fixed implementation of a Reclamation 
and Rehabilitation (R & R) Plan as a pre-condition for 
resumption of mining – Object of R & R Plan – CEC proposed 
implementation of MPAP for each mining lease, accepted 
by the Court – If total lease-wise annual production from 
all the leases in the District exceeds the ceiling limit fixed, 
then the MPAP for each mining lease to be scaled down on 
a pro-rata basis.
Held: The Hon’ble Court reiterated the object of R & R Plans, 
and directed implementation of MPAP for mining leases – It was 
held that the objective of the R & R Plans is to (a) carry out the 
time-bound reclamation and rehabilitation of the areas found to 
be under illegal mining; (b) ensure scientific and environmentally 
sustainable mining; (c) ensure compliance with the various stands 
stipulated under the environment/mining statutes; and (d) regular and 
effective motoring, evaluation and corrective measures – The R & R 
Plans, with specifying actions to be undertaken for reclamation and 
rehabilitation works provided for an MPAP [i.e. Maximum Permissible 
Annual Production] restriction for each mining lease – The upper 
cap fixed
at the district level is mandatory and binding – For the 
purpose of feasible annual production, the following factors would 
be kept in mind (a) mineral reserves in the lease area; (b) area 
available for overburden/waste dumps and subgrade dumps; (c) 
existing transport facilities vis-à-vis the traffic load of the mining lease 
and adjoining mining leases – The MPAP [Maximum Permissible 
Annual Production] is the minimum of the quantity that may be 
feasible based on the above three parameters – If the total of the 
lease-wise annual production from all the leases in the district 
exceeds the ceiling limit fixed for a specific District, then the MPAP 
for each mining lease is to be scaled down on a pro-rata basis, to 
ensure that the District level production ceiling is not breached – 
The CEC, with the Monitoring Committee was requested to aid and 
advice the Oversight Authority to undertake a complete exercise in 
the three districts, and submit a Report to the Court – The Report 
shall also examine whether sub-caps in particular areas should be 
fixed, or caps should be increased or decreased – The CEC, the
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
1293
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Monitoring Committee and the Oversight Authority will examine 
whether any regulation like e-auctioning is required for the sale of 
the mined material – They will also consider the date with regard 
to which royalty and other cess is to be required when e-auctioning 
was mandatory. [Paras 19-29]
Environmental Law – Special Purpose Vehicle viz. Karnataka 
Mining Environment Restoration Corporation constituted 
to facilitate ameliorative and mitigative measures for  
mining – Plea for discontinuation of transfer of 10% levy 
imposed on sale of iron ore to the SPV i.e. Karnataka Mining 
Environment Restoration Corporation for implementing the 
Comprehensive Environment Plan for Mining Impact Zone 
[CEPMIZ], rejected by the Court.
Held: Reference made to earlier Judgment in Samaj Parivartana 
Samudaya v. State of Karnataka [2017] 6 SCR 577 : (2017) 5 SCC 
434 : 2017 INSC 241, dated 21.03.2017 wherein the Court rejected 
a plea for discontinuation of transfer of 10% levy imposed on the 
sale of iron to the SPV observing that the CEPMIZ is a scheme 
which can be divided into two broad categories (i) socio-economic 
development; and (ii) integrated mining and railway infrastructure, 
industrial infrastructure and medical infrastructure  – Reference 
also made to an earlier Order dated 21.03.2018, whereby the 
Court rejected a similar prayer – The CEPMIZ Plan stated that 
a tentative expenditure
of nearly Rs.25,000 crores is likely to be 
incurred in various sectors – Thus, at this stage, it will not be 
appropriate to withdraw the 10% levy imposed, as the CEPMIZ 
Plan is still at the initial stage of execution – The Hon’ble Court 
accordingly dismissed applications seeking discontinuation of 
transfer of 10% levy imposed on sale of iron ore to the SPV 
i.e. Karnataka Mining Environment Restoration Corporation for 
implementing the Comprehensive Environment Plan for Mining 
Impact Zone [CEPMIZ]. [Paras 86-96]
Case Law Cited
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Obulapuram Mining Company 
(P) Ltd. (2011) 12 SCC 491; Samaj Parivartana 
Samudaya v. State of Karnataka (2013) 8 SCC 209; 
State of A.P. v. Obulapuram Mining Co. (P) Ltd. (2013) 
8 SCC 213; Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of 
Karnataka [2017] 6 SCR 577 : (2017) 5 SCC 434 : 
2017 INSC 241 – referred to.
1294
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Environmental laws; Illegal Mining; Maximum permissible annual 
