Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
32. We may now take up the decisions cited on behalf of the leaseholders to contend that the power under Articles 32 and 142 ought not to be exercised in the present case and instead remedies should be sought within the relevant statutes. The sheet anchor is the case of Supreme Court Bar B Association Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (1998) 4 sec 409. We do not see how or why we should lie entrapped within the confines of any of the relevant Statutes on the strength of the views expressed in Supreme Court Bar Association (supra). The observations made in para 48 of the judgment and c the use of words "ordinarily" and "are directly in conflict" as appearing in the said paragraph (underlined by us) directly militates against the view that the lease holders would like us to adopt in the present case. "48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 has the power to make such order as is n.ecessary for doing complete justice "between the parties in any cause or matter pending before it". The very nature of the power must lead the Court to set limits for itself within which to exercise those powers and ordinarily it cannot disregard a statutory provision governing a subject, except perhaps to balance the equities between the conflicting claims of the litigating parties by "ironing out the creases" in a cause or matter before it. Indeed this Court is not a court of restricted jurisdiction of only dispute- settling. It is well recognised and established that this Court has always been a law-maker and its role travels beyond merely dispute-settling. It is a "problem-solver in the nebulous areas" [see K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) 3 sec 55)] but the substantive statutory provisions dealing with the subject-matter of a given case cannot be altogether ignored by this Court, while making an order under Article 142. Indeed, these constitutional powers cannot, in any way, be controlled by any statutory provisions but at the same time these powers are not meant to be exercised when their exercise may come SAMAJ PARIVARJANASAMUDAYA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.) directlv in conflict with what has been expressly provided for in a statute dealing expressly with the subject."
33. Even if the above observations is understood to be laying down a note of caution, the same would be a qualified one and can have no application in a case of mass tort as has been occasioned in the present case. The mechanism provided by any of the Statutes in question would neither be effective nor efficacious to deal with the extraordinary situation that has arisen on account of the large scale illegalities committed in the operation of the mines in question resulting in grave and irreparable loss to the forest wealth of the country besides the colossal loss caused to the national exchequer. The situation being extraordinary the remedy, indeed, must also be extraordinary. Considered against the backdrop of the Statutory schemes in question, we do not see how any of the recommendations of the CEC, if accepted, would come into conflict with any law enacted by the legislature. It is only in the above situation that the Court may consider the necessity of placing the recommendations made by the CEC on a finer balancing scale before accepting the same. We, therefore, feel uninhibited to proceed to exercise our constitutional jurisdiction to remedy the enormous wrong that has happened and to provide adequate protection for the future, as may be required. ISSUE N0.3 Sanctity of the process of survey undertaken by the Joint Team cdhstituted by this Court's order dated 6th May. 2011 and the determination of the boundaries of the leases on the basis of the said survey.
34. The above issue will require examination from two perspectives. The first is the fairness of the procedure adopted in carrying out the survey and the second is with regard to acceptability of the technical part of the survey process. In so far as the fairness of the procedure adopted is concerned it is on record that notice of the dates proposed for survey of a (2013) 6 S.C.R. particular lease was intimated to the lease holder well in advance to enable the lease holder or his representative to be present at the site while the survey is conducted. The field survey was done by 7 teams consisting of one surveyor each from the Karnataka Forest Department, Karnataka Mines and s Geological Department, Karnataka Revenue Department and a representative of the National Institute of Technology, Surathkal. The field survey undertaken by each team was supervised by the Joint Team constituted by this Court. During the field survey, the representative of the concerned lessees c were present and the Mahazars (Panchnamas) for each day's survey were prepared incorporating the details of the survey carried out. The said Panchnamas were signed by, apart from the Government representatives and the representative of the National Institute of Technology, Surathkal, also by the con~rned lessee or their representatives. The readings recorded during the field survey were shared with the concerned lessees or their representatives and before finalizing the survey sketches the concerned lessees or their representatives were given a personal hearing. After the field survey was completed, in terms of the order of the Court dated 23.9.2011, the E representations filed by the leaseholders against the findings of the Joint Team were reconsidered by the Joint Team and personal hearing was afforded to 122 lease holders. On the basis of the said hearings, necessary corrections were made in respect of 33 number of leases. Thereafter, the final Report F of the CEC dated 3.2.2012 was submitted to the Court. In terms of the Court's order dated 10.2.2012, the CEC again considered the representations filed by as many as 66 lease holders. The findings of the Joint Team in respect of 4 leases were modified by the CEC though the said modification did not G result into any change of categorization. Two representations, one filed by M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons and another by M/s. Hothur Traders have been placed before the Court for appropriate orders [issue is being dealt with separately] whereas the rest of the representations were rejected by the CEC. In the above H facts, procedural fairness in the process of survey carried out SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] by the Joint Team is writ large and there can be no room for A any doubt so as to question the sanctity qf the survey process on the above stated ground.
