Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
3. By our Order dated 23.11.07 we made it clear that if E Sill is agreeable to the suggested Rehabilitation Package they were at liberty to move this Court by way of interlocutory appli- cation. Consequently, the present I .A. No.2134 of 2007 has been preferred by Siil.
4. In the present I.A. Sill, State of Orissa and Orissa Min- ing Corporation Ltd. [OMCl] have unconditionally accepted the terms and conditions and modalities suggested by this Court ~- ~ under the caption "Rehabilitation Package" in its Order dated 23.11.07. However, CEC has filed its Report dated 24.4.08. The Report contains response/counter suggestions on certain G aspects. In our Order dated 23.11.07 we inter alia suggested formation of SPV for Scheduled Area Development of lanjigarh Project in which we suggested that the stake-holders shall be State of Orissa, OMCl and Sill. We also inter alia suggested that the said SPV shall be incorporated under the Companies H Act, 1956. TN. GODAVARAMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF 1097 INDIA AND ORS. ,. r
5. CEC in its response has suggested that SPV should A work the Niyamgiri Bauxite Mine in a business-like manner and that the mining lease of Niyamgiri Bauxite Mine may be assigned to the SPV from OMCL. In other words, CEC wants that State of Orissa should participate in the mining operations and it has further suggested that the State of Orissa should transfer or as- sign the mining lease from OMCl to SPV
6. There are serious problems in the above suggestion made by CEC. At the outset, it needs to be stated that under our Order dated 23.11.07 we suggested, as a part of Rehabili- tation Package, formation of SPV for Scheduled Area Devel- c opment of lanjigarh Project. We wanted the State of Orissa to be associated with SPV in order to ensure implementation of proper schemes for the development of the tribal area and in our Order it has not been suggested for incorporation of SPV to take over the mines which have been leased out by State of D Orissa to OMCl (lessee). The reason is obvious. We cannot _# change leases/MoUs/joint venture agreements signed between the parties at earlier point of time which have been approved by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, and other Au- thorities. The object for passing the Order dated 23.11.07 was E to strike a balance between development and environmental protection. The lanjigarh Tehsil in District Kalahandi, as stated in our Order dated 23.11.07, faces abject poverty. At the same time the area is eco-sensitive area. We have tried to strike a balance in order to subserve the principle of Sustainable De- ,,,_..-;- velopment. Under our Order we suggested Rehabilitation Pack- age under which apart from NPV, Siil is also required to de- posit 5% of annual profits before tax and interest from lanjigarh Project or Rs.10 crores per annum whichever is higher. The said Project covers both mining and refining. The amount is G required to be deposited by Siil with SPVevery year commenc- ing from 1.4.07. This condition has been accepted by Siil. ~ />, Moreover, by reasons of acceptance of suggested Rehabilita- tion Package, 2090 persons (including displaced persons) would get employment as indicated in the Charts annexed to '"'· the Report of CEC. In addition, 2400 more persons would earn income by support services. However, we cannot change the existing structure in its entirety. If we were to accept the said counter suggestion of CEC, namely, that the mines be taken over by SPV then we would be violating the terms and condi- B tions of the joint venture Agreement dated 5.10.04 between x OMCL and VAL (now substituted by Siil). Moreover, it may be noted that the joint venture Agreement dated 5.10.04 was ex- ecuted because the Government of Orissa wanted its Under- taking, namely, OMCL to earn revenue on its own account. There- c fore, we cannot direct a complete changeover. Under the joint venture Agreement, OMCL was a lessee from Government of Orissa. We cannot modify that lease. We cannot direct the lease to be assigned by Government of Orissa to SPV as it would amount to substitution of lease earlier executed by Government of Orissa in favour of OMCL.
7. CEC has further suggested pre-determined mechanism '{ … for price fixation. Under the suggested new price-fixation mecha- nism CEC has suggested as follows: "The price of the Bauxite Ore in the market is not ascertainable since there is no market for this ore as such of significance, but its price can be ascertained by reducing the normative cost of conversion plus profit from the market price of Aluminium. The CEC also examined the feasibility of determining the price of the Ore by reducing the cost of conversion (plus profit) from the price of Alumina, but did not consider this an advisable option since the price of Alumina shows a great degree of -t … variation from supplier to supplier ( … ). This method of calculating price is in effect a mirror image of the Cost plus Return basis adopted for determining tariff."
8. We may state that price discovery/mechanism is a com- plicated exercise. Moreover, on account of economic factors, price variation takes place throughout the year. \Ne do not wish to rule out the formula suggested by CEC. Ultimately, as stated in our Order dated 23.11.07, Siil is required to deposit 5% of H its annual profits before tax and interest from Lanjigarh Pf.oject T.N. GODAVARAMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNIO,N OF 1099 INDIAAND ORS. or Rs.10 crores whichever is higher as contribution for Sched- uled Area Development. This contribution is to be made every year commencing from 1.4.07. Under clause (i) of Rehabilita- tion Package, SPV has to account for Scheduled Area Devel- opment. Further under the said Package. Siil is also required to contribute Rs.12.20 crores towards tribal development apart from payment of NPV and apart from contribution to the Man- agement of Wildlife around lanjigarh Bauxite Mine (See: clause (ii) of the Rehabilitation Package). While allocating CAMPA Funds the said amount of Rs.12.20 crores shall be earmarked specifically for tribal development. Therefore, we are of the view c that, at the pre-operational stage, we need not apply the price mechanism suggested by CEC. If at the end of the Accounting Year of Siil, CEC finds that the annual profits before tax and interest is depressed by the pricing mechanism mentioned in joint venture Agreement dated 5.10.04 vide clause 2.3.3(a) then it would be open to CEC to move this Court with the suggested ·" )' price mechanism in its Report. In fact, in our Order dated 23.11.07 we have directed that the Accounts of SPV to be au- dited by Auditor General for State of Orissa after they are pre- pared by the statutory auditors of OMCL. It would be open even to the statutory auditors of OMCl as well as CEC to inform this Court at the end of the Accountin,g Year whether annual profits before tax and interest stands depressed for any reason and at that stage we will certainly consider the price mechanism sug- gested by CEC in its Report placed before us. ;. "'t
9. For the above reasons and in the light of the Affidavits filed by Siil, OMCL and State of Orissa, accepting the Reha- bilitation Package, suggested in our Order 23.11.07, we hereby grant clearance – to the forest diversion proposal for diversion of660.749 ha of forest land to undertake bauxite mining on the G Niyamgiri Hills in Lanjigarh. The next step would be for MoEF to ;; " grant its approval in accordance with law.
10. I.A. No.2134 of 2007 is disposed of accordingly. R.P. lnteralocutory Application disposed of.