In these batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned the memos issued by the respective District Collectors, calling upon the petitioners herein to pay 100% cost of the mineral lifted for the period from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017 towards the cost of mineral, on the ground that, the respective petitioners have operated the mines without prior Environment Clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. The demands by the respective District Collectors were also based on the order of the Hon' ble Supreme Court of India in Civil.No.114 of 2014, wherein, by order dated 02.08.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that in the event of any overlap that is illegal or unlawful mining without environment clearance or without both would attract only 100% compensation and not 200% compensation. 3/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

2.It had been stated that the Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai, had instructed the respective District Collectors to comply with the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and consequently, memos had been issued to the writ petitioners seeking as aforesaid payment of 100% cost of the mineral lifted for the period from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017.

3.The writ petitioners have questioned the order of the respective District Collectors on more or less the same grounds. The facts are also similar. Arguments were also advanced in common by the learned counsels. All the writ petitions had already been clubbed together. A common order is therefore passed.

4.As an illustration, the facts in W.P.Nos.27735, 27741, 27182 and 27183 of 2019 and W.P.Nos.889, 894 and 2031 of 2020 are narrated. W.P.No.27735 of 2019:-

5.The writ petitioner, M.Duraisamy, was the successful bidder in respect of 4/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Government Rough stone, Cut stone, Chakkai and Jelly quarry measuring 1.00.0 Hectares in S.F.No.383/2B (Part) (Pit-7) in Erumapalayam Village, Salem Taluk and District for a bid amount of Rs.9,55,000/-. Pursuant to the said bid, by proceedings bearing R.O.C.No.112/2011/Mines-A, dated 01.03.2011, the District Collector, Salem District, confirmed the bid and granted Rough stone quarrying lease in his favour with respect to the said land. Necessary lease agreement was also executed on 05.05.2011, which was for a period of 5 years, to expire on 04.05.2016.

6.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated that the writ petitioner commenced quarry operations and was transporting the quarried minerals with valid transport permits issued by the 2nd respondent on payment of necessary seigniorage. It had been further stated that the Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Government of Tamilnadu, by G.O.Ms.No.79, Industries (MMC-1) Department, dated 06.04.2015, published in the Government Gazette, dated 22.04.2015, inserted Rules 41 and 42 to the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Rule 41 dealt with submission 5/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch of approved Mining Plan and Rule 42 dealt with submission of Environment Clearance from the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), represented by its Chairman, Chennai. In Rule 42 (iii), the existing lessees like the petitioner were also directed to submit Environment Clearance from SEIAA or from the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), as the case may be.

7.Initially, the existing lease holders were granted 180 days from 22.04.2015 to submit Environment Clearance. This time period was subsequently extended again and again and finally, fixed as 630 days from 22.04.2015. This period ended on 10.01.2017.

8.It had been further stated in the affidavit that the Chairperson and Members of the Environmental Committee were not appointed and consequently, applications submitted by existing lessees were not processed by the said Authority. The petitioner did not apply for Environment Clearance. The lease of the petitioner expired on 04.05.2016. The petitioner claimed that the quarry 6/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch operations carried on by him till 04.05.2016 were legal and lawful. However, the impugned memo, dated Nil-06-2019, was issued, by the 2nd respondent / The District Collector, Salem District, levying and demanding a sum of Rs.8,33,625/-, claiming that the amount represents 100% penalty for the total quantity of 2565 cbm of Rough stone quarried and transported during the period from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017.

9.The petitioner had challenged the said memo issued to him on the ground that the 2nd respondent / the District Collector, Salem District, had not taken note of the fact that the lease period had expired on 04.05.2016 and till that date, the petitioner had a subsisting lease agreement, permitting him to quarry the stones. It was stated that the reference in the notice to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was misconceived. It was also stated that the 2nd respondent had not considered the fact that the time had been extended for a period of 630 days by the successive amendments to Rule 42 (iii) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.

7/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

10.The primary ground for challenging the impugned memo was that the petitioner was not put on notice or issued with a show cause notice prior to the demand for payment of penalty. The petitioner claimed that had such notice been issued, the petitioner would have had an opportunity to explain the facts. The petitioner claimed that the impugned memo will have to be set aside as the same was totally arbitrary, against law and perse illegal. The petitioner claimed that the writ petition should be allowed.

W.P.No.27741 of 2019:-

11.The writ petitioner, S.Krishnappa, was the successful bidder in respect of Government Rough stone and Jelly quarry measuring 4.11.0 Hectares in S.F.No.122 (Part) in Ullatti Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District for a bid amount of Rs.11,10,000/-. Pursuant to the said bid, by proceedings bearing R.O.C.No.129/2008 (Mines-2), dated 29.05.2008, the District Collector, Krishnagiri District, confirmed the bid and granted Rough stone quarrying lease in his favour with respect to the said land. Necessary lease agreement was also executed on 29.06.2009, which was for a period of 10 years to expire on 8/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch 28.06.2019.

12.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated that the writ petitioner commenced quarry operations and was transporting the quarried minerals with valid transport permits issued by the 2nd respondent on payment of necessary seigniorage. It had been further stated that the Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Government of Tamilnadu, by G.O.Ms.No.79, Industries (MMC-1) Department, dated 06.04.2015, published in the Government Gazette, dated 22.04.2015, inserted Rules 41 and 42 to the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Rule 41 dealt with submission of approved Mining Plan and Rule 42 dealt with submission of Environment Clearance from the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), represented by its Chairman, Chennai. In Rule 42 (iii), the existing lessees like the petitioner were also directed to submit Environment Clearance from SEIAA or from the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), as the case may be.

9/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

13.Initially, the existing lease holders were granted 180 days from 22.04.2015 to submit Environment Clearance. This time period was subsequently extended again and again and finally, fixed as 630 days from 22.04.2015. This period ended on 10.01.2017.

14.It had been further stated in the affidavit that the petitioner had submitted a duly filled application, dated 31.12.2015, by online, to the 3 rd respondent / SEIAA, seeking Environment Clearance, but no orders have been passed, till the expiry of the stipulated period of 630 days fixed for submission of Environment Clearance. However, the 2nd respondent / The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, stopped quarrying operations on and from 11.01.2017, by the impugned memo bearing R.O.C.No.1042-7/2018/Mines, dated 02.08.2019, levying and demanding a sum of Rs.3,76,45,590/-, claiming that the amount represents 100% penalty for the total quantity of 1,17,930 cbm of Rough stone quarried and transported during the period from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017.

15.The petitioner had challenged the said memo issued to him on the 10/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch ground that the 2nd respondent / the District Collector, Krishnagiri District, had not taken note of the fact that the period mentioned in the impugned memo ie., from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017 was covered by the period of 630 days stipulated in Rule 42 (iii) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.

16.The primary ground for challenging the impugned memo was that the petitioner was not put on notice or issued with a show cause notice prior to the demand for payment of penalty. The petitioner claimed that had such notice been issued, the petitioner would have had an opportunity to explain the facts. The petitioner claimed that the impugned memo will have to be set aside as the same was totally arbitrary, against law and perse illegal. The petitioner claimed that the writ petition should be allowed.

W.P.Nos.27182 and 27183 of 2019:-

17.Both the writ petitions have been filed by M/s.Madhucon Granite Limited, Khammam, Andhra Pradesh, questioning the notice dated 09.07.2019, passed by the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District and the notice dated 11/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch 15.07.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent.

18.The petitioner was granted quarry lease on 18.02.2008, vide G.O.Ms.No.3. On 29.10.2015 and on 27.01.2016, Government Orders were passed, extending the time limit for furnishing the Environmental Clearance Certificate as required under Rules 41 and 42 of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The petitioner claimed that on 06.07.2016, Environment Clearance Certificate was issued to them. Further dispatch permits were also issued by the 2nd respondent till July, August and September 2018. The 3rd respondent forwarded the 2nd scheme of approval to the 2nd respondent on 06.09.2018 and it was claimed that it is still pending. The petitioner filed an application for issuance of dispatch / transport permit on 24.10.2018. Since till 20.12.2018, the 3rd respondent had not issued the permit, the petitioner submitted a representation for issuance of dispatch permit. Another representation was given on 02.02.2019.

19.The petitioner, then, filed W.P.No.7536 of 2019 seeking a direction to 12/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch issue transport permit. It was stated that the 3rd respondent filed a status report in the said writ petition claiming that the approval for the 2nd scheme of Mining was pending before the 2nd respondent. This Court passed orders in W.P.No.7536 of 2019 on 21.06.2019, directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders in the 2nd scheme of Mining approval application. On 09.07.2019, the 1st respondent had issued the demand notice impugned in W.P.No.27182 of 2019. The petitioner filed a reply on 18.07.2019. However, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned notice dated 15.07.2019 and the petitioner claimed that opportunity of personal hearing was not granted. It was stated that since Environment Clearance had been obtained, the 1st and 2nd respondents have no right to issue both the notices impugned in both the writ petitions. It was claimed that the writ petitions should be allowed. W.P.Nos.889 and 894 of 2020:-

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

21.W.P.No.889 of 2020 had been filed in the nature of Certiorari to quash the compensation demand raised in the memo dated 18.06.2019 vide R.O.C.No.45/2018/D-1/Mines-A of the 2nd respondent / the District Collector, Salem. W.P.No.894 of 2020 had been filed seeking a declaration that the petitioner has a subsisting lease for mining of Magnesite and Dunite up to 31.03.2030, in view of Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

22.In the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.889 of 2020, the Managing Director of the petitioner company stated that originally 1,314 acres (531.98 hectares) of land in S.No.6 in Chetty Chavadi Village, Salem Taluk and District was taken on lease by the petitioner for a period of 20 years from 20.08.1966 to 19.08.1986. Thereafter, by a lease deed dated 30.03.1998, the lease was extended retrospectively from 20.08.1986 to 19.08.2006. The permits of the lease for Magnesite and Dunite was for a period of 20 years. The petitioner made an application for renewal of the lease on 11.07.2005, enclosing all requisite 14/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch documents. This application was received by the District Collector, Salem on the same day itself. The petitioner applied for a second renewal of mining lease for an area of 449.364 hectares and surrendered an area measuring 82.616 hectares. It was claimed in the affidavit that the mining plan of the petitioner was approved by the Controller of Mines (South Zone), Indian Bureau of Mines, Bangalore, by letter dated 01.09.2005 and the final mine closure plan for the area of 82.616 hectares, which was surrendered, was also approved by the Controller of Mines (South Zone), Indian Bureau of Mines, Bangalore, by letter dated 05.01.2006. Since the Government did not pass any order on the application seeking renewal, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25518 of 2006 seeking a mandamus, restraining the respondents therein from interfering with the mining of minerals by the petitioner.

23.It was claimed in the affidavit that this Court had admitted the said writ petition and also granted an order of injunction in M.P.No.1 of 2006 in W.P.No.25518 of 2006, by order dated 17.08.2006, which order is said to be still in force. It had been further claimed in the affidavit that the petitioner had applied for Environment Clearance on 09.02.2006 to the Ministry of 15/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Environment, New Delhi, through the Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Tamilnadu, in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2004. A revised application was submitted on 12.10.2011 and it was claimed that the Expert Appraisal Committee had conducted a hearing on 17.04.2012, but however, though it was claimed that the terms of reference had been approved and published in the Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi website, the order was not communicated to the petitioner.

24.It was claimed that in 2015, Section 8A had been inserted in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 , relating to the period of grant of mining lease for minerals other than Coal, Lignite and Atomic Minerals. It was claimed that all mining leases granted before the commencement of the said amendment shall be deemed to have been granted for a period of 50 years. It was also claimed that the period of lease shall be extended and be deemed to have been extended up to 31.03.2030.

16/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

25.The petitioner claimed that they come within the stipulations required for renewal of the lease. It was also claimed that since the lease stands automatically extended, Environment Clearance was not required. It was stated that only if the petitioner applies for renewal and orders are to be passed by the Government, then alone, Environment Clearance would be required. The petitioner also claimed that while winning Magnesite ore, the petitioner has to mine the parent rock, Dunite. It was claimed that there was no separate mining operation, since both the minerals are co-exist in nature and are inseparable.

26.The 2nd respondent / the District Collector, Salem, had issued R.O.C.No.45/2018/D-1/Mines-A, dated 18.06.2019, stating that the petitioner had requested for issuance of No Objection Certificate for further processing of their application for getting Environment Clearance. The Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai, by letter dated 31.10.2018, had called upon the petitioner to furnish the details in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Since the details were not furnished, Environment Clearance was also not issued.

17/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

27.Under these circumstances, the District Collector, Salem, had issued notice, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.11,44,30,605/- being 100% cost of the minerals for the quantity of 1,75,159.309 CBM. The petitioner, however, claimed that there is deemed extension of the lease period and therefore, obtaining Environment Clearance was not required. The petitioner also claimed that there is a subsisting lease till 31.03.2030.

28.Questioning the demand notice of the District Collector, Salem, the writ petition in W.P.No.889 of 2020 had been filed and seeking a direction that the petitioner's lease is deemed to have been extended till 31.03.2030, W.P.No.894 of 2020 had been filed. The petitioner claimed that both the writ petitions should be allowed.

W.P.No.2031 of 2020:-

29.This writ petition has been filed by Ramco Cements Limited, in the 18/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch nature of Certiorari to quash the memorandum bearing Reference R.C.No.70/2019/Mines dated 26.08.2019, issued by the 1st respondent / the District Collector, Perambalur, levying 100% cost of mineral on the petitioner for operating the mines without Environment Clearance from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017.