35. This will require the Court to go into the details of the technical aspect of the survey which was conducted by the Joint Team. The consideration of the details of the survey undertaken, naturally, has to be in the backdrop of the multifold complaints that have been raised on behalf of the leaseholders in the several IAs filed. As already noted, on a very broad plane, the complaints in this regard are that the Joint Team has ignored judicial orders passed in respect of boundaries between neighbouring/adjacent leases; reduction of the area of the lease provided in the lease deed/lease sketch; shifting of the lease area to a new location as a result of the survey. Specifically, objections have been raised to .the effect that overburden dumps in different areas have been taken into account to come to the finding that mining had been carried out in such areas without necessary clearances under the FC Act (in case of forest areas) or in the absence of mining leases in respect of such areas (non forest areas) though the activity in question i.e. dumping does not amount to mining operations under the MMDR Act.
36. A consideration of the documents submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae and those submitted on behalf of the State of Karnataka would go to show that in carrying out the survey, the Joint Team had encountered some serious difficulties. The same may be enumerated below:- (i) the sanctioned lease sketch did not have any reference point(s) and with reference to which the location of the lease can be decided; (ii) there is mis-match between the location(s) of the reference point(s) on the ground vis-a-vis the details of such reference points(s) provided in the lease sketches; (iii) the reference point(s) have been destroyed/altered on the ground; (iv) the Survey and Demarcation sketch does not tally with the lease sketch; and (v) there is inherent defect in the lease sketch."
37. To overcome the said difficulties, before the commencement of the actual survey, a pre-survey examination was undertaken to identify the boundary pillars, rock marks, c revenue points etc. as shown in the lease sketch. This was done with the help of the government staff as well as the representative of the concerned lessee. Instead of measuring the length of each arm of the lease sketch by using the conventional engineering scale and instead of measuring the D angle py using a protractor, the original lease sketch was scanned and the digitized so that the length of each arm and the angles could be precisely measured. Thereafter survey was undertaken by use of the Total Station Method, which, undoubtedly, is the state of the art technology with room for E negligible error. A temporary control point was identified keeping in view the visibility of the maximum number of boundary points from the identified control point. Thereafter, the distance between the control point and the visible boundary points were measured and recorded in the instrument which uses an infra-red ray. The instrument was shifted to another F temporary control point and in a similar manner the distance between the said control point and remaining boundary points were measured. After completing the reading of all the points the margin of error for the instrument was determined (which was virtually negligible). Thereafter the data from the total station G was downloaded on a computer using the autocadd software for preparation of the survey sketch. The survey sketch so prepared was superimposed on the digitized lease sketch to ascertain the encroachment if any. Also, the details of the survey sketch was superimposed on the satellite imageries to further H verify the correctness of the process of survey undertaken. A SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] manual calculation of the lease areas was also undertaken to compare with the calculation of the lease areas as per the digitized lease sketch. The difference between the two measurements in case of 34 number of 'C' category leases is less than +/- 05ha. The relevant details in this regard which are available in the compilation of documents submitted by the State of Karnataka would be illuminating and are, therefore, indicated below: Name of the Lessee M.L. Sanction- Area as Area as Difference No No. ed area manual per between in Ha