production [MPAP] and District-level production ceiling for mining 
leases; Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plans.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2009
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
With
W.P.(C) Nos. 505 of 2020 and 768 of 2013
Appearances for Parties
K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Nishanth Patil, A.A.G., Shyam Divan, A.D.N. 
Rao, Kapil Sibal, Vikas Singh, Mukul Rohtagi, Arvind Datar, Dr. 
S. Muralidhar, Dhruv Mehta, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, V. Giri, R 
Balasubramanian, Gopal Jain, S. N. Bhat, Sr. Advs., Siddharth 
Chowdhary, Prashant Bhushan, G.S. Makkar, Shubhranshu Padhi, 
Kumar Dushyant Singh, Ankur S. Kulkarni, Ms. Surbhi Mehta, 
Sanjay Kapur, B.V. Balram Das, Rakesh K. Sharma, E.C. Agrawala, 
O.P. Badani, Sridhar Potaraju, N. Ganapathy, K.V. Sreekumar, 
Jayant Mohan, D. L. Chidananda, Ishaan George, Gaichangpou 
Gangmei, M/S. Khaitan & Co., Anantha Narayana M.G., M/S. Aura 
& Co., Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Deepika Kalia, Ms. 
Manisha Singh, Ms. Adya Shree Datta, Anurag Tiwary, Debadutta 
Kanungo, S. Hari Haran, Rajarajeshwaran S., Amaan Shreyas, 
Ms. Mannat Tipnis, Vikash Singh, Ms. Aparna Bhat, P. S. Sudheer, 
Rishi Maheshwari, Ms. Anne Mathew, Bharat Sood, Ms. Miranda 
Solaman, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, M/S. Parekh & Co., 
Adarsh Upadhyay, Mrs. Sudha Gupta,
Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, 
Bhargava V. Desai, Munawwar Naseem, Arvind Kumar Sharma, 
S. K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Ms. 
Shalaka Srivastava, Nishant Sharma, Anil Kumar Mishra-I, M/S. 
Ap & J Chambers, Sunil Dogra, Vivek Vishnoi, Abhishek Sharma, 
K. Raghavacharyulu, Kailash Pandey, Ranjeet Singh, Krishna 
Yadav, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, T.L.V. Ramachari, Hitesh Kumar 
Sharma, Sandeep Singh Dingra, Akhileshwar Jha, Amit Kumar 
Chawla, T.N. Rao, S.S. Reddy, G. N. Reddy, Samir Ali Khan, 
Vikas Mehta, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Balaji Srinivasan, Dr. Sushil
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
1295
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Balwada, Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Srilok Nath Rath, Ms. Reena 
Rao, M/S. Karanjawala & Co., Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, P. V. 
Dinesh, A. Raghunath, V. N. Raghupathy, Omkar Kambi, Manendra 
Pal Gupta, Ayush P. Shah, Vignesh Adithiya S, Akhil Anand, 
Ms. Manjula Gupta, Prashant Kumar, Merusagar Samantaray, 
Yashraj Singh Deora, Niroop Sukirthy V., Joy Nirupam, Girish 
Kumar, Pranav Giri, Snehasish Mukherjee, Rohit Sharma, Aditya 
Narayan, Nikhil Purohit, Jatin Lalwani, Ms. Pratiksha Nagayach, 
Vishal Sinha, Ishan George, Archit Jain, Mrs. Dr. Rukma George, 
Prakash Kumar Singh, Ms. Pooja Singh, Ms. Poornima Jauhari, 
Brij Bhushan Jauhari, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Ms. Indira Bhakar, 
Shubranshu Padhi, Rajat Nair, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Rajeeva Ranjan 
Rajesh, B K Satija, Pranay Ranjan, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Neeraj 
Shekhar, Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Ms. Baby Rajput, Nirnimesh Dube, 
Susheel Joseph Cyriac, Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Varun Kanwal, M/S. 
Lex Regis Law Offices, Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, Rajesh Mahale, 
Kunal Verma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Mrs. Shraddha Deshmukh, 
Shailesh Madiyal, T. S. Sabarish, Chandra Prakash, Ms. A. Sumathi, 
Sanjeev Kapoor, Aakash Bajaj, Avirat Kumar, Ms. Aarushi Yadav, 
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Kanu Agrawal, Ms. Suhasini Sen, S.K. 
Singhania, Ms. Bina Madhavan, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Eeshan 
D Khaire, M/s. Lawyers Knit & Co, S. S. Shroff, Ms. Hetu Arora 
Sethi, Pulkit Tare, Rituraj Biswas,
Sameer Rohatgi, Ms. Nidhi 
Jaswal, Ms. Sonali Gaur, Ashwin Garg, Kartikey, Ms. Rohini Musa, 
Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, Mahesh Thakur, Mrs. Anuparna Bordoloi, 
Ms. Anusha R, Ms. Mythili Srinivasamurthy, Shivamm Sharrma, 
Amrish Kumar, Ashwin Kumar D. S., Ishan Roy Chowdhury, Advs. 
for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
The present applications relate to mining activities being undertaken 
in Districts - Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur in Karnataka. 
2.	
In 2009, the petitioner - Samaj Parivartana Samudaya had filed a 
writ petition praying for this Court’s intervention on grounds of the 
illegality of such mining activities and consequent harm caused to 
the environment. This Court intervened and has passed several 
directions and orders.

