Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
22. On 26.11.2007 a further report was submitted by the Court Commissioner in which it is mentioned that material from the Biscuit Pit is distinctly different from the material in the dump in dispute. According to the material in the dump in dispute, E the Commissioner further stated that similar inferences were arrived at in the earlier observations also and the presently obtained additional details confirms and compliments the conclusions drawn in the first report.
23. The writ petition was heard by the Division Bench and while dismissing the writ petition the High Court held that the appellant does not have any right over the seized iron ore fines and the report of the Commissioner was not helpful to the appellant to substantiate the contention that the seized iron ore fines are legally extracted by the appellant from his lease. The G appellant also filed Review Petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed.
24. The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, has preferred these appeals. B.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH v. DY DIRECTOR, DEPTI. 233 OF MINES & GEOLOGY. [OALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
25. In pursuance to the notice issued by this court, reply . A has been filed on behalf of respondents – State of ~arnataka. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka, Ms. Anitha Shenoy has invited our attention to some portions of the counter affidavit.
26. She submits that the entire controversy arose after receiving a complaint from one Selvaraju. The complaint was sent by him to the Secretary of the Mining Dep~rtment. The complaint reads as under:- "From: ·, ,. To Selvaraju, Raising Contractor, Hind Mercantile Corporation, Opp. : Taluk Office, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Timkur District, Karnatka State Smt. Latha Krishna Rao Secretary to Mining Department Karnataka Government, M.S. Building, Bangalore. Madam, Sub.:Large scale illegal Mining in Chikkanayakanahalli encouraged and supported by Mr. Basappa Reddy, Director Mines and Geology, Bangalore. ·B c I am bringing to your notice large scale illegal mining operation by Deepchand Kishanlal, Mining Lease No.2333 and late Kamalabai, Mining Lease No.2187 by. her representative Surendra Singh, G.P.A. holder in the ,H (2011) 5 S.C.R. rejected Mining lease application belonging to Ganapathi Singh. The illegal working area is called as Biscuit pit. The M.L. Application (earlier PL No.3317) has been rejected by the Government. The issue and matter is pending in the court. In the meantime, BASANT PODDAR of Deepchand Kishanlal and SURENDRA SINGH have engaged themselves in large scale illegal mining and already moved thousands of tones of iron ore power using the permit of M.L. No.2187 and 2333. The M.L. No.2187 is under renewal and working permission granted by the Director. c Illegal mining is done very badly all most creating deaths. The illegal operation is done by the support of the Director Basappa Reddy who is getting Rs.200 per ton commission. I request you to stop this illegal mining. Refer this illegal mining to the D.C., Tumkur for stoppage. If the issue is referred to Director, no justice will be done as he is totally and fully involved in this illegal act. I hope justice will be upheld at your end. Many thanks Yours faithfully SELVARAJU Copy to: 1. Sri. T.N. Chaturvedi, Governor of Karnataka, Bangalore 2. Sri. N. Dharam Singh, Chief Minister of Karnataka, Bangalore 3. Sri. K.K. Mishra, Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore 4. Sri. Mallikarjun Dyaberi, D.C., Tumkur District 8.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH v. DY DIRECTOR, DEPTT. 235 OF MINES & GEOLOGY. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] 5. The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi."