calcul- digitized Manually ation in sketch calculated c Ha in area & Ha Digitised J.M. 3.36 3.348 3.54 0.19 VRISHVENDRAYYA VEEYAM PVT. LTD 20.23 20.196 20.04 -0.16 AMBIKA GHORPADE 4.95 4.495 4.84 0.35 MYSORE MANGANESE 3.24 3.07 3.16 0.10 COMPANY HOTHUR TRADERS 21.11 22.117 21.61 -0.51 M. DASHARATHA RAMI 19.95 19.59 19.46 -0.13 REDDY BHARAT MINES AND 26.20 23.3 24.47 1.17 MINERALS ASSOCIATED MINING 10.12 10.03 10.14 0.11 COMPANY B.R. 13.00 16.592 15.89 -0.70 YOGENDRANATH SINGH 10 LATHA MINING CO. 4.05 3.93 -0.07 (D. NARAYANA) 11 CANARA MINERALS 11.34 12.12 11.52 -0.60 12 THANGAVELU & 60.70 62.28 60.92 -1.36 OTHERS 13 TRADING MINING 5.26 5.31 5.45 0.14 COMPANY 14 SRI. N. MANZOOR 1324/ 15.97 15.65 15.71 0.06 AHMED 15 SMT KAMALA BAI 13.45 13 02 13.44 0.42 16 SUDARSHAN SINGH 8.09 8.37 8.11 -0.26 (MAHALAKSHMI MINERALS) 17 RAMGAD MINERALS 24.28 24.23 24.04 -0.19 AND MINING PVT LTD 18 TRIDENT MINERALS 32.27 31.606 32.43 0.82 19 ALLUM 28.07 23.553 24.53 0.98 c VEERABHADRAPPA 20 KANHAYALAL 30.76 28.73 30.09 1.36 DUDHERIA ADARSHA 3.03 2.91 2.98 0.07 ENTERPRISES 22 MATHA MINERALS 1975/ 129.5 125.5 129.16 3.66 23 S.B. MINERALS 40.47 40.67 40.38 -0.29 24 KARNATAKA LIMPO 6.07 6.94 6.47 -0.47 25 ANJANA MINERALS 4.55 4.5 4.53 0.03 26 DECCAN MINING 19.02 17.015 17.43 0.41 SYNDICATE (P) LTD 27 P.ABUBAKAR 14.00 13.756 13.85 0.09 28 LAKSHMI NARAYANA 105.22 103.06 86.18 -16.88 MINING COMPANY 29 KAMALA BAI 23.47 23.43 23.71 0.28 30 MYSORE STONEWARE 122.72 118.3 122.65 4.35 PIPES AND POLTERIES (P)LTD. 31 TEJAWORK 4.85 4.74 4.83 0.09 32 RAJAPURA MINES 93.74 89.62 91.7 2.13 33 H.G. RANGANGOWDA 60.70 60.3 60.66 0.36 34 NlbHI MINING PVT. LTD. 31.84 29.195 29.49 1.30 35 S.B. MINERALS 44.52 38.819 39.40 0.58 SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 36 MILANA MINERALS 99.56 95.556 99.55 3.99 (LAKSHMI & CO.) 37 DEEP CHAND 125.45 128.546 124.92 -3.63 Kl SHAN LAL 38 THUNGABHADRA MINERALS LTD. 125.58 135.04 39 THUNGABHADRA 33.97 33.16 MINERALS LTD. 163.74 -4.46 40 M SRINIVASULU 74.86 78.565 75.14 -3.43 M. CHANNAKESHAVA 7.85 7.57 -0.43 REDDY(SRILAKSHMI NARASHIMHA MINING CO. 42 SPARK LINE MINING 4.86 4.93 4.86 -0.07 CORPORATION 43 MINERAL MINERS 2185A 46.13 44.11 44.42 0.31 AND TRADERS 44 MYSORE MINERALS LTD. 995 82.2 32.89 -49.31 45 V.S. LAD & SONS 105.06 98.12 100.54 2.42 46 KARTHIKEYAS 27.23 27.236 26.71 -0.53 MANGANESE 47 G RAJSHEKAR 129.49 127.83 127.42 -0.41 48 RAMA RAO PAOL 28.34 26.33 33.80 7.47 49 SMT RAZIA KHANUM 2557/ 12.58 12.0578 12.54 0.48
38. The participation of the lessee or his representative through out the process of survey by the Joint Team; the details c of the manner of conduct of the actual process of survey delineated above; the use of the state of the art technology; the composition of the Joint Team entrusted with the responsibility of the survey and the constitution of the 7 teams that conducted the field survey under the supervision of the Joint Team; the two stages of re-verification of the findings of the survey in the light of the objections raised by the lease holders under orders of this Court dated 26.9.2011 and 10.2.2012 and the corrections A made on the basis thereof can leave no doubt as to the credibility of the findings of the survey conducted under the orders of the Court. True it is that we cannot claim to be experts; but we need not be to see what is ex facie evident. Therefore, notwithstanding the protracted arguments advanced on behalf of lease holders and the large scale reference to sketches, B maps and drawings filed before this Court by the said lease holders, we are satisfied that all complaints and grievances must fade away in the light of the survey undertaken by the Joint Team and the events subsequent thereto. It would also be significant to take note of the fact that in the written submission c on behalf of the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI), in the opening paragraph it has been stated as under. "The applicant submits that FIMI has full faith in the integrity and fairness of the survey done by the Joint Team and 'r.ecommended by CEC. FIMI is in full agreement with the recommendations made by CEC with regard to Categories A and B and the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court. FIMI is simultaneously of the view that instead of cancellation of Category 'C' mining leases, these may be directed to make appropriate compensatory afforestation payment, undertake R&R work as per R& R Plan prepared by ICFRE and approved by CEC and after successful completion and implementation of R&R Plan, they should be allowed to recommence mining operations in such leases."