1296
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
3.	
To avoid prolixity, we will not be referring to the catena of orders passed 
by this Court in depth and detail. However, to appreciate the present 
applications, we have summarized the relevant developments below:

●
The genesis of the Central Empowered Committee1 goes back 
to this Court’s order dated 09.09.2002 in “T.N. Godavarman 
Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors.”, where the Court was 
concerned with the rampant pilferage and illegal extraction of 
natural resources, particularly iron ore, and the environmental 
degradation and disaster that may have resulted from unchecked 
intrusion into the forest areas.
●
The CEC was constituted to monitor the situation, implement 
this Courts’ orders, and delineate the steps to be taken.

●
On 19.11.2010, the CEC was directed by this Court to submit 
a report with respect to certain mining leases granted by the 
State of Karnataka in District – Bellary.

●
The initial reports of CEC indicated large-scale illegal mining 
being undertaken.

●
On 06.05.2011, this Court constituted a ‘Joint Team’ to 
determine the boundaries of the specific mines since a large 
number of mining lessees were carrying out operations 
beyond the lease boundaries, thereby causing environmental 
degradation.

●
On 29.07.2011, this Court imposed a temporary ban on mining 
operations in District – Bellary.2

●
On 26.08.2011, this Court extended the temporary ban on mining 
operations to Districts – Chitradurga and Tumkur.3

●
On 05.08.2011 and 26.08.2011, this Court directed the Indian 
Council of Forest Research and Education4 to conduct a 
macro-level environmental impact assessment, in collaboration 
with domain experts to determine the extent of environmental 
degradation due to illegal mining. 
1	
For short, “CEC”.
2	
See State of Andhra Pradesh v. Obulapuram Mining Company (P) Ltd, 2011 (12) SCC 491.
3	
See Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 8 SCC 209.
4	
For short, “ICFRE”.

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
1297
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
●
On 14.08.2011, ICFRE submitted its report wherein it inter alia 
recommended: (i) imposition of district-level production ceiling; 
and (ii) preparation of Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plans5 
for each mining lease which apart from prescribing actions for 
reclamation and rehabilitation works would also prescribe a 
Maximum Permissible Annual Production6 restricting the total 
quantity of iron ore that could be produced at the specific 
mining lease.

●
Based on ICFRE report and CEC’s recommendations, this 
Court imposed differing production ceilings on mining leases 
in the three districts, which have been enhanced from time 
to time:

ο
vide order dated 13.04.2012, production ceiling of 25 Million 
Metric Tons7 was fixed on mines in the Bellary District and 
5 MMT in Tumkur and Chitradurga Districts;

ο
these caps were enhanced to 28 MMT for the Bellary 
District and 7 MMT for Tumkar and Chitradurga Districts 
vide order dated 14.12.2017; and

ο
these caps were further enhanced to 35 MMT for Bellary 
District and 15 MMT for the Tumkar and Chitradurga 
Districts vide order dated 26.08.2022.
●
Vide report dated 03.02.2012, the CEC recommended the 
categorization of the mines into Categories A, B and C based 
on the severity of encroachment by the mines and overburden 
dumps, determined in terms of the percentage in relation to 
the total lease area. In such categorization, Category A mining 
leases bear no/marginal illegality and Category C mining leases 
stand in flagrant violation of laws.

●
To strike a balance between environmental protection and 
development, a central public sector undertaking – National 
Minerals Development Corporation was allowed to operate two 
mining leases in District – Bellary. 
5	
For short, “R&R Plans”.
6	
For short, “MPAP”. 
7	
For short, “MMT”.

1298
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports

●
Further, permission to sell old stock of iron ore by e-auction 
was granted through a Monitoring Committee set up by this 
Court.

●
Vide report dated 13.03.2012, the CEC recommended the 
implementation of R&R Plans, as a precondition to resumption 
of mining operations.8 In due course of time, mining was 
permitted to resume in specific Category A and B mines 
based on the reports of the CEC and on judgments/orders 
of this Court.

●
Category C mining licenses were cancelled, and the proceeds 
from sale of iron ore from Category C mines were ordered to 
be forfeited to the State.
●
Some of the Category C mining leases have been auctioned 
and have subsequently commenced production. The new 
leaseholders have undertaken to implement R&R Plans as a 
precondition to commence operations.

●
Vide order dated 28.09.2012, this Court constituted a Special 
Purpose Vehicle,9 namely, Karnataka Mining Environment 
Restoration Corporation10 to facilitate ameliorative and 
mitigative measures around the mining leases in the three 
districts.

●
Vide order dated 21.04.2022, this Court constituted the Justice 
B. Sudarshan Reddy Committee as an Oversight Authority to 
oversee the work of the SPV.11