30.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been claimed that the petitioner was granted mining lease by the 3rd respondent / Industries (MMC.1) Department, represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, by G.O.Ms.No.582, dated 28.10.1992, for mining of limestone for its cement plant at Ariyalur District, over an extent of 18.11.5 Hectares in S.F.No.169/1, 169/2, 169/3, etc., in Varagupadi Village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District for a period of 20 years. A lease deed dated 24.10.1993 was also executed. The petitioner surrendered a portion of its mining lease and retained 4.68.0 Hectares on 15.09.2012. This was also approved by the 3rd respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 15.09.2012. 19/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

31.It was claimed that the petitioner had applied for renewal of mining lease to the District Collector, Perambalur on 18.10.2012. It was claimed that consents were also obtained from the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board on 08.06.2013 under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as well as under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It was further claimed that these consents were periodically renewed till 30.06.2016. The petitioner submitted a notice of temporary dis- continuation of mine in Form-D1 to the Indian Bureau of Mines on 09.07.2016 and claimed that they have stopped mining activities from 22.07.2016.

32.It was further stated in the affidavit that the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) had issued a notification on 14.03.2017, directing that applications for Environment Clearance have to be applied within a period of six months. It was also stated that mining lease period without obtaining Environment Clearance after 15.01.2016 would be considered as a violation. The petitioner applied for Environment Clearance on 30.05.2017. The petitioner sent a representation on 25.10.2017 to the Regional Controller of Mines, Indian 20/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Bureau of Mines, Chennai, requesting processing and approval of the mining plan and it was claimed that approval was granted by the Indian Bureau of Mines. However, on 17.03.2018, the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) had directed the petitioner to submit details for specific terms of reference for its mine in Varagupadi Village and the petitioner claimed that they have submitted the details on 14.06.2018. However, the 1st respondent / the District Collector, Perambalur, had issued the impugned memorandum, levying 100% cost claiming that the petitioner has to pay a total cost of Rs.6,58,79,985/- for Limestone production of 144505 Metric Tons for the period from January 2016 to July 2016 without Environment Clearance.

33.The petitioner had questioned the said impugned memorandum on the ground that there had been no fact finding exercise or adjudication of liability and the memorandum had been issued merely on the basis of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It had been stated that there was total non application of mind. It had been further stated that the petitioner had been operating under valid 21/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch transport permits from January 2016 to July 2016 and had remitted the royalty fee from time to time for the minerals mined during the said period. It had also been stated that the petitioner had not operated mine and had also issued a notice of temporary discontinuance of mine in Form-D1.

34.It had been claimed that the 1st respondent had overlooked the fact that no guidelines were issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) in respect of Environmental Clearance for lease of major minerals with less than 5 Hectares area. It had been stated that there was no complaint against the petitioner for carrying out mining operations and it was therefore claimed that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not apply to the petitioner. It was stated that the writ petition should be allowed.

Counter affidavits filed by the respective District Collectors in the respective Writ Petitions:-

35.In the counter affidavit, it had been stated that the petitioner was the 22/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch successful bidder with respect to quarry of Government Rough stone, Cut stone, Chakkai and Jelly in 1.00.0 Hectares in S.F.No.383/2B (Part) (Pit-7) in Erumapalayam Village, Salem Taluk and District and by proceedings bearing R.O.C.No.112/2011/Mines-A, dated 01.03.2011, the bid was confirmed and lease agreement was also executed on 05.05.2011. The lease was for a period of 5 years from 05.05.2011 to 04.05.2016.

36.It was further stated in the counter affidavit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated 27.02.2012, in I.A.No.12-13 of 2011 in S.L.P. (C) No.19628-19629 of 2019 in the matter of Deepak Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others had ordered that lease of minor minerals including the renewal for an area less than 5.00.0 Hectares, be granted by the State / Union Territory only after getting Environment Clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF). To ensure compliance, an Office Memorandum dated 18.05.2012 was issued by the MoEF, stating that all mining projects of minor minerals including the renewal, irrespective of the size of the lease would require prior Environment Clearance and that the project of the minor minerals with lease area less than 5 23/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Hectares would be treated as category “B” and would be considered by the respective State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities notified by Ministry of Environment and Forest and following the procedure under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. With respect to the time period granted for submission of Environment Clearance, it had been stated that the period was extended at regular intervals and finally for a period of 630 days.

37.It had been stated that when the State Government sought further time, the National Green Tribunal, by order dated 04.05.2016, in Rev.Aplc.No.1 of 2016 in Original Application No.34 of 2016 in the matter of Ramakant Gautam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , had directed that the Environmental Impact Assessment Authorities must dispose the pending applications by 31.05.2016 and that no further time would be granted. With respect to the applications, which were deficient and where the applicants have not submitted all requisite documents, one week time was granted for regularizing the applications. It had been stated that violating establishments shall be liable to be shutdown without 24/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch any further notice. The State Authorities were directed to upload in the respective websites, details of the applications pending before them as on 31.03.2016.

38.It had been further stated in the counter affidavit that the State Government had filed M.A.No.260 of 2017 in O.A.No.123 of 2014, seeking further extension of one year period for implementation of the said directions. However, the National Green Tribunal, by order dated 18.04.2017, refused to grant any further time and directed the State Government to expedite the compliance as expeditiously as possible and ensure that no mining activity was carried on without obtaining prior Environment Clearance.

39.It had been stated that the petitioner herein had not even submitted his application seeking Environment Clearance, it had also been stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that Section 21 (5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, is applicable when any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had further held that there can be no compromise on the quantum of 25/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch compensation that should be recovered and that it should be 100%.

40.It had been stated that the District Collectors had been requested by the Director of Geology and Mining by letter Rc.No.1375/LC/2016, dated 18.06.2019, to take necessary action for recovery of 100% cost of the mineral for the violative cases. It had been stated that following these directions, the impugned demand notice had been issued for the relevant period to the petitioner. It had been further stated that the petitioner had failed to submit the application form, seeking Environment Clearance and therefore, the petitioner is liable to comply with the demand raised. It had also been stated that since the demand was made in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the National Green Tribunal and the directions of the Director of Geology and Mining and since the petitioner was very well aware of the fact that he cannot quarry without getting Environment Clearance, there was no issue of granting notice to the petitioner. It had been stated that the notice is valid and it was stated that the writ petition should be dismissed.

26/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch W.P.No.27741 of 2019 – The District Collector, Krishnagiri District:-

However, the National Green Tribunal, by order dated 18.04.2017, refused to grant any further time and directed the State Government to expedite the compliance as expeditiously as possible and ensure that no mining activity was carried on without obtaining prior Environment Clearance.

45.It had been stated that the petitioner herein had given an incomplete form and had not submitted the requisite documents seeking Environment Clearance. It had also been stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that Section 21 (5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 29/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch 1957, is applicable when any person raises, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had further held that there can be no compromise on the quantum of compensation that should be recovered and that it should be 100%.

46.It had been stated that the District Collectors had been requested by the Director of Geology and Mining by vide letter Rc.No.1375/LC/2016, dated 18.06.2019, to take necessary action for recovery of 100% cost of the mineral for the violative cases. It had been stated that following these directions, the impugned demand notice had been issued for the relevant period to the petitioner. It had been further stated that the petitioner had not filed his application form with requisite documents, seeking Environment Clearance and therefore, the petitioner is liable to comply with the demand raised. It had also been stated that since the demand was made in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the National Green Tribunal and the directions of the Director of Geology and Mining and since the petitioner was very well aware of the fact that he cannot quarry without getting Environment Clearance, there was 30/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch no issue of granting notice to the petitioner. It had been stated that the impugned demand notice is valid and it was stated that the writ petition should be dismissed. W.P.Nos.27182 & 27183 of 2019 – The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai:-

Since 32/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch the petitioner did not obtain Environment Clearance for the 2nd scheme, the respondents justified the demand and stated that the writ petitions should be dismissed.

W.P.Nos.889 & 894 of 2020 – The District Collector, Salem:-

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

51.The Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Limited, Trichy, had carried out the mining operations over an extent of 893.10 acres by way of temporary permission granted in Government Proceedings No.5303 (Development) dated 28.12.1950, in addition to the area held by M/s.Magnesite Corporation of India Limited. The entire estate of Chetti Chavadi Jaghir was taken over by the Government under the Madras Inam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. The Government granted mining lease to the Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Limited, Trichy, treating the land as Government land originally, to an extent of 1986.36 acres, by G.O.No.903, Department of Industries, Labour and Corporation, dated 25.02.1966 and later the area was amended as 1419.08 acres in Chetti Chavadi Jaghir Village for a period of 20 years. Further lease was granted to Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Limited, Trichy, on 26.06.1976 for a period of 10 years for an extent of 1314 acres. This lease expired on 19.08.1986.

52.Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Limited, Trichy, applied for renewal of mining lease for a period of 20 years over the said area. The Government decided to reserve the area in favour of TANMAG (A State Government undertaking). 34/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Limited, Trichy, then, filed W.P.No.12358 of 1986, seeking renewal of lease and seeking protection from interference with possession. An interim injunction was granted on 17.11.1986. Further application to renew the license was also filed and W.P.No.7531 of 1987 was filed, seeking orders be passed in the renewal of lease application. It was stated that the Government, by G.O.Ms.No.74 Industries (MMD-1), Department, dated 11.03.1997, had granted the first renewal mining lease for mining Magnesite and Dunite and making them co-terminus in the area in S.F.No.6 of Chetti Chavadi Village, Salem District for a period of 20 years from 20.08.1986 to 19.08.2006.

53.This Court passed orders on 01.08.1997 in W.P.No.12358 of 1986 with a direction to execute a lease deed in favour of Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Limited, Trichy. It was stated that the Director of Ministry of Environment and Forest, by letter dated 03.04.2017, had informed the State Government that as per Notification S.O.No.141 (E) dated 15.01.2016, all the mining leases (major mineral as well as minor minerals) operating in the country were required to obtain Environment Clearance after 15.01.2016 as per the provisions contained in 35/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated 02.08.2017, in the matter of Common Cause Vs. Union of India and others had also held that if there is violation of any of the statutory requirements, then, the mining operation was illegal and unlawful.

54.It was stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that 100% compensation must be recovered from the defaulting lessee. It had been specifically stated by the respondents that the petitioner had mined and transported a total quantum of 1,75,159.309 Metric Tons of Dunite from the Magnesite and Dunite lease area without obtaining Environment Clearance. It was stated that the demand in the impugned notice was based on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and it was stated that there is no violation in the issuance of the impugned notice.

55.It was stated that though the petitioner can seek to exercise the provisions under Section 8A(5) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as amended in 2015, the petitioner has to still produce 36/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Environment Clearance Certificate, which is a statutory requirement to execute a lease deed and to start mining operations. It was specifically stated that the petitioner had not obtained Environment Clearance Certificate. It was stated that though the petitioner had stated about the difference between Magnesite and Dunite minerals, the petitioner had not stated anything in the affidavit with respect to the cost of the mineral, but had only reiterated about renewal of the lease.

56.It was stated that the cost of the mineral was calculated only according to the base year 1993-94 and had been calculated from 01.04.2000 to 31.08.2018 as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.(Civil) No.114 of 2014, dated 02.08.2017 and the subsequent guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. It was therefore stated that the writ petitions have no merit and should be dismissed.

57.With respect to the averments in W.P.No.894 of 2020, it had been stated that there cannot be any automatic renewal of license under Section 8A of the 37/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 , since the petitioner had not obtained Environment Clearance, which is mandatory under the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also by the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, It had been stated that the petitioner had continued mining the minerals without obtaining Environment Clearance and therefore, in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner had been served with the notice, calling upon them to pay 100% cost of the mined and quarried.

58.With respect to the claim of the petitioner that there must be a deemed renewal of license, it had been stated that there cannot be any deemed renewal of license without submission of the Environment Clearance Certificate as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was therefore stated that the writ petitions should be dismissed.

W.P.No.2031 of 2020 – The District Collector, Perambalur:-

59.In the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, Perambalur, it had 38/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch been contended that the petitioner, Ramco Cements Limited, had submitted an application on 18.10.2012 for renewal of mining lease for mining limestone over an extent of 4.68.0 Hectares in Varagupadi Village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District and carried out mining operations under deemed extension in accordance with Rule 24A (6) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

60.The petitioner had contended that they had been issued with terms of reference by letter dated 14.06.2018 and amended terms of reference by letter dated 30.07.2018. The petitioner had, however, not obtained Environment Clearance in respect of the lease hold lands and the respondents therefore contended that mining operations carried out by the petitioner from 15.01.2016 in the lease hold area was an illegal mining operation as clarified by the letter of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, dated 03.04.2017. The petitioner was therefore issued with the impugned notice for recovery of cost of minerals mined and transported for the period from 15.01.2016 to July 2016 alone.

61.The claim of the petitioner that the demand was made from 15.01.2016 39/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch to 10.01.2017 was not correct was denied by the respondents. The petitioner had actually carried on mining operations over an extent of 18.11.5 Hectares in Varagupadi Village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District from 24.10.1993 without obtaining Environment Clearance. The respondents therefore justified the issuance of the demand notice, impugned in the writ petition, towards cost of minerals and the quantum of limestone mined and transported without Environment Clearance for the period from 2000-2001 based on the base year production of 1993-94 as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Common Cause Vs. Union of India and others .

62.The respondents also denied all other contentions raised by the petitioner and stated that obtaining Environment Clearance is mandatory and that the petitioner cannot seek exemption of the same and also seek renewal of license. It was stated that mining operations conducted by the petitioner from January 2016 to July 2016 were illegal and therefore, the impugned notice had been issued to the petitioner. It was stated that the writ petition should be 40/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch dismissed.

Counter affidavits filed on behalf of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authorities:-

63.The learned Standing Counsels on behalf of the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority had filed a detailed chart with respect to the applications said to have been filed seeking Environment Clearance for each one of the writ petitions, where, the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority had been impleaded as a respondent.

64.With respect to W.P.No.27735 of 2019, it had been stated that the petitioner had not submitted any application seeking Environment Clearance. With respect to W.P.No.27741 of 2019, it had been stated that there was a violation in the project and the petitioner had not submitted all the relevant details in the application form and the file had been recorded.