27. In pursuance to the said complaint, the officials of the Department of Mines and Geology visited Mining Lease No.2187 on 17.12.2004 and found illegal mining and as such the same was seized and stored in Survey No.130, which is the subject matter of the lease in Mining Lease No.2187. The illegal mining ore which is stored is also depicted in the mahazar dated 17.12.2004 and the same is endorsed by the representative of the holder of Mining Lease No.2187. Perhaps, on the appellant fearing some action on the complaint of Selvaraju, sent a letter dated 20.12.2004 wherein he disowned the iron ore seized. The letter dated 20.12.2004 has been set out earlier in which it is mentioned that 1 lakh ton of iron ore was found lying in Mining Lease No.2187 and the department can take possession and do whatever they deem it fit. He also mentioned that the appellant has no claim of the above stock. Thereafter on 10.1.2005 the appellant submitted an affidavit with the Government of Karnataka in which it is mentioned that the appellant is undertaking to safeguard and safe keep the said stocks. Respondent no.1 issued a notification on 23.12.2004 but the same could not be acted upon due to various reasons resulting in another notification of 14.12.2005. It seems that the appellant from this point wanted to take advantage of the I lakh ton iron ore which could not be lifted by the respondent or sold by him. The notification dated 14.12.2005 was challenged in writ petition No.27521/2005 by the appellant. The appellant obtained an interim stay. The said writ petition was dismissed on 25.06.2009. Thereafter, he filed a Review Petition No.418 of 2009 in writ petition No. 27521 of 2005 which was also dismissed on 12.04.2010. All these orders are the subject matter of these appeals. Since there was no stay granted in the review petition No.418 of 2009, the third notification regarding public auction was issued on 09.12.2009 fixing the date of auction on 24.02.2010. The appellant again moved an interim application in review petition No.418 of 2009 seeking (2011] 5 S.C.R. A for stay of auction. The s~me was declined by the court. From the record of the case, it is quite evident that the appellant went on filing writ petition, review petition and the interim application challenging the third public notification resulting in a direction issued by the High Court for getting an inventory of quantity of B iron ore lifted and to be lifted by the successful bidder and surveyed by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology. The appellant was ready to deposit a sum of Rs.15 crores as to the value of the material and execute an undertaking not to lift the material. This is another new contention raised by him in c Writ Petition No.15079 of 2010. The High Court did not grant any interim relief at that stage resulting in filing of these appeals against the order dated 29.04.2010 and subsequently writ petition no. 15079 of 2010 was dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to raise all contentions in Criminal Petition No.2104 of 2010.
28. The respondents further submitted that the averments in para 5.4 of the appeal are contrary to what is pleaded in para 5.1 of the appeals resulting in exposure of appellant's claim of the dumps. Thus, according to the respondents, when the E appellant himself is not sure of the iron ore stated to be illegally mined by him, the appellant cannot seek any relief from this court. The .respondents submitted that the appellant was required to submit monthly report showing the details of the quantity of iron ore stacked under the mining lease. It must also F mention the total production, dispatch and the opening balance. The respondents submitted that the appellant's lease period having expired in the year 1998 itself and filing of renewal application in compliance of Rule 24A of Minor Concession Rules 1960 and failure to produce the statutory requirement like G clearance from competent authority for availing the benefit under Rule 24 (A)(6), the appellant has not produced deliberately the working permissions obtained by him for the period from 1998 to 2004 for establishing a fact that he was legally mining. In the absence of renewed mining lease and also H failure to produce certificates from the competent authority B.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH v. DY DIRECTOR, DEPTI. 237 OF MINES & GEOLOGY. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] would indicate that the appellant is not a legal holder of the mining lease.
29. The respondents also submitted that the averments regarding non-transporting the mine ore during the relevant period on the ground of alleged agitation in the period is totally false. In fact, during the years 2003-2004, the appellant has transported huge quantity of iron ore and so also for the period 2004-05. Copy of the statement disclosing the transportation of iron ore from the years 2001-02 to 2005-06 has also been produced with the reply. c
30. The respondents submitted that it is clear that the appellant had produced 290960 tons of ore and transported 245372 tons of iron ore than what was permissible at that time which was 5500 metric tons per annum as per IMB plan and also this statement discloses the fact that the appellant is denying any illegal mining and claiming relief for which he is · not entitled to in law. In other words, the respondents clearly focused that the appellant had illegally mined iron ore much more than the sanctioned capacity in a clandestine manner and according to the respondents the appellant was not entitled to any relief from this court. The respondents further submitted that the appellant has invented entirely a new story alleging that somebody has illegally mined and stacked the iron ore in his leased area without his knowledge. According to the respondents it is a false statement and cannot be accepted. According to the respondents, to accumulate 1 lakh ton of iron ore, one has to use thousands of vehicles for transportation and accumulation. Failure on the part of the appellant to disclose the same leads to the presumption that the appellant was involved in illegal mining activity and these activities would result in an action to be taken under section 21 read with section 4(1 )(a) of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. According to the respondents, the . appellant is playing the game of hide and seek and trying to justify this action without compliance of the provisions of the Act. A The respondents further submitted that for the first time in the above petition the appellant has introduced a theory of situation of iron ore dumps in northern side and southern side of leased area without disclosing as to where he has stacked the waste produced during the mining activities as per the mining plan. B This also substantiates the contentiog of the respondents, the reason for non production of mining plan issued from the competent authority along with the map.