●
Vide order dated 28.09.2022, this Court directed the Joint 
Team to prepare sketches of 7 mining leases placed in 
Category B-1. 
4.	
The seven B-1 Category mining leases (listed below) lie between the 
States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. They require demarcation 
on the ground. 
8	
See this Court’s judgment/order dated 13.04.2012 where the Court directed the implementation of R&R 
Plans in all the three categories of mines.
9	
For short, “SPV”.
10	
For short, “KMERC”.
11	
For short, “Oversight Authority”.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
1299
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
S. 
No.
Lease Names 
ML 
No.
Location 
Extent 
in Ha.
Village 
Taluka Division 
1.
T. Narayan 
Reddy 
2527 Sy. No. 01
32.65
Thumati
Sandur Bellary 
2.
N. Rathnaiah 670
Sy. No.01
14.16
Thumati 
Sandur Bellary 
3.
Hind Traders 2548
Sy. No. 01
19.63
Vitalapura Sandur Bellary 
4.
Mehaboob 
Transport Co. 
2568
Sy. No. 
106 & 01 
Vitalapura
16.19
Thumati 
and 
vitalapura
Sandur Bellary 
5.
Vibhuti 
Gudda Mines 
Private Ltd. 
2542
Sy. No. 283
137.00 Hunahalli
Bellary Bellary 
6.
Suggallamma 
Gudda 
Mining & Co.
2541
Sy. No. 90
10.11
Bellagala
Bellary Bellary 
7.
Bellary 
Mining 
Corporation 
2651
Sy.No. 465
15.80
Halakundi Bellary Bellary 
5.	
This Court’s order dated 28.09.2022, directing the Joint Team to 
prepare sketches of these seven mining leases, was deferred till the 
inter-state boundary was demarcated on the ground. 
6.	
 Vide letter dated 09.01.2023, the State of Karnataka informed the 
CEC that inter-state boundaries between the states of Karnataka 
and Andhra Pradesh had been fixed on the ground. 
7.	
However, it is apparent that further work must be undertaken at the 
ground level by deploying the total station survey method along with 
the satellite images of the mining sites. 
8.	
By letter dated 29.02.2024, the government of Andhra Pradesh, had 
stated it would be represented by the following four officers, as a 
part of the Joint Team which was directed to render support to the
CEC in surveying the seven mining leases:- 
S. No.
Name of the Officer 
Designation 
1.
Sri Vineeth Kumar, I.F.S.
Divisional Forest Officer, 
Ananthapuramu 
2.
Dr. Rani Sushmita 
Revenue Divisional Officer, 
Kalyanadurgam 
3.
Sri Eslavath Rupla Naik
 Asst. Director Sruvey & Land Records, 
Ananthapuramu 
4.
Sri Y. Nagaiah 
District Mines and Geology Officer, 
(FACT), Ananthapuramu
1300
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
9.	
By letter dated 20.01.2023, the State of Karnataka stated that it 
would be represented by the following three officers in the Joint 
Team:
S. No.
Name of the Officer 
Designation 
1.
Sri T. Heeralal
Chief Conservator of Forest, 
Ballari Circle Ballari (Incharge 
Working Plan Ballari)
2.
Dr. Bagadi Goutham
IAS, Director, Mines and 
Geology, Bengaluru
3.
Sri Prashant Kumar Thakur
IPS, Additional Director General 
of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, 
Bengaluru
10.	 We clarify that if there is a change of the aforesaid named officers 
of the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, the replacement/
designated officer would be co-opted in the Joint Team. 
11.	 The CEC has requested the National Institute of Technology, 
Suratkhal, Karnataka,12 to carry out the aforesaid survey at the 
ground level, based on the total station method and satellite images 
of the seven mining leases. The members of the ‘Joint Team’ will be 
associated and shall cooperate with representatives of NIT Karnataka. 
12.	 The survey will be undertaken for one mining lease at a time. The 
report will be submitted with the joint signatures of the ‘Joint Team’ 
to the states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. A copy thereof will 
be filed before this Court. The said exercise would be completed no 
later than six months from today. 
13.	 The CEC after receiving the survey/demarcation report will issue 
notice to the respective lessees and pass appropriate
orders. This 
exercise will be undertaken even if the leases have expired in the 
due course of time. Orders passed by the CEC will be communicated 
to the parties, and a report will be filed before this Court within a 
period of seven months from today. 
14.	 The Monitoring Committee will also be associated with the aforesaid 
exercise undertaken by the CEC, post the submission of the survey/
demarcation report(s). 
12	
For short, “NIT Karnataka”.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
1301
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
15.	 The State of Karnataka will be empowered and entitled to participate 
in the proceedings before the CEC and raise all objections and 
contentions.
16.	 Re-list all pending applications in W.P.(C) no. 562/2009 and 768/2013 
on 03.04.2024. 
I.A. No. 225561 of 2023
MPAP and District-Level Production Ceiling
17.	 As noticed in the summary of developments above, this Court 
had fixed a district-level production ceiling for all mining leases in 
the Districts – Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga. These caps were 
enhanced from time to time. The final enhancement of production 
ceilings was done vide order dated 26.08.2022 whereby a production 
ceiling of 35 MMT for Bellary District and 15 MMT for the Tumkar 
and Chitradurga Districts was specified. 
18.	 The district-level production ceilings apply to Category A and 
Category B mining leases. Category ‘C’ mining leases were cancelled 
and were thereafter e-auctioned, and hence are under a different 
legal regime. 
19.	 Parallelly, in its report dated 13.03.2012, the CEC fixed the guidelines 
for the preparation and/or implementation of the R&R Plans as a 
pre-condition to the resumption of mining in the three districts. This 
was done given the devastation and degradation of the environment 
on account of unregulated and illegal mining activities. The objective 
of the R&R Plans is to:-
(a)	 carry out the time-bound reclamation and
rehabilitation of the 
areas found to be under illegal mining; 
(b)	 ensure scientific and environmentally sustainable mining; 
(c)	
ensure compliance with the various standards stipulated under 