65.With respect to W.P.Nos.27182 & 27183 of 2019, it had been stated that 41/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch the petitioner had applied for 2nd scheme of mining. However, the application was not in proper format. It is a fact that the petitioner was granted Environment Clearance, but subsequently, the petitioner had submitted a 2nd scheme for mining under Rule 41 of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and had not obtained Environment Clearance, but had continued with the mining. It was therefore stated that the demand made by the District Collector was justified. With respect to W.P.Nos.889 & 894 of 2020, it was stated that the petitioner had not obtained Environment Clearance and the petitioner was carried on mining operations under the deemed extension provision. However, such deemed extension cannot be presumed by the petitioner, in view of the fact that there was no prior Environment Clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi. It was stated that the writ petition should be dismissed.

66.With respect to W.P.No.2031 of 2020, the petitioner had not impleaded the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. The application for Environment Clearance had not been granted and in spite of the same, the 42/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch petitioner had continued with mining operations from January 2016 to July 2016, for which period, the impugned notice had been issued.

67.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Mr.V.Sanjeevi, Mr.P.Sengottuvel, Mr.V.Ramana Reddy, Mr.M.Muthappan, Mr.T.Ramesh, Mr.G.Arul Murugan, Mr.K.R.Krishnan, Mr.T.Poornam and Mr.T.Rahul Balaji, learned counsels on behalf of the petitioners and Ms.Narmadha Sampath, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.R.Govindasamy, Special Government Pleader, Ms.P.Rajalakshmi and Mr.M.Inbanathan, Additional Government Pleaders for the 1st and 2nd respondents and Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy, Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, Mr.Venkataswamy Babu and Ms.Sunithakumari, learned Standing Counsels for the 3rd / 4th respondents.

68.Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, who led the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, pointed out that originally, approved mining plan as envisaged under Rule 41 of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and 43/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Environment Clearance as envisaged under Rule 42 of the said Rules, were not required in respect of mining leases of minor minerals of less than 5.00.0 Hectares. However, Environment Clearance was made mandatory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2012 (4) SCC 629 ( Deepak Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others ), even for minor minerals of less than 5.00.0 Hectares.

69.The writ petitions related to stone quarry leases granted with respect to both Government land and patta land. For Government land, the leases were granted under Rule 8 of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 by following Tender cum Auction system. For patta land, leases were granted on application filed under Rule 19 of the said Rules.

70.The learned counsel pointed out that pursuant to the judgment in Deepak Kumar 's case (referred supra), the State of Tamilnadu, by G.O.Ms.No.79, Industries, (MMC-1), Department, dated 06.04.2015, inserted Rules 41 and 42 to the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. As 44/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch stated above, Rule 41 dealt with submission of approval of mining plan and Rule 42 dealt with submission of Environment Clearance. Originally, 180 days was granted for submission of Environment Clearance under Rule 42 (iii).

71.The learned counsel pointed out that the State of Tamilnadu did not constitute the authority for grant of Environment Clearance and did not also appoint the Chairman of the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. Therefore, the petitioners could not obtain the Environment Clearance within the stipulated period of 180 days. Thereafter, being aware of the situation, the State Government extended the time periodically and finally fixed 630 days and amended Rule 42 (iii) on 14.07.2016. The period of 630 days came to an end on 10.01.2017. Subsequently, all the District Collectors stopped quarrying operations in all the quarries throughout Tamilnadu on and from 11.01.2017.

72.The learned counsel pointed out that most of the writ petitioners had actually submitted the application forms seeking Environment Clearance. 45/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch However, the respondents had not issued Environment Clearance. The learned counsel stated that the blame cannot be shifted on the petitioners for continuing quarry operations without Environment Clearance. The petitioners can only apply for Environment Clearance. They have done so. The onus then shifts to the respondents to either grant the Environment Clearance or to reject the application and calling upon the petitioners, if the application is not in proper format, to rectify the mistakes. However, the respondents did not take any step and they have kept the applications pending. They extended the time for submission of Environment Clearance and finally, granted time up to 630 days. Even on the expiry of 630 days, the applications were kept pending. It was stated that all the quarry works stopped on 11.01.2017.

73.It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the respondents / the District Collectors have not applied their mind to examine whether the lease period in most of the cases had actually expired even before 11.01.2017. As an instance, the learned counsel pointed out that the case of the petitioner, M.Duraisamy, in W.P.No.27735 of 20019. The lease period of the petitioner had 46/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch expired on 04.05.2016 and he stopped the quarrying operations on 04.05.2016. However, the demand notice had claimed amounts up to 10.01.2017. The learned counsel pointed out that this showed total non application of mind on the part of the District Collector, Salem. Similarly, in other writ petitions also, the respective District Collectors, had not even considered the fact that whether the petitioner had applied for Environment Clearance and whether the Environment Clearance applications were pending before the concerned authorities, but had issued impugned notices in printed form by filling the blanks namely, name of the company, name of the lessee and the quantity of mines quarried and the amount demanded.

74.The learned counsel also pointed out that the impugned notices suffer, because prior notice was not issued to any of the petitioners. Pointing out this fact, the learned counsel stated that if only the District Collectors had issued notices, then, the writ petitioners would have had an opportunity to explain the correct position and then, the District Collectors might even have taken a conscious decision to drop further proceedings. The learned counsel very 47/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch seriously questioned the lack of opportunity granted and stated that the principles of natural justice have been violated by the respondents herein.

75.The learned counsel also stated that the petitioners were also permitted to continue the quarrying operations until 10.01.2017. The District Collector also issued transport permits for transport of quarried minerals on payment of necessary seigniorage till 10.01.2017. The learned counsel therefore stated that the impugned notices suffer from total non application of mind and also on violation of principles of natural justice.

76.The learned counsel pointed out that under the notices, 100% penalty has been levied and the petitioners have been put to very serious hardship owing to the said notices. The learned counsel again reiterated that stereo type notices have been issued demanding huge amounts alleging that the quarrying operations were carried on from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017 even in the case of lessees, whose lease period had expired earlier to 10.01.2017.

48/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

77.The learned counsel stated that even in the notice, it had been mentioned that the petitioner have paid royalty fee and other statutory dues to the Government. They have paid the seigniorage charges and royalty fee and the District Collector had issued the transport permits. In spite of the same, the printed forms have been issued demanding 100% cost of the mineral lifted from the entire period from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017.

78.The learned counsel also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar 's case (referred supra) and pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering extraction of minor minerals in the District of Panchkula and Haryana for quarrying in the riverbeds of Yamuna, Tangri, Markanda, Ghaggar, Krishnavati River basin, Dohan River basin, etc., There were also complaints of illegal mining in the State of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.

79.The learned counsel stated that after examining the rival contentions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in paragraph No.26, stated that it was necessary to 49/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch have an effective framework of mining plan, which will take care of all environmental issues and also evolve a long term rational and sustainable use of natural resource base and also the bio-assessment protocol.

80.The Hon'ble Supreme Court also directed that all the States, Union Territories, the Ministry of Environment and Forest and the Ministry of Mines must give effect to the recommendations made by the Ministry of Environment and Forest in the report of March 2010 and the Modal Guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines, within a period of six months from the date of judgment. Finally, in paragraph No.29, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that the leases of minor minerals including their renewal even for an area of less than 5 Hectares can be granted by the States / Union Territories, only after getting Environment Clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest.

81.In view of the fact that there were two directions namely, to submit a mining plan and to obtain Environment Clearance, the Tamilnadu Government inserted Rules 41 and 42 in the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 50/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch 1959, by G.O.Ms.No.79, Industries (MMC-1) Department, dated 06.04.2015.

82.The said Government Order specifically referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar 's case (referred supra) and inserted Rule 41 namely submission for approval of mining plan for minor minerals other than Granite and Rule 42 namely, submission of Environment Clearance for the grant of quarry lease for minor minerals including Granite. It was stated that the holders of lease including Granite shall submit Environment Clearance within a period of 180 days from the date of commencement of the Rules. Thereafter, by periodical amendments, the time was finally extended to 630 days.

83.The learned counsel pointed out that the Government of Tamilnadu had filed M.A.No.260 of 2017 in O.A.No.123 of 2014 before the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, seeking extension of time for implementation of the directions of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 13.01.2015 for a further period of one year and sought extension of further time more than 630 days. However, the National Green Tribunal had refused extension 51/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch of time and stated that the Government of Tamilnadu had exhibited inaction in complying with the judgment and the guidelines and for protection of environment ecology.

84.The learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. (C) No.114 of 2014 in the matter of Common Cause Vs. Union of India dated 02.08.2017 and drew reference to paragraph Nos.90 and 91 and stated that though paragraph No.90 had been referred in the impugned notices, in the said paragraph, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that the Environment Clearance will be required only if the existing mining project does not have No Objection Certificate from the State Pollution Control Board.

85.The learned counsel stated that the impugned notices issued by the respective District Collectors, have been issued without any application of mind in printed forms, completely violating the principles of natural justice and therefore, the learned counsel stated that the writ petitions should be allowed. In this connection, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble 52/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Supreme Court in (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 553 (Radhy Shyam (dead) through legal heirs and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others ) and drew specific reference to paragraph 40, which is as follows:-

Therein the District Board had brought down the house of the plaintiff's (Cooper), because he had failed to comply with The Metropolis Local Management Act. The Act required the plaintiff to notify the board seven days before starting to build the house. Cooper argued that even though the board had the legal authority to tear his house down, no person should be deprived of their property without notice. In spite of no express words in the statute the court recognized the right of hearing before the plaintiff's house built without permission was demolished in the exercise of statutory powers. Byles J stated: 53/179

86.The learned counsel therefore stated that the notices issued violating the principles of natural justice should be struck down by this Court. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2014) 16 Supreme Court Cases 392 ( Nisha Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others ) and drew specific reference to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, which are as follows:-

87.The learned counsel again reiterated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had consistently upheld the view that any order passed violating the principles of natural justice and denying the opportunity of personal hearing, must be struck 55/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch down.

88.The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 223 ( Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others ) and drew specific reference to paragraph No.46, which is as follows:-

89.The learned counsel stated that the action of the District Collectors in issuing the notices arbitrarily and without affording an opportunity of hearing, has 56/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch to be interfered with by this Court, since the notices were arbitrary in nature and violated the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel therefore stated that the writ petitions should be allowed.

90.Mr.V.Sanjeevi, learned counsel argued elaborately, questioning the notices issued by the respective District Collectors claiming 100% compensation for the quantity of the minerals quarried and lifted and transported during the period from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017.

91.The learned counsel pointed out that the date ie., 15.01.2016 had been fixed based on the date of notification of the Ministry of Environment and Forest and there was also a reference in the impugned notice to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause 's case (referred supra) in 2017 (9) SCC 499 and to the letter of Director of Geology and Mining, calling upon the respective District Collectors to issue the impugned notices. The learned counsel stated that the regulation of mines and minerals comes under List I in Serial 57/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch No.54 of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India.

92. In the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 , it had been provided under Section 2 that mines and minerals come under the control of Union of India and in Section 15 , it had been stated that the State can frame rules for minor minerals. Section 4 related to prospective or mining operations under lease or license. Section 4 (1-A) provided that there can be no transport or storage, unless specific permission is granted. Section 21 gave the penalties for violation of any of the provisions under Sections 4 and 4 (1-A). It provided an imprisonment of 5 years and a fine of Rs.5 lakhs. Section 21 (5) stated that without any lawful authority, if there has been mining and lifting of minerals, then the State Government can collect the price of the minerals lifted and also the rent, loyalty and taxes payable. This Section has been interpreted in the Common Cause 's case referred supra by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The learned counsel stated that in Deepak Kumar 's case (referred supra), it was only in the last paragraph it had been stated that there can be no renewal for the 58/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch stone quarries, unless Environment Clearance is obtained even when the area is less than 5 Hectares.

93.However, in the Official Memorandum dated 18.05.2012 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, it had been stated that even for leases for less than 5 hectares, existing leases would not come under the purview of the regulations. Under the notification dated 15.01.2016, it had been stated that the District level and State level Authorities should be constituted. However, this notification came to be interpreted by the National Green Tribunal and in its order dated 11.12.2018, it has been very specifically stated that the notification dated 15.01.2016 was not consistent with the decision in Deepak Kumar 's case (referred supra). It was very specifically stated that the notification should not be acted upon.

94.The learned counsel therefore pointed out that the date ie., 15.01.2016, mentioned in the impugned notice itself is a misconception and on this ground alone, the notice will have to be struck down. The learned counsel also stated 59/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch that the end date namely, 10.01.2017 had also been arbitrarily fixed as no such date been mentioned in any one of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the State Government had introduced Rules 41 and 42 to the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Rule 41 relates to production of mining plan and Rule 42 (iii) relates to obtaining Environment Clearance. The learned counsel stated that the petitioners had applied seeking Environment Clearance, but the State Government had not provided the Environment Clearance. The onus was on the State Government to provide Environment Clearance. If the applications were not in order, then, the Appropriate Authority should have informed the respective applicants regarding the defects in the applications, so that, rectifications can be made. However, after receiving the applications, the Authority had kept silent and the learned counsel urged that the date ie., 10.01.2017 had been arbitrarily fixed.

95.The learned counsel pointed out that till that date, the District Collectors had not come forward to cancel the lease or the license granted in favour of the petitioners. Even the Government had not taken such step. The learned counsel 60/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch pointed out that the Government had not directed the District Collectors to issue the impugned notices. The learned counsel pointed out that the State Government had not filed counter affidavit in the writ petitions. The learned counsel argued that the District Collectors have no authority to take a stand on behalf of the State Government. The learned counsel also pointed out that the Director of Mining also had no authority. However, he directed the Collector to issue the impugned notices. The learned counsel stated that there was no application of mind by the Collector, before issuing on notice. The learned counsel pointed out that under Rule 36 A provides for penalty and Rule 36 C of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, provides for appeal to the District Collector. The learned counsel also pointed out the fact that the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority had not been formed and hence obtaining Environment clearance was an impossibility and that the petitioners cannot be faulted for not submitting them. The learned counsel stated that the writ petitions should be allowed.