31. According to the respondents, the seizure of 1 lakh ton C of iron ore from the leased area of the appellant on 17 .12.2004 and after the appellant gave a letter dated 20.12.2004 invented new theory to claim the iron ore seized by the department taking undue advantage of the waste dumps stored by him on the northern side of the leased area. The appellant had also filed an affidavit dated 10.01.2005 wherein he has undertaken to D protect and save the seized iron ore and pursuant to the said undertaking the appellant was permitted to lift the iron ore produced in his own mine.
32. It may be relevant to submit that the Deputy Director E of Mines and Geology, Tumkur, on the instructions from the Director of Mines and Geology, had visited the leased area of Mining Lease No.2187 on 03.01.2006 along with the technical staff and found that the appellant had put a board on his waste dump (stock belonging to Mines and Geology). It is also F relevant to mention that the department has not erected any board and this fact was also reported to the Director on 04.01.2006. The respondents further submitted that on 05.01.2006 in the presence of the persons who were present at the time of seizure Mahazar on 17.12.2004, a detailed G location of the seized iron ore was undertaken and in this regard an affidavit of V. Selvaraju was also given. It may be relevant to mention that the appellant filed an affidavit dated 15.02.2006 along with the letter addressed to the Director of Mines and Geology in which he has sworn to the contents that he will not transport either the material which was seized on 17 .12.2004 B.R. SURENDRANATH SINGH v. DY DIRECTOR, DEPTT. 239 OF MINES & GEOLOGY [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] to the extent of 1 lakh ton illegally mined from biscuit pit or stacked illegally near the boundary of Mining Lease No.2187 located at Survey No.130 of the Honnebagi Village, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District for 1 lakh ton material that was found lying near the crusher plant and which was mined from Mining Lease No.2187.
33. The respondents further submitted that the continuous act of the appellant involving himself to grab the iron ore from the seized dump resulted in the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology to visit once again the leased area on 28.01.2006 and found that though the appellant was not permitted to carry out any mining activity or using of crushing unit factually, it was seen that the appellant was engaged in such activities resulting in a notice issued to the appellant on 29.3.2006. The respondent filed a criminal complaint on 25.2.2006 before the Chikkanayakanahalli Police against six persons including the appellant for having indulged in illegal mining activities and committed theft of iron ore and the same was registered in Criminal No.20 of 2006 for an offence punishable under section 21 of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the auction was completed on 24.02.2010. The respondents also mentioned that the appellant has also filed criminal petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court when the court directed the Fast Track Court to dispose of the criminal revision petition within a stipulated period. At this juncture, the appellant withdrew his Criminal Petition No.2104 of 201 O seeking liberty to file criminal revision petition before the District Court, Tumkur challenging the order of the learned Magistrate dated 30.03.2010 and he has filed criminal revision petition before the District Judge, Tumkur against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 30.03.2010 alleging that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was one behind his back. Though the order specifically stated that the counsel for the appellal]!was present and produced the copy of the order passed by the High (2011] 5 S.C.R. A Court of Karnataka in Review Petition No.418 of 2009, the respondent also mentioned that the appellant is venturing all kinds of petitions suppressing the facts. The appellant has an evil desire to grab the iron ore seized and auctioned. According to the respondent, filing of this petition is an ultimate result of s abuse of the process of law.