the environment/mining statutes; and
(d)	 regular and effective motoring, evaluation and corrective 
measures.
20.	 As noticed above, the R&R Plans, together with specifying actions 
to be undertaken for reclamation and rehabilitation works, provided 
for an MPAP restriction for each mining lease. However, the upper 
cap fixed at the district level is mandatory and binding.
1302
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
21.	 This Court, vide judgment/order dated 14.12.2017, directed that a 
production cap of the individual mining leases will be regulated through 
the MPAP limits prescribed in the R&R Plans, without reference to 
the upper or general cap fixed at the district level. 
22.	 The CEC states that the lease-wise R&R Plans have been prepared 
for all mining leases, which have been submitted by the Joint Team. 
It consists of two broad components: (a) R&R Plans for areas found 
to be under illegal mining by the Joint Team and (b) Supplementary 
Environment Management Plan. In addition, Comprehensive 
Environment Plans for the Mining Impact Zone13 for the areas 
surrounding the mining leases, would be prepared.
23.	 Accordingly, the CEC and CEPMIZ had proposed, and it was 
accepted by this Court, that MPAP for each of the mining 
leases should be implemented and executed. This figure may 
be substantially lower than permissible limits specified under 
the Environment Clearance, Approved Mining Plan, and/or the 
Consent to Operate, granted for the respective mining leases. For 
the purpose of feasible annual production, the following factors 
would be kept in mind:- 
(a)	 mineral reserves in the lease area; 
(b)	 area available for overburden/waste dump(s) and subgrade 
dump(s); and 
(c)	
 existing transport facilities vis-a-vis the traffic load of the mining 
lease and adjoining mining leases.
24.	 The MPAP is the minimum of the
quantity that may be feasible based 
on the above three parameters. Further, if the total of the lease-
wise annual production from all the leases in the district exceeds 
the ceiling limit fixed for a specific district, then the MPAP for each 
mining lease was/is to be scaled down on a pro-rata basis, to ensure 
that the district-level production ceiling is not breached.
25.	 The aforesaid parameters were accepted by this Court by the order 
dated 13.04.2012. We respectfully concur and state that these 
directions shall continue. 
13	
For short, “CEPMIZ”.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
1303
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
26.	 Our attention has been drawn to the CEC report dated 14.07.2017 
and the orders passed by this Court on 14.12.2017 and 26.08.2022. 
27.	 Keeping in view the aforesaid position, we would request the CEC, 
together with the Monitoring Committee and aid and advice of the 
Oversight Authority, to undertake a complete exercise in the three 
districts, and the respective mining leases situated therein, and submit 
a report before this Court. While undertaking the said exercise, they 
shall keep in mind the parameters referred to in the report dated 
13.03.2012. The CEC will be entitled to take help and assistance 
of the scientific domain experts who will examine data, including 
environmental pollution data available/recorded in the districts from 
time to time. 
28.	 A copy of the said report will be filed before this Court within a period 
of four months from today. While submitting the report, it shall also 
be examined whether sub-caps in particular areas should be fixed 
or caps should be increased or decreased. In other words, the CEC 
will also examine whether a mining cap must be imposed in an area 
for better compliance and regulation. 
29.	 Further, the CEC, the Monitoring Committee and the Oversight 
Authority will examine whether any form of regulation like 
e-auctioning is required to be put in place for the sale of the 
mined material. While examining this question, they will
take into 
consideration the data with regard to the royalty and other cess 
etc., which were recovered when e-auctioning was mandatory and 
post the order dated 20.05.2022, whereby private sales have been 
permitted. 
30.	 The question of whether satellite mappings/images should be 
undertaken with regard to each mine for the purpose of ascertaining 
the mining activities including the sale and disposal of the waste 
etc., will be examined by the CEC, the Monitoring Committee and 
the Oversight Authority.
31.	 The CEC, the Monitoring Committee and the Oversight Authority will 
be entitled to examine any other aspect, which they feel is relevant 
for consideration of the issues and questions referred to them.
32.	 In view of the directions given today, the application in I.A No. 225561 
of 2023 shall await the report of the CEC. Accordingly, the application 
is not finally decided.
1304
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
I.A. No.183 of 2013
33.	 It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that in view of 
the subsequent development, the present application has become 
infructuous. 
34.	 In view of the statement made, the present application is dismissed 
as infructuous. 
I.A. No. 189 of 2013
35.	 None is present to press the present application. 
36.	 Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default. 
I.A. No. 191 of 2013
37.	 It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant(s) that the present 
application, which was filed as a contempt petition, has become 
infructuous, as the petitioner has filed a substantive writ petition 
and other proceedings.
38.	 In view of the statement made and without commenting on the merits, 
the present application is dismissed. 
I.A. No. 203 of 2014
39.	 None is present to press the present application. 
40.	 Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default. 
I.A. No. 204 of 2014
41.	 None is present to press the present application. 
42.	 Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default. 
I.A. No. 213 of 2014
43.	 None is present to press the present application. 
44.	 Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default. 