96.Mr.P.Sengottuvel, learned counsel also put forth his arguments. The 61/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch learned counsel also adopted the arguments of Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy and Mr.V.Sanjeevi. The learned counsel pointed out that Rule 42 (4) provides for termination of the lease, but for reasons best known to the respondents, they have not resorted to that option. They should have issued prior notice before issuing the impugned notices. However, the demand has been raised claiming that it is based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The learned counsel stated that there had been inordinate a delay on the part of the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority in granting Environment Clearance and therefore, stated that the petitioners could not be faulted.

97.The learned counsel pointed out that the respective District Collectors had actually granted transport permits and therefore, there can be no illegality in the quarrying of the mines or in transporting them even during the period from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017. The learned counsel also urged that the writ petitions should be allowed.

98.Mr.T.Ramesh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P.Nos.27182 and 27183 of 2019 stated that the petitioners had actually obtained Environment 62/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Clearance. Thereafter, they have submitted a 2nd mining plan. That was kept pending by the respondents. The learned counsel stated that the petitioner had filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to issue Environment Clearance and to issue transport permit. A direction was issued. However, the respondents have not granted Environment Clearance. The learned counsel stated that the writ petitions should be allowed and had also faulted the impugned notices on the grand of non application of mind.

99.Mr.T.Poornam, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P.Nos.889 and 894 of 2020 stated that there is no reference to the judgment of Deepak Kumar case (referred supra), in the impugned notices. The learned counsel stated that the judgment in Common Cause (referred supra) has no connection with the judgment of Deepak Kumar case (referred supra). The learned counsel also stated that the judgment in Common Cause (referred supra) was lessee specific and product specific. It was also territory specific. The said judgment related to a specific lessee, who had mined Iron and Manganize in Odisha. The learned counsel stated that Iron and Manganize were major minerals. The learned 63/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch counsel therefore stated that the said judgment cannot give cause to the respective District Collectors to issue the impugned notices.

100.The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1978 SC 851 ( Mohinder Singh Gill and others Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others ), wherein, a Constitution Bench while examining the issue of ordering fresh poll with respect to Ferozepore Parliamentary Constitution for the elections held on 16.03.1977 also had an occasion to examine an administrative order and in paragraph No.8 of the said judgment , had stated that “public orders, publicly made in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or what was in his mind, or what he intended to do.” The Constitution Bench had for the purpose of that proposition placed reliance on the observations in AIR 1952 SC 16 ( The Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji ). 64/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

101.The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2794 ( East Coast Railway and another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and others with K.Surekha Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and others), again for the proposition that “an order passed by the public authority exercising administrative / executive or statutory powers must be judged by the reasons stated in the order or in any record or file contemporaneously maintained”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case had also relied on the judgment in AIR 1952 SC 16 ( The Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji ) and also on the judgment of the Constitution Bench in AIR 1978 SC 851 ( Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others ).

102.The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3520 ( Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Darius Shapur Chennai and others ), wherein, again reference was made to Mohinder Singh Gill (referred supra). The learned counsel questioned the order passed by the District Collector on the 65/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch ground that reasons were not given in the same and that prior notice was not issued.

103.The learned counsel pointed out the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in W.P.(C) No.7286 of 2017 (M/s.Hindalco Industries Limited Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others ), wherein, a similar issue had been raised with respect to Bauxite and Copper and wherein, interim orders had been granted and the matter had been posted for final hearing. The learned counsel stated that the petitioner was deemed to have been granted extension of license. He also stated that prior show cause notice was not issued. The learned counsel pointed out the writ petition in W.P.No.29275 of 2016 filed by the petitioner, wherein, interim orders were granted and thereafter, W.A.No.72 of 2017 had been filed. Further another writ petition in W.P.No.25518 of 2006 had also been filed. A contempt petition had also been filed. The learned counsel pointed out that Magnesite and Dunite are minerals, which are co-terminus and found in same rock. The learned counsel stated that the petitioner is entitled to continue to operate since there is a 66/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch deemed extension of the lease period in view of the fact that the respondents have kept the applications pending without answering it. The learned counsel stated that the writ petitions should be allowed.

104.Mr.Rahul Balaji, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P.No.2031 of 2020 during the course of his arguments referred to the written submission submitted and stated that the judgment in Deepak Kumar (referred supra) held that Environment Clearance was required for leases of minor minerals including renewals for an area less than 5 hectares and that the Ministry of Environment and Forest had issued an Office Memorandum on 04.01.2013, pursuant to a clarification sought by the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Karnataka stating that there was no requirement for Environment Clearance for major minerals in mining area of less than 5 hectares.

105.The learned counsel claimed that the petitioner was mining limestone, which is a major mineral for its own cement plant in Varagupadi Village, Kunnam 67/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Taluk, Perambalur District. The learned counsel also relied on another clarificatory letter dated 08.01.2016 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, wherein, it had been stated that after 07.10.2014, all new mining operations required prior Environment Clearance and for existing mines, Environment Clearance must be obtained at the time of renewal of mining leases. It had been also clarified that mines of major minerals with lease area of less than 5 hectares, which have been operating before 07.10.2014, may continue with mining operations with the consented capacity and that there shall be no enhancement of the production capacity without prior Environment Clearance.

106.The learned counsel also pointed out the notification dated 15.01.2016 of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, which referred only to minor minerals. The learned counsel contended that the said notification was not applicable for mining leases for major minerals.

107.The learned counsel relied on the order dated 19.02.2016 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench in Jatinder Singh Vs. Union of India 68/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch and others, in O.A.No.495 of 2015. The learned counsel claimed that there was no notification issued even as on 19.02.2016 for mandatory Environment Clearance for mining major minerals in lease area of less than 5 hectares. The learned counsel stated that in January 2017, the District Authorities had directed the petitioner to stop mining operations and refused to issue transport permits. The petitioner had, then, applied for Environment Clearance with the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. The learned counsel stated that inconsistent positions were taken by the Ministry of Environment and Forest on the applicability of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 15.01.2016 to major minerals with less than 5 hectares.

108.The learned counsel pointed out that in the communication dated 03.04.2017, the Ministry of Environment and Forest had addressed the Principal Secretary, Industries Department, Tamilnadu, stating that the notification of the year 2006 would be applicable to mining leases for major minerals with mining area of less than 5 hectares. The learned counsel also drew the notice of this Court to the notification dated 15.01.2016, in which, both major and minor minerals 69/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch were mentioned. However, by the clarification issued to the Tamilnadu Small Mine Owners Federation, the Ministry of Environment and Forest had addressed a response on 17.08.2017 stating that the notification dated 15.01.2016 was applicable to minor minerals and with respect to major minerals, the procedure was as per schedule 'A' of Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. However, by the communication dated 04.10.2017, which was in response to the communication issued by the petitioner, the respondents have stated that all mining leases both major and minor minerals were required to obtain Environment Clearance. The learned counsel lamented at the inconsistent stands taken by the officials.

109.The learned counsel further pointed out that the State of Tamilnadu had approached the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, seeking extension of time. That was rejected. In the said application, the State of Tamilnadu had submitted that the delay in implementation was owing to the fact that the Chairman of State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Tamilnadu was yet to be appointed and that applications for grant of Environment Clearance 70/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch were pending. The learned counsel also pointed out the order of National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench in Satendra Pandey Vs. Ministry of Environment and Forest and others (O.A.No.186 of 2018), dated 13.09.2018, wherein, it was stated that the notification dated 15.01.2016 was not in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar case (referred supra). By a subsequent order dated 11.12.2018, in Vikrant Tongad Vs. Union of India , the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, in E.A.No.55 of 2018 in O.A.No.520 of 2016, has also suspended the operation of the notification dated 15.01.2016 and consequently, the learned counsel stated that no penalties can be levied on the basis of the notification dated 15.01.2016.

110.The learned counsel stated that there is still ambiguity on the applicability of the notification dated 15.01.2016 to major minerals in mining lease area of less than 5 hectares. The learned counsel also stated that the order levying penalty had been passed without any determination / adjudication of liability and without any fact finding exercise and without any finding of violation. The learned counsel questioned the reliance placed on the judgment of 71/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Common Cause (referred supra) in the impugned notice stating that the said judgment was not applicable to mining major minerals in lease area of less than 5 hectares. The learned counsel also pointed out that the penalty levied based on the Common Cause (referred supra), had been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in W.P.(C) No.7286 of 2017 by Hindalco Industries and interim orders had been granted by the said High Court.

111.The learned counsel stated that the petitioner was granted an approval by the Indian Bureau of Mining, by letter dated 08.11.2017. The learned counsel stated that the impugned order has to be struck down on all the above grounds and also particularly because it violated the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel therefore urged that the writ petition should be allowed.

112.The learned Additional Advocate General, Ms.Narmadha Sampath, assisted by Mr.R.Govindasamy, Additional Government Pleader in her reply to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners stated with respect to the charge that the impugned notices had been issued without issuing 72/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch show cause notice and without providing an opportunity of hearing, that the impugned notices issued by the respective District Collectors were based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 02.08.2017 in the matter of Common Cause (referred supra) and based on the instructions issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in the Office Memorandum dated 30.05.2018.

113.The learned Additional Advocate General stated that prior notice is not required in the matter of recovery of cost of mineral under Section 21 (5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The learned Additional Advocate General also stated that the issuance of a prior show cause notice and providing an opportunity of hearing would be a futile exercise, since the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all and the petitioners cannot claim any special privilege on that issue. The learned Additional Advocate General also stated that a show cause notice and a reasonable opportunity of being heard has to be provided only when there is termination of the mining lease 73/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch under Section 4-A (1) and under Section 4-A (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

114.The learned Additional Advocate General further stated that if the lessee does not permit the entry of inspection by the authorities, then, under Rule 27-4 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, a notice is required to be issued, questioning why the lease should not be determined. More over, if the lessee makes any default in the payment of royalty or payment of dead rent or commits breach of any of the conditions specified under Rule 27 (1), 27 (2) and 27 (3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, then, notice is required and the Government may determine the lease and forfeit the whole or part of the security deposit as provided under Rule 27 (5) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. It was also pointed out that the District Collectors may cancel a lease after granting opportunity of hearing under Rule 36 (5) (h) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The learned Additional Advocate General reiterated that the demand notices have been issued only under Section 21 (5) of the Mines and 74/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 , which does not contemplate issuance of prior notice and therefore, urged that show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing is not required.

115.With respect to the contention raised by the learned counsels for the petitioners that the mining operations carried on till the end of 630 days, which was stipulated under Rule 42 (iii) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, cannot be treated as illegal, the learned Additional Advocate General stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had very categorically stated in the matter of Deepak Kumar (referred supra) that every mining operation carried on without obtaining Environment Clearance is to be declared as illegal.

116.The learned Additional Advocate General stated that a long period of 630 days was granted for obtaining Environment Clearance and if the petitioners have chosen not to obtain the same or to submit only partially filled applications, then their activity of mining is certainly to be categorized as illegal. The learned Additional Advocate General also relied on the order of the National Green 75/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Tribunal dated 18.04.2017 in M.A.No.260 of 2017 in O.A.No.123 of 2014 and reiterated that grant of prior Environmental Clearance is mandatory by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, by the orders of the National Green Tribunal and under the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The learned Additional Advocate General also pointed out that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, by letter dated 03.04.2017, had informed that all mining leases both major as well as minor minerals have to obtain Environmental Clearance after 15.01.2016 and that no mining leases are to operate without prior Environmental Clearance.

117.The learned Additional Advocate General very specifically stated that while calculating the cost of the minerals, mined and transported the period of 180 days stipulated in Rule 42 (3) in G.O.Ms.No.79, Industries (MMC-1) Department, dated 06.04.2015, was not taken under the account. The learned Additional Advocate General also stated that as directed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, by letter dated 03.04.2017, the mining carried out without Environment Clearance from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017 was 76/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch considered as a violation and the quantum of minerals mined and transported from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017 was taken into account for the purpose of recovery of the cost of minerals under Section 21 (5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The learned Additional Advocate General therefore justified the demand issued by the respective District Collectors.

118.With respect to the submission that no penalty can be levied against the lessees, who had actually obtained the Environmental Clearance before 10.01.2017, the learned Additional Advocate General stated that the Environmental Clearance will have only prospective effect and will not have retrospective effect and therefore, for the period till the Environmental Clearance was not obtained, the penalty had been issued. The learned Additional Advocate General stated that the period, for which mining was carried on without Environment Clearance alone, had been taken into account for the purpose of recovery of the cost of the minerals. The learned Additional Advocate General therefore justified the demands made by the respective District Collectors. 77/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

119.With respect to the submission that the leases could have been terminated under Rule 42 (4) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and levy of penalty was not proper, the learned Additional Advocate General stated that Rule 42 (4) stipulates that when the existing lease holders fail to submit Environment Clearance within a stipulated period, the lease can be cancelled after giving opportunity of hearing. However, the present demands have been made consequent to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (referred supra), wherein, a direction was issued that 100% cost of the minerals must be collected from the defaulting lessees.

120.With respect to the submission made by the learned counsels for the petitioners that the judgment in the matter of Common Cause (referred supra) was not applicable to the writ petitioners because the said judgment related to Iron and Manganize in Odisha and therefore, it is mine specific and State specific, the learned Additional Advocate General stated that interpretations given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for illegal mining will be applicable to all the minerals 78/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch both major as well as minor minerals. She further stated that under Section 14 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, only Sections 5 to 13 will not be applicable to the minor minerals. She further stated that demand notices are perfectly valid and the levying cost of the minerals for a quantum of minor minerals mined and transported.