39. We make it clear that we have not understood the F above statement as an admission on the part of the Federation and it is on a consideration of the totality of the facts placed before us that we accept the findings of the survey conducted by the Joint Team constituted by the orders of this Court and the boundaries of each of the leases determined on that basis. G We further direct that in supersession of all orders either of the authorities of the State or Courts, as may be, the boundaries of leases fixed by the Joint Team will henceforth be the boundaries of each of the leases who will have the benefit of the lease area as determined by the Joint Team. All proceedings pending in any court with regard to boundaries of SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v.\ STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.j" the leases involved in the present proceeding shall stand , adjudicated by means of present order and no such question would be open for re-examination by any body or authority.
40. Before proceeding to the next issue we would like to observe that the contention urged on behalf of some of the lessees that dumping of mining waste (overburden dumps) do not constitute operations under Section 2(d) of the MMDR Act is too naive for acceptance. The wide terms of the definition contained in Section 2(d) of the MMDR Act encompasses all such activity within the meaning of expression "mining operations". Use of forest land for such activity would require clearance under the FC Act. In case the land used for such purpose is not forest land the mining lease must cover the land used for any such activity. ISSUE N0.4 Acceptability of the Recommendations of the CEC with regard to (i) categorization. (ii) Reclamation and Rehabilitation CR&R) Plans, (iii) Reopening of Categorv 'A' and 'B' mines subject to conditions, (iv) Closure/ reopening of Category 'C' mines and (v) future course of action in respect of Category 'C' mines if closure thereof is to be ordered by the Court
41. In the light of the discussions that have preceded sanctity of the procedure of laying information and materials before the Court with regard to the extent of illegal mining and other specific details in this regard by means of the Reports of the CEe cannot be in doubt. Inter-generational equity and sustainable development have come to be firmly embedded in our constitutional jurisprudence as an integral part of the fundamental rights conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution. In enforcing such rights of a large number of citizens who are bound to be adversely affected by environmental degradation, this Court cannot be constrained by the restraints of procedure. The CEC which has been assisting the Court in various environment related matters for over a decade now was assigned certain specified tasks which have been performed by the said body giving sufficient justification for the decisions A arrived and !lie recommendations made. If the said recommendations can withstand the test of logic and reason which issue is being examined hereinafter we will have no reason not to accept the said recommendations and embody the same as a part of the order that we will be required to make 8 in the present case. (i) Categorization
42. The issue is whether categorization on the basis of percentage of the encroached area qua the total lease area is an arbitrary decision. Arbitrariness in the adoption of a criteria C for classification has to be tested on the anvil of Article 14 and not on the subjective notions of availability of a better basis of classification. The basis suggested i.e. total encroached area has the potential of raising questions similar to the ones now raised on behalf of the lease holders. This is on account of the 0 lack of uniformity in the areas covered by the different leases in question. The test, therefore, ought not to be what would be a 'better' basis for the categorization for that would introduce subjectivity in the process; the test is whether categorization on the basis adopted results in