I.A. No. 214 of 2014
45.	 None is present to press the present application. 
46.	 Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.
I.A. No.222 of 2014 in I.A. No. 214 of 2014
47.	 None is present to press the
present application. 
48.	 Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
1305
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
I.A. No. 226 of 2014
49.	 None is present to press the present application. 
50.	 Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default. 
I.A. No.228 of 2014
51.	 None is present to press the present application. 
52.	 Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default. 
I.A. No. 229 of 2014
53.	 None is present to press the present application. 
54.	 Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default. 
I.A. No.232 of 2014
55.	 The CEC, in consultation with the Monitoring Committee, will file their 
report on the assertions and prayer made in the present application, 
within a period of six weeks from today. 
56.	 Liberty is granted to the State of Karnataka to file their reply/response 
within six weeks to the present application.
57.	 Reply/response to the report will be filed within period of six weeks 
from the date of service of the report. 
58.	 The application is not disposed of today.
I.A. No. 234 of 2014
59.	 None is present to press the present application. 
60.	 Accordingly, the present application is dismissed in default. 
I.A. No.124132 of 2022
61.	 The CEC, in consultation with the Monitoring Committee, will file 
a status report to the assertions and prayer made in the present 
application. The application is not disposed of today.
I.A. No. 21884 of 2020
62.	 The CEC, in consultation with the Monitoring Committee, will file 
a status report on the
assertions and prayer made in the present 
application, within a period of six weeks from today. 
63.	 The application is not disposed of today.
1306
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
I.A. No.149994 of 2018
64.	 We are not inclined to accept the prayer(s) made in the present 
application by the applicant – National Mineral Development 
Corporation Limited14 in view of specific orders passed by this Court 
on 23.09.2011, and subsequent order dated 28.09.2012. 
65.	 It is to be noted that the applicant – NMDC, by a subsequent 
order dated 22.02.2023, was directed a refund of 10% of the sale 
proceeds, deposited towards SPV w.e.f 01.01.2019 onwards. This 
order, according to us, balances out the equities and hence, the 
prayer for reducing the amount to be deposited towards the SPV 
from 10% for the period prior to 31.12.2018, is rejected. We clarify 
that the applicant – NMDC will be liable to pay contribution to the 
SPV at the rate of 10% of the sale proceeds w.e.f 01.01.2019 
and thereafter. Any excess amount above 10%, collected/paid by 
the applicant – NMDC, on and with effect from 01.01.2019 will be 
refunded to them by the Monitoring Committee within a period of 
six weeks from today. 
66.	 Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.
I.A. Nos. 43677/2024 and 52570/2024
67.	 I.A. no. 52570/2024 seeking permission to file application for directions 
is allowed.
68.	 I.A. no. 43677/2024 has been filed seeking certain directions.
69.	 We are not inclined to grant any relief to the applicant(s) and hence, 
the application is disposed of.
I.A. No. 233 of 2014 and I.A. No. 235 of 2014 in I.A. No.
233 of 2014
70.	 Learned counsel for the applicant(s) states that the present 
applications have become infructuous.
71.	 In view of the statement made, the applications are dismissed as 
infructuous.
I.A. No. 217 of 2014
72.	 Learned counsel for the applicant(s) seeks permission to withdraw 
the present application.
14	
For short, “NDMC”.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
1307
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
73.	 In view of the statement made, the application is dismissed as 
withdrawn.
I.A. No. 190 of 2013
74.	 Learned counsel for the applicant(s) states that he is satisfied with 
the orders dated 09.12.2013 and 06.01.2014. He states that in view 
of the said orders, the application may be disposed of.
75.	 In view of the statement made, the application will be treated as 
disposed of.
I.A. No. 212 of 2014
76.	 We are not inclined to examine the merits of the said application in 
view of the notification/corrigendum dated 04.08.2014. In case the 
said notification/corrigendum is set aside or modified, it will be open 
to the applicant(s) to raise pleas and contentions before this Court 
or before the High Court.
77.	 All pending applications in I.A. no. 212/2014 shall stand disposed of.
I.A. No. 208 of 2014
78.	 We are not inclined to examine the merits of the assertions made 
in the application, as the issue involved is rather secondary to 
the issue pending consideration in W.P.(C) no. 562/2009. In case 
the applicant(s) has any grievance or issue, it will be open to the 
applicant(s) to file appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional 
High Court or any other authority. 
79.	 The stay order passed by this order on 10.02.2014 will continue for 
a further period of two months in order to enable the applicant(s) to 
take steps in accordance with law. 
80.	 We clarify that we have not
made any comments either way on the 
merits.
81.	 The application is disposed of.
I.A. No. 197 of 2013
82.	 This application has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.
83.	 It will be open for the applicant(s) to press for hearing of SLP(C) 
nos. 1684/2017 titled “Dhruvdesh Metasteel Pvt. Ltd. v. Kiocl Ltd. & 
Ors.” and 6854/2017 titled “M. Babanna v. Kiocl Ltd. & Ors.”, before 
the appropriate Bench.
1308
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
I.A. No. 160407 of 2022
84.	 Arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the 
applicants. The issue is whether a 10% levy imposed on the sale of 
the iron ore and transferred to the SPV for implementing the CEPMIZ, 
in terms of the judgment/order of this Court dated 13.04.2012,15 
should be discontinued. 
85.	 It has been pointed out that Rs.24,464 crores are available to the 