121.With respect to the contentions of the learned counsel in W.P.Nos.27182 and 27183 of 2013, the learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that the petitioner therein had applied for a 2nd mining scheme, but the relevant documents were not furnished and had continued to mine even without obtaining Environment Clearance. The learned Additional Advocate General therefore justified the impugned notices and stated that the writ petitions should be dismissed.

122.With respect to the issue for recovery of cost for mining Dunite as 79/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch raised in W.P.Nos.889 and 894 of 2020, the learned Additional Advocate General stated that the leases can be extended till 31.03.2030 only subject to the compliance of all terms and conditions of the lease. There cannot be any deemed renewal of the lease under Section 8A (5) of the Amendment Act, 2015. The learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that the petitioners had applied for Environment Clearance on 09.02.2006 and had submitted a revised application on 12.10.2011. Thus, it is seen that they had mined the minerals without obtaining Environment Clearance. It was stated that for that the demand notices have been issued for the quantum of Magnesite mined and transported for the period 2000-2001, based on the base year of 1993-1994 as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Common Cause (referred supra). The learned Additional Advocate General therefore justified the demand made.

123.With respect to the contention raised by the learned counsel in W.P.No.2031 of 2020, the learned Additional Advocate General stated that even according to the petitioner, they had been issued with terms by letter dated 80/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch 14.06.2018 and with amended terms of reference by letter dated 17.03.2018 by the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. The petitioner herein did not have Environment Clearance for carrying out mining operations from 15.01.2016. It was stated that the petitioner had carried out mining operations over an extent of 18.11.5 Hectares in S.F.No.169/1, 169/2, 169/3, etc., in Varagupadi Village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District from 24.10.1993 onwards without obtaining Environment Clearance and therefore, the mining operations will have to be declared as illegal and the learned Additional Advocate General justified the demand notices on the said petitioners. The learned Additional Advocate General finally stated that the demand notices are sustainable and urged that the writ petitions should be dismissed.

124.The learned counsels on behalf of the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority pointed out that whenever the applications have been properly filled and submitted, the Environment Clearance has always been granted by the Authorities. It had been pointed out that most of the writ petitioners had sent their applications for Environment Clearance by partially 81/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch filled applications. The learned counsels therefore stated that the Authority could not issue Environment Clearance on the basis of such applications filed by the petitioners in the said manner. The learned counsels therefore justified the demand notices and urged that the writ petitions should be dismissed.

125.Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy and Mr.V.Sanjeevi, learned counsels for the petitioners advanced arguments in reply to the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General.

126.The learned counsels stated that there was no appeal provision available to the petitioners. They again urged that show cause notices should have been issued. They stated that the respondents should have granted an opportunity to the petitioners to explain the actual facts of each and every case. On the other hand, the respective District Collectors have issued a printed demand notice and have filled in the name of the petitioners. With respect to the amount as calculated, it was pointed out that no separate calculation sheet had been annexed 82/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch to show as to how the amounts had been arrived at. The learned counsels also pointed out that the Environment Clearance could not be obtained since the Authority was not functioning effectively and therefore they urged that the writ petitions should be allowed.

127.I have carefully considered the arguments advanced on either side.

128.The writ petition in W.P.No.26808 of 2019 had been filed in the nature of certiorari questioning the notice issued by the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, dated 31.07.2019 in Na.Ka.No.438/Minerals/2019-29 to the petitioner calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.24,99,525/- towards the cost of minerals quarried between 15.01.2016 and 22.11.2016.

129.The petitioner had been permitted to quarry minor minerals in the land measuring 2 hectares in S.No.1 of Kolamanjanur village, Thandarmapattu Taluk by the proceedings of the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai in 83/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch R.C.No.230/Minerals-2/2009 dated 31.03.2009 for a period of 10 years from 31.03.2009 to 30.03.2019. The petitioner had continued quarry till 11.12.2016. The petitioner had not obtained Environment Clearance till the date he stopped quarrying. In these circumstances, the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner.

130.Similar notices had been issued by the District Collectors of the respective Districts against the petitioners in all the writ petitions. Common arguments were advanced questioning the impugned notices on various grounds particularly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and also that obtaining Environment Clearance was an impossibility in view of the fact that a structured State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) was not established by the Government.

131.In several writ petitions, it had been stated that though applications had been made seeking Environment Clearance, the applications have not been processed and the fault lay with SEIAA in not issuing the Environment Clearance. 84/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

132.The impugned notices were issued primarily based on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2017 (9) SCC 499 ( Common Cause Vs. Union of India ) dated 02.08.2017. The petitioners have also questioned the locus of the District Collectors to issue the impugned notices.

133.The petitioners in W.P.Nos.889 and 894 of 2020 had also questioned the reliance placed by the District Collector on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Common Cause (referred supra) by putting forth an argument that the said judgment was State centric, mineral centric and territory area centric and therefore, the principles enunciated therein would not be applicable to the writ petitioners.

134.The petitioner in W.P.No.2031 of 2020 had raised an issue that the petitioner therein was quarrying limestone, which was a major mineral and therefore, doubted the sanctity of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner 85/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch herein.

135.Before addressing the issues raised, which require very deep consideration, I am under an obligation to place on record a few facts.

136.The oral arguments in this batch of writ petitions concluded late in the evening on 28.02.2020. Thereafter, from 03.03.2020, I had been directed to preside in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. In Madurai, I was informed that a batch of writ petitions on the same issue was also pending and since I was holding a similar portfolio, that batch was listed on 13.03.2020. I enquired the learned counsels whether I can proceed to deliver judgment in the already heard batch of cases or whether they would argue the issues raised in those batch of cases.

137.It was generally stated in the Bar that arguments would be advanced so that a common order can be passed in both batches, since the issues involved were the same. However, even before the next hearing date on 30.03.2020, when 86/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch the matter was listed for arguments, a complete lockdown of the Courts were announced owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. Thereafter, it was possible to list the batch again only on 04.06.2020. The learned Senior Counsel, who had been engaged, stated that final arguments would be advanced on 18.06.2020 and this date was also consented by the Additional Advocate General, who appeared for the respondents.

138.Unfortunately, a further restriction of the Court hearing was announced and the hearings in Madurai Bench were restricted to one Division Bench and three single Judges to hear urgent cases through 'Video Conferencing' on rotation basis every week. My turn would end on 14.06.2020. On and from 15.06.2020, the portfolio regarding writ jurisdiction would be taken over by my brothers and sisters Judges as indicated by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge. Consequently, hearing arguments in the batch matters pending in Madurai Bench on 18.06.2020 has now become an impossibility. Therefore, left with no other alternative, I have taken up a conscious decision to deliver a common as hereunder in the batch of writ petitions in which arguments have been heard in full. 87/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

139.Before proceeding to address the issues raised, it would be worthwhile to examine the provision of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 , (67 of 1957).

140. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 , (MMDR) came into effect on 28.12.1957 and is an Act to provide for the development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union.

141.Article 246 of the Constitution of India, which is in Part XI, which deals with the relationship between the Union and the States and in which Chapter I relates to Distribution of Legislative Powers, deals with the power of the Parliament and the Legislature to make laws. Article 246 (1) provides that the Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the VII Schedule. Article 246 (1) of the Constitution of India is as follows:-

142.In List I, which is the Union List as provided in the VII Schedule, Item No.54 is as follows:-

143.The first amendment to the MMDR Act, 1957 , was brought about by Amendment Act, 1958 , in view of the importance of coal as a basic fuel and the position it occupies in the economy of the country and the necessity to treat it differently from other minerals. Necessary amendments were incorporated on that ground.

144.A further amendment to the MMDR Act, 1957 was brought about by 89/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Amendment Act, 56 of 1972, wherein, new provisions like imposition of a ceiling on individual holdings of prospecting licenses and mining leases, imposition of a specific obligation on holders of mining leases with respect to payment of royalty, provision of a statutory basis for calculation of dead rent and several other issues were brought about.

145.There was a further amendment to the MMDR Act, 1957 , by Amendment Act 37 of 1986, wherein, adverse effect of mining operation on ecology and environment came to be noticed and it was found that mining operations had been undertaking without proper prospecting results in unscientific mining. Therefore, further features to provide for premature termination of prospecting licenses and mining leases on ecological and other grounds and also the necessity to prepare the mining plan as a precondition for grant of mining leases were introduced.

146.There was a proposal for further amendment to MMDA Act, 1957, by Amendment Act 10 of 2015. But the Bill could not be passed before the 90/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha and consequently lapsed. In view of the urgent need to address the issues relating to auction of mineral concession, which was affecting the manufacturing sector, which obtained the raw materials provided by the mining sector, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 was promulgated on 12.01.2015. In this ordinance, apart from other provisions, a provision to establish District Mineral Foundation in the Districts affected by mining related activities to safeguard the interest of the affected persons was introduced. The MMDR Amendment Act 10 of 2015 came into effect from 26.03.2015.

147.The relevant definitions in Section 3 of the MMDR Act, 1957 are as follows:-

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

(c)“mining lease” means a lease granted for the purpose of undertaking mining operations, and includes a sub-lease granted for such purpose;

(d)“mining operations” means any operations undertaken for the purpose of winning any mineral;

(e)“minor minerals” means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral;” ........

148.Section 4 (1) of the MMDA Act, 1957, is as follows:-

149. Section 4 (1-A) of the MMDA Act, 1957, is as follows:-

150.Section 21 of the MMDA Act, 1957, relates to penalties. Section 21 (5) is as follows:-

151.From a perusal of the amendment made to the MMDR Act, 1957 , it is seen that the Parliament was conscious to the adverse effects of mining operation on ecology and environment. Further, by the Amendment Act 10 of 2015, the Parliament made provision to safeguard the interest of the affected persons by establishing a District Mineral Foundation in the Districts affected by mining related activities.

152.It is with pride that it can be stated that the attention of the Parliament had been drawn to take steps to protect ecology and environment from the 93/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch onslaught of mining operation only, due to the efforts taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, who in their wisdom had striven to protect ecology from the ill-effects of various manufacturing establishments.

153.In AIR 1986 SC 1086 ( M.C.Mehta Vs. Union of India ), when the Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining the issue of leakage of Oleum gas from Sri Ram Food and Fertiliser Corporation of Delhi on 05.12.1985, owing to which, one person died on the spot and several others were taken ill, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held as follows:-

154.The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the said industrial establishment to either shift their factory premises or to create a green belt surrounding the establishment. These conditions were imposed to restart the establishment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further directed that a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- must be deposited in a bank and also directed that a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- must be 94/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch provided as bank guarantee, so that compensation can be paid to the persons, who had suffered owing to the leakage of Oleum gas. This principle evolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in that landmark judgment came to be called as “polluter pays principle”.

155.The Hon'ble Supreme Court had further occasion to restate the said principle in (1996) 2 JT (SC) 196 (Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India ), wherein, again it had been held that sustainable development must be initiated and the redemption of damaged environment as well as the reversing damaged ecology must be the burdened on the Polluter, who must pay the cost of the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology. Therefore, expanding the principle to provide compensation to the sufferers, the Hon'ble Supreme Court evolved further obligation namely, to reverse the ecology, which had been damaged owing to the industrial establishment.

156.The said case related to five chemical industries, which were producing 95/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch H-Acid. They discharged Azo dye and untreated toxic sludge into the open compound which flowed through a canal and the rain water also washed the sludge deep into the earth. This caused pollution of river water and underground water up to 70 feet below the ground within a radius of 7 miles of the village Bichhari. The lands became infertile. The villagers migrated to other place. It is, under these circumstances, taking up the responsibility to compensate the sufferers and also to provide the cost of reversing the damage, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated the principle “polluter pays principle”.

157.The Supreme Court was again called upon to come to the rescue of innocent sufferers of pollution in AIR 1996 SC 2715 ( Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India ), where, they evolved another new principle namely, precautionary principle and stated that the 'precautionary principle' and the 'polluter pays principle' are part of the environmental jurisprudence of this country.

158.In this case, untreated effluent from more than 550 tannery units were 96/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch discharged causing water pollution and land pollution in 59 villages in 3 Districts. As many as 467 Wells in 2 Districts, which had potable water which were also used for irrigation purpose, were totally polluted. This created acute shortage of potable water. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the closure of the tannery units. They also imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- on each tannery in the area and a direction was also given to the polluter to deposit the amount under the head “Environment Protection Fund”. This can be utilized for compensating the affected persons and also for restoring the damaged environment.

159.Further, evolution of the principle was enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1997 SC 734 ( M.C.Mehta Vs. Union of India ), which related to “yellowing and decaying of the Taj Mahal”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Mathura Refinery, Foundaries and Chemicals were hazardous industries and were a major source of damaging the Taj Mahal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the industries must shift away from the environment or must use the gas as fuel. The industries, which did not comply, 97/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch were directed to be closed down by 31.12.1997. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further evolved that the 'polluter pays principle' would also provide 'compensatory benefits' to the workers of the industries, who shifted to other States / Sites. The continuity of employment with full back wages for the period from closure to restart of the industries and shifting bonus and compensation as per Section 25-F (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act and 6 years' wages and gratuity were all indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as “compensatory benefits” for the workers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized that not only the general public but also the workers themselves were victims of pollution.

160.The principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is also reflected in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. Protection of life would necessarily include safeguarding a pollution free atmosphere. The protection from pollution would necessarily imply that polluting industries must be put to task by compensating the sufferers of such pollution, which include not only the public but also the 98/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch workers and also the Mother Earth herself.

161.Article 48 (A) of the Constitution of India, which was inserted by the 42nd amendment, is as follows:-

162.Article 51-A, which comes in Part IV A relating to fundamental duties, also placed an obligation on every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment. Article 51-A (g) is as follows:-

163.In the background of the evolving law of protection of environment and of directing the offending industries to pay compensation, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (4) SCC 629 ( Deepak Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others ) and in 2017 (9) SCC 499 ( Common Cause Vs. Union of India and others ) will have to be examined. Both these judgments have a direct bearing on the mining industries and on the petitioners herein.