hostile discrimination and adoption of the criteria of percentage has no reasonable nexus with the E object sought to be achieved, namely, to identify the lessees who have committed the maximum violations and damage to environment. Viewed from the aforesaid perspective, the categorization made does not fail the test of reasonableness and would commend for our acceptance. In this regard, we may take note of two IAs (IA.No.74 of 2012 and l.A.No.4 of 2012) filed by Federation of Indian Mineral Industries which body claims membership of a vast number of the lessees involved in !Ille present proceedings. In the aforesaid IAs, as already noticed in a different context, the Federation has G unequivocally accepted the findings of the survey conducted by the Joint Team and the recommendation of the CEC in so far as categorization of the leases and the actions suggested for reopening of Category 'A' and 'B' mines along with other pre- conditions stipulated including the preparation of the R & R plans. The only caveat in this regard is in respect of category SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.) 'C' mines. The Federation had suggested that the said mines be also allowed to reopen subject to similar or even more stringent conditions and, alternatively, for reopening of 39 total out of the total of 49 category 'C' mines by adoption of certain more liberal criteria than those recommended by the CEC. In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that the categorization suggested by the CEC in its Report dated 3.2.2012 should be accepted by us. (ii) Conditions which have been suggested for opening of Category 'A' mines and additionally the R& R Plans for Category 'B' mines c
43. The conditions subject to which Category 'A' and 'B' mines are to be reopened and the R&R Plans that have been recommended as a precondition for reopening of Category 'B' mines are essentially steps to ensure scientific and planned exploitation of the scarce mineral resources of the country. The details of the preconditions and the R&R plans have already been noticed and would not require a repetition. Suffice it would be to say that such recommendations are wholesome and in the interest not only of the environment and ecology but the mining industry as a whole so as to enable the industry to run in a more organized, planned and disciplined manner. FIMI was actively associated in the framing of the guidelines and the preparation of the R&R Plans. There is nothing in the preconditions or in the details of the R&R plans suggested which are contrary to or in conflict or inconsistent with any of the statutory provisions of the MMDR Act, EP Act and FC Act. In such a situation, while accepting the preconditions subject to which the Category 'A' and 'B' __ mines are to be reopened and the R&R plans that must be pUrin place for Category 'B' mines, we are of the view that the suggestions made by the CEC for reopening of Category 'A' and 'B' mines as well as the details of the R&R plans should be accepted-by us, which we accordingly do. This will bring us to the most vital issue of the case, i.e., the future of the Category 'C' mines.
44. The precise extent· of illegal mining that took place in the three districts of Karnataka have been noted in detail in an earlier part of this order (para 23). The same, therefore, will not A require any repetition. Illegal mining apart from playing havoc on the national economy had, in fact, cast an ominous cloud on the credibility of the system of governance by laws in force. It has had a chilling and crippling effect on ecology and environment. It is evident from the compilation submitted to the Court by the CEC that several of the Category 'C' mines were 8 operating without requisite clearances under FC Act or even in the absence of a mining lease for a part of the area used for mining operations. The satellite imageries placed before the Court with regard to environmental damage and destruction has shocked judicial conscience. It is in the light of the above c facts and circumstances that the future course of action in respect of the maximum violators/polluters, i.e., Category 'C' mines has to be judged. While doing so, the Court also has to keep in mind the requirement of Iron Ore to ensure adequate supply of manufactured steel and other allied products.