SPV, namely, KMERC, which is to prepare and implement the CEPMIZ 
to mitigate the environmental damage in the Mining Impact Zone16 
in the three districts. 
86.	 Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of this Court dated 
21.03.2017,17 wherein a similar plea upon being raised, was 
considered, but rejected by this Court, observing that CEPMIZ 
is a scheme, which can be divided into two broad categories: (i) 
socio-economic development; and (ii) integrated mining and railway 
infrastructure, industrial infrastructure and medical infrastructure. The 
said order noted that the total cost of implementation of the CEPMIZ 
over a period of ten years was Rs.15,742.35 crores. The prayer 
was rejected, observing that at that stage, the CEPMIZ was a vision 
document with all concrete measures, steps and proposals left to be 
worked out at a later stage, that is, the stage of the preparation of 
the Detailed Project Report.18 We would like to reproduce a portion 
of the said judgment: 
“15. What had happened in Bellary, Chitradurga and
Tumkur, has already been noticed by this Court in para 
37 of the judgment dated 18-4-2013 [Samaj Parivartana 
Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 8 SCC 154] i.e. 
systematic, extraordinary and unprecedented plunder 
of the natural wealth and environment. This Court has 
specifically observed in para 37 that: (Samaj Parivartana 
case [Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, 
(2013) 8 SCC 154] , SCC p. 187)
15	
(2013) 8 SCC 213.
16	
For short, “MIA”.
17	
(2017) 5 SCC 434.
18	
For short, “DPR”.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
1309
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
“37. … The situation being extraordinary the remedy, 
indeed, must also be extraordinary.”
(emphasis supplied)
It is to deal with such an extraordinary situation that the 
necessity of Cepmiz and implementation thereof by a special 
purpose vehicle out of funds in credit with the Monitoring 
Committee was contemplated. The special funds in deposit 
with the Monitoring Committee being the proceeds of 
illegal mining were meant to be deployed for re-creation 
of what had been lost due to such illegal activities. It is 
for the aforesaid purpose that Cepmiz was required to 
be drawn up and thereafter implemented. The state of 
implementation of the Scheme has not yet commenced. 
Funds in huge proportions would be necessary. A full and 
clear picture is yet to emerge. In a situation lessees who 
may be even remotely connected with the degradation and 
destruction of nature must continue to pay their share in 
the process of restitution by contributing to the Monitoring 
Committee from their present sale proceeds. Even the 
new lessees who may not have been involved with such 
degradation are contributing to the process of reclamation 
and restoration. In such a situation, we do not see how 
we can vary or modify our earlier orders that require all 
existing lessees to pay 10% of the sale proceeds and/or 
to depart from the requirement of payment of what has 
been already ordered, namely, 10% of
the sale proceeds 
to the Monitoring Committee/SPV.”
87.	 The Court did not make comments on the CEPMIZ, except to state that 
insofar as socio-economic measures are concerned, different heads 
under which restoration and implementation work was proposed to 
be done, details thereof were to be worked out. It is to be noted that 
at that stage, funds to the extent of Rs.10,336 crores were available.
88.	 This aspect was again examined in the order dated 21.03.2018 on 
an application filed by the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries, 
Southern Region19 enclosing therewith reports of the CEC dated 
19	
For short, “FIMI, South”.
1310
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
19.03.2018. In this report, the CEC, with reference to the CEPMIZ, had 
suggested submission of a project report by KMERC indicating very 
broadly, different facets of the CEPMIZ, the work to be undertaken and 
the cost, which is reasonably expected to be incurred. Accordingly, 
this Court rejected the prayer made in the application, and stated 
that the same would be considered subsequently. Directions were 
issued to KMERC to prepare and submit within six months, a revised 
comprehensive proposal of socio-economic development and 
eco-restoration including those relating to road infrastructure with 
short-term and long-term targets and study relating to the railway 
backbone required to support the mining activity, as suggested by 
certain authorities/experts.
89.	 This Court, in the order dated 21.04.2022, granted in-principle approval 
to the CEPMIZ submitted by the State of Karnataka, as recommended 
by the CEC in its reports dated 22.10.2018 and 16.04.2019. However, 
this order also records that the parties are at liberty to place any 
objections or submissions before the Oversight Authority with regard 
to the CEPMIZ. The order states that the Oversight Authority shall 
decide the objections or suggest modifications after hearing the 
parties and taking assistance of any expert including the CEC, as 
may be required. Further, if any clarification is required, the parties 
were granted liberty to approach this Court.
90.	 The Oversight Authority constituted by this order was to oversee the 
works and progress being carried out by KMERC.
91.	 Our attention was also drawn to the report of the CEC, dated 
10.04.2022, which states that the SPV amount maintained by the 
Monitoring Committee exceeds Rs.20,000 crores as of 31.03.2022. 
This amount including the interest, which will accrue, would be 
adequate to meet the expenses incurred with the activities proposed 
to be undertaken under the CEPMIZ. This report recommends that 
10% of the sale value (20% of the sale value from NMDC) being 
contributed towards the SPV, may be discontinued. 
92.	 At this stage, we may record that this Court vide order dated 
22.02.2023, reduced the contribution of NMDC to the SPV from 20% 
to 10% w.e.f. 01.01.2019 and accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,326 
crores has been refunded to them.