164.In 2012 (4) SCC 629 ( Deepak Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others ), the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Haryana had issued an auction notice dated 03.06.2011 to auction the extraction of miner minerals, boulders, gravel and sand quarries of an area not exceeding 4.5 hectares in each case in the District of Panchkula. Auction notices were also issued for similar quarrying of land exceeding 5 hectares in several other Districts. The auction notices were challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There was also a complaint of illegal mining in the States of Rajasthan and Uttar 100/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Pradesh.

165.The Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed local inspection with prior notice to the Ministry of Environment and Forest to examine the allegations raised. A report was also submitted. But the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it was silent with respect to “disturbing trend” of serious illegal mining operations, upstream and instream and the degradation of the sites and environment. The report stated that since the lease was for an area of less than 5 hectares, Environment Clearance was not required as per the notification dated 14.09.2006 by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF). The Hon'ble Supreme Court suspected that the area was sub divided into pieces of less than 5 hectares only to “flout the notification”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court sought a detailed report from MoEF. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:-

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

2) The Assistant Director or Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, as the case may be, of the district is vested with the powers to approve the mining plan for the precise area communicated by the District Collector for the grant of lease for minor minerals except granite.

3) Mining Plan to be prepared by a recognized person:-

Graduate Degree in Geology granted by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act or State Act or any Institution recognized by the University Grants Commission established under Section 4 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (Central Act 3 of 1956) or any qualification equivalent thereto; and

b) Professional experience of three years of working in a supervisory capacity in the field of mining or mineral administration after obtaining a degree or equivalent prescribed under clause (a);

4) Approval and submission of mining plan:-

178.Under Rule 42, mining plan, which had been submitted under Rule 41 if approved, must be forwarded for obtaining Environment Clearance. Therefore, to obtain Environment Clearance, the mining industries should prepare a mining plan as stipulated under Rule 41.

179.In none of the affidavits, with respect to the present writ petitions have 114/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch the petitioners stated that they have prepared a mining plan in accordance with the stipulations under Rule 41 of the said Rules. They have not done so. When they have not prepared the mining plan, they cannot be granted Environment Clearance. When G.O.Ms.No.79, (referred supra) was passed, under Rule 42 (iii), 180 days was granted to submit Environment Clearance. The industries were granted 180 days to first prepare a mining plan. This was a stipulation under the regulations insisted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The present writ petitioners flouted and deliberately disobeyed the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On this very ground itself, their plea of innocence and ignorance will have to be rejected.

180.Under Rule 41, a mining plan has to be prepared by a recognized / qualified person, recognized by the Indian Bureau of Mines.

181.In the affidavits, the petitioners have not stated that they have tried to prepare a mining plan and they were handicapped in any manner whatsoever. On 115/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch submission of applications for grant of quarry lease, under Rule 42 (iv), the District Collector shall take a decision whether the applications are in order in all respects.

182.In Deepak Kumar (referred supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had specifically stated that there cannot be renewal without getting Environment Clearance. Environment Clearance cannot be obtained without submitting the mining plan. Under Rule 41 (8), a draft mining plan should contain the following details.

8) The draft mining plan should contain the following details namely:-

183.The above obligations have to be first satisfied by the writ petitioners. They can not complain that they have not been given Environment Clearance, holding out there was no Authority, namely the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), in place.

184.The learned counsels for the writ petitioners put forth a very strange argument. They claimed that under G.O.Ms.No.79, Industries (MMC-1) Department, dated 06.04.2015, in Rule 42 (iii), a total period of 180 days was granted to submit Environment Clearance and this period was successively 117/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch extended by the State Government to ultimately 630 days. Therefore, they stated that till the expiry of 630 days, all the mining operations are perfectly legal. They also stated that till the expiry of 630 days, there was no obligation to produce Environment Clearance.

185.These arguments are rejected by me. They do not withstand legal scrutiny. The minute Rules 41 and 42 were introduced by G.O.Ms.No.79, (referred supra), on 06.05.2015 and published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette on 22.04.2015, the time had begun to run to provide a mining plan for approval to obtain Environment Clearance. Merely because the Government had given them 180 days and extended the period to 630 days, the petitioners herein cannot put forth on argument that they would wait for 629 days and 23 hours and 59 minutes without submitting the mining plan and without obtaining Environment Clearance and that only on the 630th day, can their operations be termed as illegal. The petitioners have advanced arguments before a Court of law and not before a public platform. The rules were incorporated by the State of Tamilnadu in the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The Rules 118/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch are binding on the petitioners unless held ultravires.

186.In fact, the petitioner, M.Duraisamy, in W.P.No.27735 of 2019, in his affidavit, stated that he had not even filed an application seeking Environment Clearance. Such a petitioner does not deserve any leverage from this Court.

187.The learned Additional Advocate General in the course of her arguments stated that even if the applications were submitted they were half filled and such incomplete applications submitted by the petitioners made it impossible for the Authorities to grant Environment Clearance. In this connection, the details of the applications pending and processed by the SEIAA had been submitted to the Court by the learned Standing Counsels for the said Authority and the entire list is produced below for reference.

Sl.No Details of the case Applicant Name, Address & Action Taken Respondent 1 W.P.No.27735/2019 Thiru.M.Duraisamy Salem District ..vs.. The State of The Petitioner not Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to applied for seeking Government Industries Department Environment and 2 others. Clearance.

119/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Krishnagiri District .vs.. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary Violation project File to Government Industries recorded.

Department and 2 others.

6 W.P.No.27788/2019 Mrs.G.Chitra(deceased) Mr.K.Ganesan, S/o.Kailasam, Violation project File Mr.Gokulkrishnan, recorded.

S/o.K.Ganesan, Villupuram District ..vs..

W.P.No.27792/2019 Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to violation notification Government, Industries issued by the MoEF& Department and 2 others. CC dated 14.03.2017 and subsequent MoEF & CC O.M dated 15.03.2018 and also the project proponent not remitted one time processing fee of Rupees One lakh to SEIAA in the format of Demand Draft favour of Member Secretary, SEIAA-TN 10 the project proponent yet to submit the hard copy of the application along with the necessary documents as per Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006 for processing the Thiru.P.Thirugnanam, application under 121/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Salem District .vs. The State of violation notification W.P.No.27794/2019 Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to issued by the MoEF& Government, Industries CC dated 14.03.2017 Department and 2 others. and subsequent MoEF & CC O.M dated 15.03.2018 and also the project proponent not remitted one time processing fee of Rupees One lakh to SEIAA in the format of Demand Draft favour of Member Secretary, SEIAA-TN 11 Thiru.M.Selladurai, Salem District ...vs.. The State of Violation project W.P.No.27795/2019 Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Mining lease also Government, Industries expired.

of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary Environmental W.P.No.27796/2019 to Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

13 Thiru.M.Raji Gounder Salem District, vs.. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Violation project. W.P.No.27806/2019 Government, Industries File recorded.

Department and 2 others.

Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Violation project. 122/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch W.P.No.27817/2019 Government, Industries File recorded.

Department and 2 others.

W.P.No.27822/2019 Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to violation notification Government, Industries issued by the MoEF& Department and 2 others. CC dated 14.03.2017 and subsequent MoEF & CC O.M dated 15.03.2018 and also the project proponent not remitted one time processing fee of Rupees One lakh to SEIAA in the format of Demand Draft favour of Member Secretary, SEIAA-TN 17 Thiru.K.Ganesh, Namakkal District, ..vs.. The State Violation project W.P.No.27913/2019 of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary Mining lease also to Government, Industries expired.

W.P.No.28065/2019 Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Mining Lease Expired.

of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary Mining Lease Expired. W.P.No.28071/2019 to Government, Industries File Recorded.

Department and 2 others.

24 Thiru.S.Rangasamy, Namakkal District ..vs.. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary Mining Lease Expired. W.P.No.28073/2019 to Government, Industries File Recorded.

Department and 2 others.

25 Thiru.K.N.Rangasamy, Namakkal District ..vs.. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Mining Lease Expired. W.P.No.28091/2019 Government, Industries File Recorded..

Department and 2 others.

124/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch 26 Thiru.S.Thangarasu, Namakkal District ..vs.. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental W.P.No.28096/2019 Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

Salem District ..vs.. The State of Mining Lease Expired. W.P.No.28125/2019 Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to File Recorded.

..vs.. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep Mining Lease Expired. W.P.No.28130/2019 by its Secretary to Government, File Recorded.

Industries Department and 2 others.

33 Thiru.M.S.Manivasakam Tiruppur 125/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch District ..vs.. The State of Tamil W.P.No.28234/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

34 Thiru.K.Thangamuthu, Erode District ..vs.. The State of Tamil Mining Lease Expired. W.P.No.28239/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to File Recorded.

W.P.No.28245/2019 by its Secretary to Government, Environmental Industries Department and 2 Clearance Issued.

W.P.No.28297/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

W.P.No.28300/2019 Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to violation notification Government, Industries issued by the MoEF& Department and 2 others. CC dated 14.03.2017 and subsequent MoEF & CC O.M dated 15.03.2018 and also the project proponent not remitted one time processing fee of Rupees One lakh to SEIAA in the format of Demand Draft favour of Member Secretary, SEIAA-TN 40 Thiru.A.R.Suriyaprakasam Perambalur District ..vs.. The W.P.No.28304/2019 State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Terms of Reference Secretary to Government, issued.

Industries Department and 2 others.

41 Thiru.P.Senthil Kumar, Permbalur District ..vs.. The State of Tamil Mining Lease Expired. W.P.No.28645/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to File Recorded.

Chennai District ..vs.. The State of Mining Lease Expired. W.P.No.28650/2019 Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to File Recorded.

..vs.. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep Mining Lease Expired. W.P.No.28652/2019 by its Secretary to Government, File Recorded.

Industries Department and 2 127/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch others.

W.P.No.28718/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

48 Thiru.S.Nallathambi, Permbalur District ..vs.. The State of Tamil W.P.No.28720/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

W.P.No.28740/2019 Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to violation notification Government, Industries issued by the MoEF& Department and 2 others. CC dated 14.03.2017 and subsequent MoEF & CC O.M dated 15.03.2018 and also the project proponent not remitted one time processing fee of Rupees One lakh to SEIAA in the format of Demand Draft favour of Member Secretary, SEIAA-TN 51 Tmt.J.Sujatha, Ariyalur District ..vs.. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep W.P.No.28745/2019 by its Secretary to Government, Environmental Industries Department and 2 Clearance Issued.

52 Thiru.P.Senthil Kumar, Permabalur District ..vs.. The State of Tamil W.P.No.28749/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

53 Thiru.J.Saravanan, Chennai District ..vs.. The Government of W.P.No.28911/2019 Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Additional Environmental Chief Secretary to Government, Clearance Issued. Industries Department and 3 others.

54 Thiru.V.Chandran, Kancheepuram 129/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch District ..vs.. The Government of W.P.No.28915/2019 Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Additional Environmental Chief Secretary to Government, Clearance Issued. Industries Department and 3 others.

55 Thiru.P.Thiruvengadam, Chennai District ..vs.. The Government of W.P.No.28917/2019 Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Additional Environmental Chief Secretary to Government, Clearance Issued. Industries Department and 3 others.

W.P.No.28918/2019 The Government of Tamil Nadu, Environmental Rep by its Additional Chief Clearance Issued.

District ..vs.. The State of Tamil File recorded. W.P.No.28931/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department and 2 others.

58 Thiru.G.Thangamani, Perambalur District ..vs... The State of Tamil Mining Lease Expired. W.P.No.28933/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to File Recorded.

W.P.No.28987/2019 State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its File Recorded.

W.P.No.28989/2019 State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Violation project.

District ..vs... The State of Tamil Mining Lease Expired. W.P.No.29003/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to File Recorded.

W.P.No.29171/2019 State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its 08.03.2018. Since the Secretary to Government, project falls under Industries Department and 2 violation category, the others. application attracts one time processing fee of Rupees One Lakh which the proponent failed to remit in favour of SEIAA in the format of Demand Draft favour of Member Secretary, SEIAA - TN.

69 the project proponent has filed application through online dated 18.03.2018 and the hard copy received by 132/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch this office of SEIAA-

W.P.No.29172/2019 State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its 08.03.2018. Since the Secretary to Government, project falls under Industries Department and 2 violation category, the others. application attracts one time processing fee of Rupees One Lakh which the proponent failed to remit in favour of SEIAA in the format of Demand Draft favour of Member Secretary, SEIAA - TN.

70 the project proponent has filed application through online dated 18.03.2018 and the hard copy received by this office of SEIAA-

W.P.No.29175/2019 State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its 08.03.2018. Since the Secretary to Government, project falls under Industries Department and 2 violation category, the others. application attracts one time processing fee of Rupees One Lakh which the proponent failed to remit in favour of 133/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch SEIAA in the format of Demand Draft favour of Member Secretary, SEIAA - TN.

71 Thiru.A.D.Elango, Tiruppur District ..vs.. The State of Tamil W.P.No.29260/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

W.P.No.29264/2019 of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary Environmental to Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

74 Thiru.R.Ravi, Tiruppur District ..vs... The Government of Tamil Mining Lease Expired. W.P.No.29456/2019 Nadu Rep by its Additional Chief File Recorded.

W.P.No.29469/2019 Nadu Rep by its Additional Chief Environmental Secretary to Government, Clearance Issued.

Industries Department and 3 others.

76 Thiru.N.Ayyadurai, Tiruppur District ..vs.. The State of Tamil W.P.No.29489/2019 Nadu Rep by its Additional Chief Environmental Secretary to Government, Clearance Issued.

Industries Department and 3 134/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch others.

77 Thiru.M.Venkatachalam, Violation project and Tiruppur District .vs.. The State Mining lease expired. W.P.No.29490/2019 of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Government, Industries File recorded.

Department and 3 others.

W.P.No.29495/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

Tiruppur District .vs.. The State of Notification Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to S.O.No.141 (E), dated Government, Industries 15.01.2016 - File Department and 2 others. transferred to DEIAA-

Tiruppur District.