45. Once the result of the survey undertaken and the boundaries of the leases determined by the Joint Team has been accepted by the Court and the basis of categorization of the mines has been found to be rational and constitutionally permissible it will be difficult for this Court to visualize as to how the Category 'C' mines can be allowed to reopen. There is no E room for compassion; fervent pleas for clemency cannot have , even a persuasive value. As against the individual interest of the 49 Category 'C' leaseholders, public interest at large would require the Court to lean in favour of demonstrating the efficacy and effectiveness of the long arm of the law. We, therefore, F order for the complete closure of the Category 'C' mines and for necessary follow up action in terms of the recommendations of the CEC in this regard, details of which have already been extracted in an earlier part of this order. ISSUE N0.5 G Other Miscellaneous/Connected Issues
46. We have noticed that by an order dated 2.11.2012 passed by this Court an embargo has been placed on grant of fresti mining licenses. In view of the developments that have H taken place in the meantime and in view of the fact that we are SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] inclined to accept the recommendations at SI. Nos. VI and VII of the CEC's Report dated 3.2.2012 (Pg.56 of the Report), we do not consider it necessary to continue with the order dated 2.11.2012 in so far as grant of fresh leases are concerned.
47. In so far as settlement of the inter-state boundaries between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka is concerned, both the States have agreed to have the boundaries fixed under the supervision of the Geological Survey of India. In view of the agreement between the States on the said issue we permit the States to finalize the issue in the above terms. The operation of the 7 leases (Category 81) located on or near the inter-State boundary is presently suspended. Until the boundary issue between the two States is resolved resumption of mining operations in the 7 leases cannot be allowed.
48. The CEC has provisionally categorised Mis. S.B. Minerals (ML No.2515) and Shanthalakshmi Jayaram (ML No.2553) in Category "B" though the encroached area under illegal mining pits has been found to be 24.44% and 23.62% respectively. According to the CEC, it is on account of "the complexities involved in finalizing the survey sketches and in the absence of inter-village boundary" that the said leases have been placed in Category "B" instead of Category "C". We cannot agree with the tentative decision of the CEC. On the basis of the findings of the survey and the categorization made, both of which have been accepted by tha Court by the present order, we direct that the aforesaid two leases, namely, Mis. S.B. Minerals and Mis. Shanthalakshmi Jayaram be placed in Category "C". Necessary consequential action will naturally follow.
49. The CEC in its Report dated 28.3.2012 has placed the cases of Mis. V.S. Lad & Sons and Mis. Hothur Traders (placed in Category "C") for final determination by the Court. The CEC has reported that the encroachment by Mis. V.S. Lad & Sons is only in respect of the overburden dumps and exceeds the percentage (15%) marginally, i.e., by 0.17% which could very well be due to the least count error used by the Joint Team. In so far as Mis. Hothur Traders is concerned the CEC in its Report dated 28.3.2012 has recorded that according to the [2013) 6 S.C.R. A lessee it has carried on its mining operation for the last 50 years in the lease area allotted to it which may have been wrongly identified in the earlier surveys and demarcations by taking into account a wrong reference point. Having considered the facts on which the two lessees B have sought upgradation from "C" to "B" Category we are afraid that such upgradalion cannot be allowed. Both the lessees, in fact, accept the results of the survey by the Joint Team which findings have already been accepted by us.