34. The respondents also mentioned that the seizure mahazar drawn on 17 .12.2004 shows that the iron ore were lying within the boundaries mentioned in the said mahazar. This is the very same boundary mentioned in mahazar drawn by the C police in the year 2006 and the mahazar drawn at the time of handing over of the iron ore to the possession of the highest· bidder also reveals the same boundaries. Thus, boundaries in all the three mahazars are one and the same, thereby, establishing that the stand of the respondent regarding the D place where actually iron ore auctioned is situated also negates the stand taken by the appellant in regard to his claim. The respondents further submitted that even the prayer sought in these appeals was never a subject matter in Writ Petition No. 27521 of 2005 and thus the appellant is estopped from seeking E · this claim as the auction process dated 24.2.2010 is completed and further he had challenged the auction proceedings in writ petition No.15079 of 2010 wherein the High Court refused to interfere with the auction proceedings and the appellant having withdrawn the writ petition No.15079 of 2010. It is mentioned F by the respondents that auction of 24.2.2010 was in consonance with the rules and regulations. The respondents also submitted that the appellant having failed in all attempts to stop the public auction, came forward with a plea to deposit Rs.15 crores in Writ Petition No.15079 of 2010, spent some G time and allowed the successful bidder to commence lifting of iron ore after depositing the entire amount of Rs.10.10 crores and allowing the bidder to transport the iron ore. The respondents relied on the Audit Report of Kamalabai, Mining Lease No.2187 from 2000-01 to 2005-06. The same is H reproduced as under : 0 OJ AUDIT REPORT OF SMT. KAMALA BAI, ML N0.2187 FROM 2000-01 TO 2005-06 IS AS BELOW Year Production Dispatch il000.01 21600 22160 2001-02 8900 2002-0:t 9725 2003-04 t50340 121865 2004-05 290960 245372 l2005-06 50201 49436 Opening Balance Current Year Demand Total Recovery Closing Balance z (/) me en ::u !20 m G.> z Balance Inter- Fixed Royalty Interest est Rent 37055 40388 0 145300 231.636 74776 79400 17946 172122 92770 81475 178990 19563 1319807 1342763 45582 0 2786598 2788367 619425 619425 Royalty/ Interest Fixed Rent 107579 49261 61406 17946 154682 1337863 5674011 3207972 Royalty/ Fixed Rent 74776 92770 19563 Interest 22.85906 Excess paid 2588547 Exce:;s paid 5z G.> ~ :< J: Ci en )>Z Ci) m:x: m:<:: ::JJ 0 OJ-< Io )>_ z ::JJ om )> () ~b ..t: ;a Deputy Director Mines and Geology Department ~ ':a Tumkur …. ;:I P.S. : In the years 2004-05, the balance indicated in this Chart is 1507, but it should be 45582.
35. The respondents submitted that at that point of time the appellant could legally mine upto to 5500 metric tons only in a year. That limit was increased to 41000 metric tons a year. It is beyond comprehension how illegal iron ore could be found on the Mining Lease No.2187 to the tune of about 1 lakh ton 8 legally mined by the appellant. This was possible only when the appellant had indulged in massive illegal mining.
36. The audit report extracted above clearly indicate that the appellant had quarried and produced iron ore several times more than its permissible limit particularly in the years from c 2003 to 2006.
37. The theory of somebody had put 1 lakh ton of iron ore of mining lease is totally untenable and beyond comprehension. 1 lakh ton of iron ore cannot be kept on any mining lease all of a sudden without the knowledge of the appellant. Thousands D of trucks have to transport the said quantity of iron ore and if it did not belong to the appellant he ought to have complained immediately after someone started dumping iron ore on his mining lease. According to the respondent – State, this is a clear case of illegal mining on a massive scale by the appellant.
38. Mr. Ram Naik, learned senior advocate appearing for the auction purchaser contended that the appellant has not approached this court with clean hands:'He submitted that the auction purchaser had purchased the entire iron ore and also lifted part of it and has already paid huge money to the F respondent. The auction purchaser cannot be denied right to lift the remaining iron ore.
39. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and examined these appeals from various angles. In our considered view, this court ought not to exercise its G extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution in a matter of this nature. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. These appeals are totally devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed with costs. H N.J. Appeals dismissed.