W.P.No.29515/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental 135/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

W.P.No.29521/2019 of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary Environmental to Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

W.P.No.29523/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

90 Thiru.S.Jegadeesan, Tiruppur District ..vs... The State of Tamil Mining Lease Expired. W.P.No.29526/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to File Recorded.

W.P.No.29563/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

94 Thiru.M.Vijayakumar, Tiruppur District ..vs.. The State of Tamil W.P.No.29564/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

95 Thiru.K.Karuppasamy, Tiruppur District ..vs.. The State of Tamil W.P.No.29567/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

96 W.P.No.29568/2019 Thiru.K.Balasubramanian, As per amended EIA Tiruppur District .vs.. The State of Notification Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to S.O.No.141 (E), dated Government, Industries 15.01.2016 - File Department and 2 others. transferred to DEIAA-

Tiruppur District.

97 Thiru.R.Shanmugam, Tiruppur District ..vs.. The State of Tamil 137/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch W.P.No.29570/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

98 Thiru.P.Eswaran, Tiruppur Violation project.

District .vs.. The State of Tamil Mining lease also W.P.No.29846/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to expired.

W.P.No.30006/2019 by its Secretary to Government, Environmental Industries Department and 4 Clearance Issued.

100 Thiru.S.Ganeshmoorthi, Tiruppur District ..vs.. The State of Tamil W.P.No.30184/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 4 others.

102 W.P.No.30190/2019 Thiru.S.Gopalakrishnan, Tiruppur District ..vs.. The State The Petitioner not of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary applied for seeking to Government Industries Environment Department and 2 others. Clearance.

103 W.P.No.30195/2019 Tmt.P.Vijayalakshmi, Tiruppur District ..vs.. The State The Petitioner not of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary applied for seeking to Government Industries Environment Department and 2 others. Clearance.

104 W.P.No.30198/2019 Tmt.B.Vijayalakshmi, Tiruppur District ..vs.. The State The Petitioner not of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary applied for seeking to Government Industries Environment 138/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Department and 2 others. Clearance.

105 W.P.No.30254/2019 Thiru.K.Venkatachalam, Tiruppur District ..vs.. The State The Petitioner not of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary applied for seeking to Government Industries Environment Department and 2 others. Clearance.

W.P.No.30259/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

Department and 2 others.

110 W.P.No.32013/2019 Thiru.Paramasivam, Coimbatore District ..vs.. The Government of The Petitioner not Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to applied for seeking Government Industries Department Environment and 2 others. Clearance.

Government Industries Department 15.01.2016 - File and 2 others. transferred to DEIAA-

Vellore District.

W.P.No.33394/2019 Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Environmental Government, Industries Clearance Issued.

140/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Department and 2 others.

188.As seen from the above, the writ petitioners have not taken even a baby step towards satisfying the obligations imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

189.The entire issue came up for consideration once again before the 141/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2017) 9 Supreme Court Cases 499 ( Common Cause Vs. Union of India and others ) with ( Prafulla Samantra and another Vs. Union of India and others ).

190.The Hon'ble Supreme Court very categorically stated that illegal mining does not mean mining outside the area leased, but also mining inside the area leased without a mining plan. It had been stated that the purpose of the MMDR Act, 1957 , is to ensure scientific mining, balanced utilisation of natural resources and protection and preservation of environment by adhering to statutory provisions. This judgment was referred to in all the impugned notices by the respective District Collectors.

191.Even before examining this judgment, a further peculiar argument put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.889 and 894 of 2020 will have to be examined. The learned counsel stated that the judgment in Common Cause (referred supra) is not applicable to the writ petitioners, more particularly to the writ petitioner in W.P.Nos.889 and 894 of 2020, because the 142/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch judgment, according to him, was lessee specific, product specific, territory specific and related only to major minerals. Therefore, the learned counsel stated that the judgment should not have been referred by the District Collectors, since it is not applicable to the State of Tamilnadu or rather it cannot give a cause of action to initiate the proceedings by the District Collectors through the impugned notices in the State of Tamilnadu.

192.The said arguments are rejected. Article 141 of the Constitution of India is as follows:-

193.Article 142 of the Constitution of India is as follows:-

194.The law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all Courts within the territory of India. The Madras High Court is a Court within the territory of India. It is unfortunate that this aspect has to be reminded to the learned counsels for the petitioners. Further, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction, passes orders for doing complete justice in any cause, they shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India.

195.I very emphatically state that the judgment in Common Cause (referred supra) is directly binding on each and every one of the writ petitioners herein. It is directly binding on each and every one of the respondents herein. It is directly binding on each and every one of the learned counsels who entered appearance on behalf of the petitioners herein. It is directly binding on the 144/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch learned Additional Advocate General, Special Government Pleader, Additional Government Pleader, Government Advocate and each and every one of the other counsels, who entered appearance on behalf of the respondents herein. It is directly binding on this Court.

196.In (2004) 5 SCC 568 ( State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated as follows:-

197.In (2006) 4 SCC 1 (the Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated as follows:-

198.It is thus clear that the judgment in Common Cause (referred supra) is directly relevant to the issues raised now before this Court and it is only proper that the District Collectors had referred to the judgment in the impugned notices.

199.In Common Cause (referred supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the report of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). It referred to lessees in the Districts of Keonjhar, Sundergarh and Mayurbhanj in Odisha, wherein, mining of Iron ore and Manganese ore destroyed the forests and caused untold misery to the tribals in the area.

200.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the course of its discussion widened the ratio laid down to not just lessee specific or territory specific as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.889 and 894 of 2020, but had laid down the law of the land. In paragraph No.130, it had been stated as follows:-

201.In paragraph No.151, it had been stated as follows:-

202.In paragraph 184, the Hon'ble Supreme Court extracted the portion of the report of the CEC, which recommended that for violating 70% of the notional value may be directed to recover from the respective lessees. However, in paragraph 185, they have very categorically stated that the recovery should be to the extent of 100%. Paragraphs 184 and 185 are as follows:-

203.The learned counsel for the petitioners interpreted the judgment in Common Cause (referred supra) as applicable only to mining leases with lease area of more than 5 hectares.

204.I disagree.

205.The judgment in Common Cause (referred supra) is equally applicable to every mining lease holder, irrespective of the area of the land 149/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch quarried. This judgment is directly applicable to the petitioners. Under this judgment, the writ petitioners have to pay 100% compensation towards the cost of minerals extracted and transported with Environment Clearance.

206.In the background of this, the impugned notice may now be examined. The impugned notice in W.P.No.27735 of 2019 is extracted below:-

Sub:- Mines and Minerals – Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Direction – Mines operated without Environment Clearance – Thiru M.Duraisamy S/o. M.P.Mariappa Nadar, Salem treated as violation category – levying of cost of minerals excavated from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017 – Notice issued to remit the cost of mineral – Reminder – Reg.

Ref:- 1.The Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai, letter No.6731/LC/2015 dated 11.01.2017.

2.G.O.(D) No.27 Ind (MMC2) Dept. dt.24.02.2017.

3.S.O.No.804(E) dated 14.03.2017 Govt.of India, (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change)

4.Office Memorandum F.No.3-50/2017-1A III (Pt.) IA-III, dated 30.05.2018 (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change).

5.Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court Civil 150/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch No.114/2014 dated 02.08.2017.

6.The Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai letter No.1375/LC/2016 dated 20.08.2018.

7.This office even letter No dated 08.12.2018 and 08.02.2019.

................

Thiru M.Duraisamy S/o. M.P.Mariappa Nadar, Salem is having quarrying lease to quarry Roughstone in S.F.No.383/2B (P-7) in Erumapalayam Village, Salem Taluk and District. Thiru.M.Duraisamy S/o.M.P.Mariappa Nadar, Salem have operated the mines without prior Environmental Clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India.

2.In these circumstances, as per the direction of Supreme Court of India in W.P.No.114/2014 order dated 02.08.2017 in page No.97 says “(9) in the event of any overlap that is illegal or unillegal mining without an EC or without both would attract act only 100% compensation and not 200% compensation” and as per reference 6th cited, wherein it was instructed to comply the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

3.Thiru.M.Duraisamy, S/o.M.P.Mariappa Nadar, Salem having paid to royalty and other statutory due to the Government have removed Roughstone listed below in the G.O. wise annexure.

4.Hence, it is instructed to pay 100% cost of the mineral lifted for 151/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch the period from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017 is amounting to Rs.8,33,625/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand and Six Hundred Twenty Five only) towards the cost of mineral and that may be paid to State Government in the following head of account.

0853 Non Ferrous Mining and Metallurgical Industries 00 Non Ferrous Mining and Metallurgical Industries 800 Miscellaneous Receipts AC Miscellaneous Receipts 29 97-Fines and Penalties-Forfeiture, Seizure Confiscation, etc., D.P.code-0853-00-800-AC-2997 Cost working sheet for the minerals excavated from 15.01.2016 to 10.01.2017.

4/78, Bye pass Main Road, Erumapalayam Village, Salem District.

Copy submitted to The Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai – 32.”

207.I hold that reference made to Common Cause (referred supra) is perfectly justified and valid. However, the learned counsels for the petitioners have raised an objection regarding the locus of the District Collectors to issue the notices. In this connection, Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 will have to be first examined. Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 is as follows:-

208.By G.O.Ms.No.626, Industries (K) Department, dated 11.06.1986, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, (Central Act 67 of 1957), 153/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch the Governor of Tamilnadu made the following amendment to the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.

“Notification – III In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 26 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act 67 of 1957), the Governor of Tamilnadu hereby directs that the powers exercisable by the State Government under sub-section (5) of section 21 of the said Act shall be exercisable by the District Collectors concerned.”

209.The above notification is crystal clear. It requires no explanation. The District Collectors have the authority to issue the impugned notices on behalf of the State Government. The arguments to the contrary advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are rejected.

210.In AIR 1963 SC 1503 ( Roop Chand Vs. State of Punjab ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:-

211.It is thus seen that a delegate, in this case, the District Collector has the authority to do things, which otherwise the State Government would have to do by itself. At any rate, G.O.Ms.No.626, Industries (K) Department, dated 11.06.1986, is not under challenge. It has never been challenged. Therefore, I hold that the District Collectors have every right to issue the impugned notices.

212.The learned counsel for the petitioners then put forth a further argument in one voice that the impugned notice suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. I hold that the principles of natural justice cannot be extended for complying with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India have been extracted above. It is clear that any order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on every person. The date, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that 156/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Environment Clearance is a pre-requisite for grant of extension of lease even for mining of lands of less than 5 hectares is the date when the petitioners were bound to get Environment Clearance. They do not require any further notice. The date, on which, Common Cause (referred supra), was pronounced and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that if mining activities are continued without obtaining Environment Clearance, then 100% compensation is leviable, then from that date onwards, the liability of the petitioners had arisen and they need not be put on any further notice. The law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all Courts of the country. Further, issuing a show cause notice would only be an empty formality. The petitioners if at all they want to reply to any show cause notice, can only question the rationals of the Supreme Court Judgment. They cannot do so. They are bound by the judgment.

213.With respect to the reliance placed by Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, on (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 553 (Radhy Shyam (dead) through legal heirs and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others ) and on (2014) 16 Supreme Court Cases 392 ( Nisha Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others ), for 157/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch the proposition that the demand notices had been issued without prior show cause notice, I would state that the impugned notices in these writ petitions had been issued based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (referred supra) and as pointed out under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, any order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all Courts. Issuing of a prior notice would only be an empty formality and therefore, I hold that the petitioners cannot complaint about non issuance of prior notice. Obligations had arisen the date the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced its judgment and the District Collectors were only following the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. I therefore hold that the impugned notices cannot be faulted on this ground.

214.Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy had also relied on (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 223 ( Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others ) and claimed that the notices were arbitrary.

215.I respectfully disagree with the said proposition put forth by 158/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy. Prior to issuance of the notification dated 15.01.2016, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change had caused publications in newspapers, inviting objections and suggestions. The petitioners should have participated. They did not do. The notices had been issued pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. If the notices said to be arbitrary, then as a corollary it must be held that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is also arbitrary. I am sure the learned counsel would not advocate such a proposition. Therefore, I am hold that the notices do not suffer from arbitrariness.

216.Mr.T.Ramesh, learned counsel relied on the judgment in AIR 1978 SC 851 ( Mohinder Singh Gill and others Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others ) for the proposition that public orders cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officers. With due respects, I hold that the impugned notices speak for themselves. There is reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Common Cause (referred supra). There is reference to the notification of the Ministry of Environment, 159/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Forest and Climate Change (MoEF) and the period, for which the demand is made and the amount demanded. No further details are required. Therefore, there is no occasion to expand the impugned notices in the counter affidavits.

217.The learned counsel also relied on AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2794 ( East Coast Railway and another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and others with K.Surekha Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and others), again for the proposition that reasons must be given in an order. The present impugned notices are executive memos / notices passed in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court gives reasons why 100% compensation is payable and why compensation must be collected from defaulting lessees. Therefore, I again hold that the order does not suffer for want of reasons.

218.The learned counsel also relied on AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3520 ( Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Darius Shapur Chennai and others ). Again, holding that the impugned notices have placed reliance on the 160/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch judgment in Common Cause (referred supra), I hold that naturally the reasons given in the Common Cause (referred supra) judgment would apply to the notice itself.

219.The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in W.P.(C) No.7286 of 2017 (M/s.Hindalco Industries Limited Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others ). The said writ petition is laid to be pending. This Court has been called upon to examine the issues raised. The writ petition is pending before the Jharkhand High Court and consequently, it would be highly inappropriate to invite this Court to express view on a matter pending before the Jharkhand High Court.

220.The principle of natural justice cannot be stretched to extreme limits when issue of notice would be an empty formality. The law is clear. The notices have been issued under directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

161/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

221.In (2000) 7 SCC 529, Aligarh Muslim University and Others Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an ocassion to consider the effect of “ useless formality” - a theory, which is an exemption to the principles of natural justice.