50. In the result, we summarize our conclusions in the C matter as follows:- (1) The findings of the survey conducted by the Joint Team constituted by this Court by order dated 6.5.2011 and boundaries of the leases in question as determined on the basis of the said survey is hereby approved and accepted. (2) The categorization of the mines ("A", "B" and "C") on the basis of the parameters adopted by the CEC as indicated in its Report dated 3.2.2012 is approved and accepted. (3) The order of the Court dated 13.4.2012 accepting the recommendations dated 13.3.2012 of the CEC (in modification of the recommendations of the CEC dated 3.2.2012) in respect of the items (A) to (I) is reiterated. Specifically, the earmarked role of the Monitoring Committee in the said order dated 13.4.2012 is also reiterated. (4) The order of the Court dated 3.9.2012 in respect of reopening of 18 Category "A" mines subject to the conditions mentioned in the said order is reiterated. (5) The order of the Court dated 28.9.2012 in all respects is reiterated. (6) The recommendations of the CEC contained in the Report dated 15.2.2013 for reopening of remaining SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARANATAKA [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Category "A" mines and Category "B" mines (63 in number) and sale of sub-grade iron ore subject to the conditions mentioned in the said Report are approved. The recommendations contained in paragraphs VI and VII (Pg. 56 to 57) of the CEC Report dated 3.2.2012 are accepted, meaning thereby, the leases in respect of "C" Category mines will stand cancelled and the recommendations of the CEC (para VII Pg. 56) of Report dated 3.2.2012 with regard to the grant of fresh leases are accepted. c The proceeds of the sales of the Iron Ore of the 'C' Category mines made through the Monitoring Committee will stand forfeited to the State. The Monitoring Committee will remit the amounts held by it on this account to the SPV for utilization in connection with the purposes for which it had been constituted. Mis. V.S. Lad & Sons, Mis. Hothur Traders, Mis. S.B. Minerals (ML No. 2515) and Mis. Shanthalakshmi Jayaram (ML No. 2553) will be treated as "C" Category mines and resultant E consequences in respect of the said leases will follow. The operation of the 7 leases placed in "B" category situated on or nearby the Karnataka- Andhra Pradesh inter-State boundary will remain suspended until finalisation of the inter-State boundary dispute whereupon the question of commencement of operations in respect of the aforesaid 7 leases will be examined afresh by the CEC. The recommendations made in the paragraph VIII of the Report of the CEC dated 3.2.2012 (pertaining to Mis. MML, Pg.57) is accepted. The recommendations made in paragraphs IX, X, XII (in respect of confiscated iron-ore) XIII and XIV of the said Report dated 3.2.2012 (Pg. 57-60) will not c require any specific direction as the same have already been dealt with or the same have otherwise become redundant, as may be. (12) The recommendations made in paragraph XI (grant of fresh leases) and paragraph XII (in respect of pending applications for grant of mining leases) of the CEC's Report dated 3.2.2012 (Pg. 59) are not accepted. In view of the discussions and conclusions in para 44 of the present order, this Court's order dated 02.11.2012 placing an embargo on grant of fresh mining leases need not be continued any further. Grant of fresh mining leases and consideration of pending applications be dealt with in accordance with law, the directions contained in the present order as well as the spirit thereof. (13) Determination of the inter-State boundary between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh in so far as the same is relevant to the present proceedings, as agreed upon by the two States, be made through the intervention of the office of Surveyor General of India.
51. We also direct that all consequential action in terms of the present order be completed with the utmost expedition. The writ application filed by Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and IAs shall stand disposed of in terms of our abovestated F conclusions. SLP (C) Nos.7366-7367 of 2010. SLP (C) Nos.32690-32691 of 2010. WP (Crl.l No.66 of 2010. SLP !Cl Nos.17064-17065 of 2010, SLP !Cl No ……. (CC No. 16829 of 2010}. SLP <Cl No …… (CC No. 16830 of 2010}, WP (Cl No.411 of 2010. SLP G (Cl No.353 of 2011 and WP (C) No.76 of 2012
52. All these matters are de-tagged and directed to be listed separately. K.K.T. Writ Petition No. 562/2009 disposed of & other SLP.s & Writ Petitions detagged.