93.	 As per the figures placed before us, the CEPMIZ Plan, as provisionally 
approved by this Court, states that a tentative expenditure of nearly
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
1311
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Rs.25,000 crores is likely to be incurred for various sectors, as 
tabulated below:-
S. 
No.
Sector/Districts
Bellary(Rs. 
Cr.)
Chitradurga 
(Rs. Cr.)
Tumkur 
(Rs. Cr.)
Total (Rs. 
Cr.)
1
Eco-Restoration
1584.79
555.64
515.23
2655.75
2
Agriculture & 
allied
881.93
391.04
330.08
1603.05
3
Drinking Water, 
Sanitation & 
Rural Roads
3464.70
978.68
486.52
4929.90
4
Health
1450.17
255.94
209.67
1915.78
5
Education
643.49
330.58
192.28
1166.35
6
Development 
of vulnerable 
sections
695.60
188.54
198.42
1082.56
7
Housing
1027
106.88
60
1193.88
8
Skill 
Development
436.19
70.79
31.27
538.25
9
Tourism
148
34
7
189
10
Irrigation
799
154.70
53
1006.70
11
Physical 
Infrastructure
734.99
105.29
44.08
884.36
12
Roads & 
Communication
1512.55
620.22
426.40
2559.17
13
Railway 
Infrastructure
5271.96
Grand Total
13378.41
3792.30
2554.05
24996.71
94.	 The total expenditure to be incurred on the projects, which stand 
approved, is about Rs.7,000 crores.
95.	 It is an accepted and admitted position that in respect of 51 Category 
C mining leases, ICFRE had approved R&R Plans of 28 leases. In 
respect of the remaining 23 leases, inputs have not been provided 
to ICFRE to approve the R&R Plans. It is also stated that 23 lessees 
of Category C have not submitted any data. In three cases, R&R 
Plans submitted have not been approved by the CEC.
1312
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
96.	 We do not think, at this stage, it will be appropriate to withdraw the 10% 
levy imposed by this Court in terms of the order dated 13.04.2012, as 
the CEPMIZ Plan is still at the initial stage of execution. The proposed 
plan was provisionally approved by this Court only vide order dated 
21.04.2022. Objections and suggestions have been invited and are 
pending consideration by the Oversight Authority. This apart, we feel 
certain directions are required to be given for preparation of R&R 
Plans and execution thereof in respect of Category C leases, which 
were terminated/cancelled, but thereafter no progress has been 
made for submission of the plans or execution or implementation 
of R&R Plans.
97.	 Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to direct the Principal Chief 
Conservator of Forests,20 State of Karnataka to undertake a 
detailed scrutiny and survey of all Category C mines, where data 
and R&R Plans have not been submitted and submit R&R Plans 
after conducting their scrutiny and survey. PCCF, Karnataka will 
be entitled to procure assistance from domain experts, specialized 
agencies or institutions. The cost incurred will be paid in the 
interim from the funds available with the SPV. The R&R Plans will 
be thereupon implemented and executed either through KMERC 
or if more appropriate, through any other agency, which may be 
nominated for this purpose after moving an application before this 
Court by the CEC,
the Monitoring Committee, and the Oversight 
Authority. 
98.	 The directions given above will equally apply to other cases of 
Categories A and B mines, where R&R Plans have not been submitted 
or approved. 
99.	 The amount incurred for R&R Plans must be collected from the 
erstwhile Category C lease holders or the Category A and B lease 
holders, as appropriate. The amount will be collected as arrears of 
land revenue. However, no amount shall be refunded to the new 
lease holders. The amount collected will be deposited with the SPV.
I.A. No. 41984/2023
100.	This application has become infructuous and is disposed of.
20	
For short, “PCCF”.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
1313
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
101.	We clarify that the applicant will be entitled to file a fresh application 
after this Court has received a report from the CEC in terms of the 
directions given above.
I.A. Nos.17247/2020 and 17249/2020 and 17250/2020
102.	I.A. nos. 17247/2020 seeks permission to file application for 
impleadment and 17249/2020 seeks impleadment. I.A. no. 
17250/2020 has been filed seeking certain directions.
103.	We see no reason to grant the prayer in the applications seeking 
directions to shift the category of the applicant from Category C to 
B. We have also examined the CEC report no. 23 of 2022.
104.	All the applications accordingly stand dismissed.
105.	In view of the aforesaid, I.A. Nos. 121324/2022, 121326/2022, and 
I. A. No. 173897/2022 (Application for Additional Documents) shall 
also stand disposed of.
I.A. No. 21886 of 2020
106.	We are not inclined to accept the prayer made in the present 
application in view of the facts and hence, the same is dismissed.
I.A. No. 172166/2023
107.	We are not inclined to accept the prayer made in the present 
application in view of the facts and hence, the same is dismissed.
I.A. 49701 in W.P.(C) No. 768/2013
108.	The application is not taken up for hearing today.
Writ Petition No. 505 of 2020
109.	Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 – State 
of Karnataka has drawn our attention to the order dated 28.09.2022 
passed in “M/s Arjun
Ladha v. The State of Odisha”.21 The said order 
specifically refers to the present Writ Petition(C) No. 505 of 2020.
110.	The period of the lease has expired by flux of time. We do not think 
any relief can be granted to the petitioner(s) in the present writ 
petition, and the same is dismissed. 
21	
Writ Petition (C) No. 539 of 2022.

1314
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
111.	 It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that the 
petitioner(s) would like to challenge the fresh auction. It will be open 
to the petitioner(s) to challenge the fresh auction in accordance with 
law. However, we make no comments either way in this regard. 
112.	Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: 
Result of the case: 
Vidhi Thaker, Hony. Associate Editor
Directions issued in IAS 
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)
Main Writ Petition pending.