“21.As pointed recently in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (1999 (6) SCC 237), there can be certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For example where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary. Similarly, if the quashing of the order which is in breach of natural justice is likely to result in revival of another order which is in itself illegal as in Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh [1966 (2) SCR 172 = AIR 1966 SC 828], it is not necessary to quash the order merely because of violation of principles of natural justice.

22.In M.C.Mehta {1999} 6 SCC 237 it was pointed out that at one time, it was held in Ridge vs. Baldwin ( 1964 AC 40) that breach of principles of natural justice was in itself treated as prejudice and that no other 'defacto' prejudice needed to be proved. But, since then the rigour of the rule has been relaxed not only in England but also in our country. In S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan ( 1980 (4) SCC 379), Chinnappa Reddy, J. followed Ridge vs. Baldwin and set aside the order of supercession of the New Delhi Metropolitan Committee rejecting the argument that there was 162/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch no prejudice though notice was not given. The proceedings were quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. But even in that case certain exceptions were laid down to which we shall presently refer.

23.Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.L.Kapoor 's case [(1980) 4 SCC 379], laid two exceptions (at p.395) namely, " if upon admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible", then in such a case, the principle that breach of natural justice was in itself prejudice, would not apply. In other words if no other conclusion was possible on admitted or indisputable facts, it is not necessary to quash the order which was passed in violation of natural justice. Of course, this being an exception, great care must be taken in applying this exception.

24.The principle that in addition to breach of natural justice, prejudice must also be proved has been developed in several cases. In K.L. Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India ( 1984(1) SCC 43), Sabyasachi Mukherji, J. ( as he then was) also laid down the principle that not mere violation of natural justice but de facto prejudice (other than non-issue of notice) had to be proved. It was observed: quoting Wade Administrative Law, (5th Ed.PP.472-475) as follows: ( para 31) "....it is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when principles of natural justice are to apply, nor as their scope and extent ....There must have been some real prejudice to the complainant; there is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the 163/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter to be dealt with and so forth".

Since then, this Court has consistently applied the principle of prejudice in several cases. The above ruling and various other rulings taking the same view have been exhaustively referred to in State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma ( 1996(3) SCC 364). In that case, the principle of 'prejudice' has been further elaborated. The same principle has been reiterated again in Rajendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. ( 1996(5) SCC 460).

25.The 'useless formality' theory, it must be noted, is an exception. Apart from the class of cases of "admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion " referred to above ,- there has been considerable debate of the application of that theory in other cases. The divergent views expressed in regard to this theory have been elaborately considered by this Court in M.C. Mehta referred to above . This Court surveyed the views expressed in various judgments in England by Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Woolf, Lord Bingham, Megarry, J. and Straughton L.J. etc. in various cases and also views expressed by leading writers like Profs. Garner, Craig, De. Smith, Wade, D.H. Clark etc. Some of them have said that orders passed in violation must always be quashed for otherwise the Court will be prejudging the issue. Some others have said, that there is no such absolute rule and prejudice must be shown. Yet, some others have applied via-media rules. We do not think it necessary, in this case to go deeper into these issues. In the ultimate analysis, it may depend on the facts of a particular case.” 164/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

222.The same position had been reiterated in 2006 (8) SCC 647 [Punjab National Bank and Others]:

223.A Division Bench of this Court in a Judgement reported in 2006 4 165/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch LLN 358 [Dr.C.Chendroyaperumal Vs. National Institute of Port Management ] had also expressed their views on this aspect.

“9. Coming to the legal aspects canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is seen that they revolve around violation of the principles of natural justice. Even at the outset, we are not impressed with the said argument, since in our opinion, “Principles of natural justice is for thoroughbred horses and not wild horses.” Wild horses understand only the language of the whip and hence there is no use trying to tame them with persuasion. The principles of natural justice themselves have traversed a long way from the stage at which they were treated as a “tharaka manthra” or panacea for all diseases, to the present stage where the Courts have started looking at the credentials of the person using them as a shield or sword and accepting the fact that they are not indispensable.”

224.In AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2915 ( Karnataka Rare Earth and another Vs. Senior Geologist Department of Mines and Geology and another ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down the law for recovery of price of mineral under Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act, 1957. It had been stated that the said recovery is to compensate the State for the loss of minerals caused by the person, held not eligible in law to raise the same.

166/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

225.In paragraph 2, it had been stated as follows:-

226.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, rejecting the arguments that the compensation under Section 21 (5) of the MMDR Act, 1957, is a penalty, stated as follows:-

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

13.A penal statute or penal law is a law that defines an offence and prescribes its corresponding fine, penalty or punishment. (Blacks Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, p.1421). Penalty is a liability composed as a punishment on the party committing the breach. The very use of the term 'penal' is suggestive of punishment and may also include any extraordinary liability to which the law subjects a wrong-doer in favour of the person wronged, not limited to the damages suffered. (See, The Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Second Edition, p.1431).

14.In support of the submission that the demand for the price of mineral raised and exported is in the nature of penalty, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the marginal note of Section 21 According to Justice G.P. Singh on Principles of Statutory Interpretation (Eighth Edition, 2001, at page147) though the opinion is not uniform but the weight of authority is in favour of the view that the marginal note appended to a Section cannot be used for construing the Section. There is no justification for restricting the Section by the marginal note nor does the marginal note control the meaning of the body of the Section if the language employed therein is clear and spells out its own meaning. In Director of Public Prosecutions Vs. Schildkamp, (1969) 3 All ER 1640, Lord Reid opined that a side note is a poor guide to the scope of a section for it can do no more than indicate the main subject with which the section deals and Lord Upjohn opined that a side note being a brief precis of the section forms a most unsure guide to the construction of the 169/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch enacting section and very rarely it might throw some light on the intentions of Parliament just as a punctuation mark.

15.We are clearly of the opinion that the marginal note 'penalties' cannot be pressed into service for giving such colour to the meaning of sub-Section (5) as it cannot have in law. The recovery of price of the mineral is intended to compensate the State for the loss of the mineral owned by it and caused by a person who has been held to be not entitled in law to raise the same. There is no element of penalty involved and the recovery of price is not a penal action. It is just compensatory.”

227.The said judgment applies on all fours to the petitioners herein. The petitioners are bound to comply the demands raised in the impugned notices. As a matter of fact, the learned Additional Advocate General gave the details of the amounts calculated towards cost of mineral from Government undertakings for carrying out mining operations without Environment Clearance and it is seen that out of a total demand of Rs.1,26,06,67,922/- from 24 lessees, the respondents had collected a sum of Rs.1,55,98,04,576/- and there was a balance of Rs.8,63,346/-, alone due from Karur District. Out of the 24 lessees, 20 lessees have paid the demand in full.

170/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch

228.The learned Additional Advocate General also gave the details of the amounts collected towards cost of minerals from the private lessees for carrying out mining operations without Environmental Clearance. It is seen that the total demand from 494 lessees was 2,03,56,56,506/- and a sum of Rs.2,86,80,369/- alone has been collected by the respondents and there was a balance of Rs.2,00,69,76,137/-. It is seen that the private lessees have defined the demands raised thought it is based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. I hold that the private lessees have to pay the amount demanded.

229.The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.2031 of 2020 stated that the said petitioner is carrying on operations in major mineral and therefore, the impugned notice should be interfered with. The learned counsel also stated that the quarry area is more than 5 hectares. The law of the land as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India applies to minor and major minerals. The law of the land as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India applies to lease area of less than 5 hectares and lease area of more than 5 hectares. On this one simple 171/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch ground, the arguments are rejected. The learned counsel also put forth the arguments that the Authority of SEIAA was not functioning and therefore, they could not obtain Environment Clearance. The learned Additional Advocate General stated that for the period, when the Authority was not functioning, demands have not been raised. In the impugned notices the period has been stated. The amounts have been stated. These are based on records. A fact finding team or separate assessment is not required. The petitioner has to comply with the demand raised in the notice.

230.The learned counsels for the petitioners also questioned the impugned notices on the additional ground that the demand for payment of 100% cost of the mineral levied was for the period commencing from 15.01.2016. It was stated that this date termed as “Magic Date” could not be fixed as the commencement date. The dated ie., 15.01.2016 is referable to the notification of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, wherein, reference was drawn to the mandate directed in Deepak Kumar case (referred supra) that extension of lease or application of lease for mining miner minerals even in areas of less than 5 172/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch hectares, Environment Clearance is required. It was mentioned that amendments were made to the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 issued vide number S.O.1533(E), dated 14.09.2006, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) and Clause (v) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 r/w Clause (d) of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule (5) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.

231.In the notification, it had been stated that a draft notification for making certain amendments was published under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule (5) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, vide number S.O.2588(E), dated 22.09.2015, inviting objections and suggestions from all persons likely to be affected, within a period of 60 days from the date of publication on which copies of Gazette containing the said notification were made available to the public. If the petitioners were really interested, then they should have raise their objections at that time, when objections and suggestions were invited by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. To repeat, the petitioners cannot claim ignorance or innocence. They are in the business of mining minerals. They 173/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch should be aware of the various notifications issued and the amendments carried out. They must be prepared to give their suggestions and objections. Having not done so, they cannot now cry foul of the stipulations imposed upon them.

232.In the notification, an amendment had been included to incorporate the procedure for application for prior Environment Clearance (EC). In the Appendix VII, the qualification and the terms for the experts in District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority and the District Level Expert Appraisal Committee had also been given. A proforma of the application for mining of miner minerals under category 'B2' for less than and equal to 5 hectares was also given. It must be mentioned that category 'B2' pertains to mining of minor minerals of lease area of less than or equal to 5 hectares. The notification is extremely detailed.

233.In Appendix IX, procedure for Environmental Clearance for mining of minor minerals including Cluster had been given. The burden had been shifted to the petitioners on 15.01.2016 itself to apply for Environment Clearance in the prescribed manner. Their claim that they can wait initially for a period of 180 174/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch days and finally for a period of 630 days, only shows that their intention was never to obtain Environment Clearance but to make profit by mining the minerals without any authority, illegally and to the detriment of the environment, without any care for the ecological impact. Such mining activities have to be prevented. If done, the lessees must, as rightly called upon by the District Collectors, pay compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that 100% compensation is leviable and payable. That direction has to be complied with. No question asked. No assurance given.

234.The notification has been questioned by the learned counsels for the petitioners on the further ground that the National Green Tribunal in the judgment in Satendra Pandey Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and another in O.A.No.186 of 2016, had stated that the notification dated 15.01.2016 was not consistent with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar (referred supra). The National Green Tribunal actually expressed anguish that the notification was not strict enough as was expected. The National Green Tribunal did not find fault with the notification, 175/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch insofar as conditions were imposed to obtain Environment Clearance, but only stated that the procedures laid down should be more stricter in nature. The arguments of the learned counsel that the date ie., 15.01.2016 is a magic date, are rejected by me. It is the date which very much existed in the calender. Therefore, I find no reason to accede to the arguments of the learned counsels for the petitioners.

235.For all the reasons stated above, I am not in agreement with the submissions made by any of the learned counsels for the petitioners.

236.As seen from the statistics provided by the learned Additional Advocate General, even though demand had been made to the lessees for a sum of Rs.203,56,56,506/- the petitioners had uniformly decided not to make any payment. Therefore, it would only be appropriate that a small pinprick is imposed on the petitioners as costs, so that they should realize their responsibility in upholding the sanctity of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of 176/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch India and in maintaining the Ecology and Environment of the land from which they draw profit.

237.Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- each. The respective petitioners (including the petitioner in W.P.Nos.27812 & 27813 of 2019 and W.P.Nos.889 & 894 of 2020, who have to pay the costs twice over) are directed to pay the said costs of Rs.10,000/- to the credit of Chief Justice Relief Fund, on or before 31.07.2020. The Respective District Collectors are directed to ensure that the costs as directed by this Court is paid within the specified period to the Chief Justice Relief Fund, failing which, appropriate action may be initiated for recovery. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

W.P. Nos. 26808, 27182, 27183, 27735, 27741, 27743, 27746, 27787, 27788, 178/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch 27790, 27792, 27791, 27794, 27795, 27796, 27806, 27812, 27817, 27822, 27913, 27915, 27927, 27928, 27955, 27958, 27961, 28065, 28070, 28071, 28073, 28091, 28096, 28099, 28104, 28125, 28126, 28129, 28130, 28234, 28239, 28241, 28245, 28293, 28297, 28300, 28304, 28545, 28549, 28552, 28546, 28547, 28550, 28645, 28650, 28652, 28657, 28707, 28714, 28718, 28720, 28745, 28733, 28740, 28749, 28795, 28803, 28810, 28906, 28911, 28915, 28917, 28918, 28931, 28933, 28987, 28989, 28992, 28997, 29003, 29147, 29149, 29166, 29168, 29171, 29172, 29175, 29232, 29235, 29241, 29249, 29260, 29264, 29261, 29456, 29469, 29489, 29490, 29494, 29495, 29507, 29512, 29514, 29518, 29522, 29528, 29515, 29516, 29519, 29521, 29523, 29526, 29554, 29557, 29559, 29561, 29563, 29564, 29567, 29568, 29570, 29846, 30006, 30098, 30184, 30188, 30190, 30195, 30198, 30200, 30254, 30257, 30259, 30262, 30267, 30446, 30484, 30486, 31235, 32013, 32017, 32209, 32211, 32213, 32498, 32563, 27182, 27183, 32820, 32889, 33394, 33397, 33400, 33403, 33506, 33538, 33755 and 35203 of 2019, 431, 448, 889, 894, 1770, 1772, 1773, 1776, 1781, 1815, 2031, 2234, 2358, 2842, 2843, 4172, 3345 and 4588 of 2020 12.06.2020 179/179 http://www.judis.nic.in