2021 INSC 0009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOs.131281 and 131288 0F 2019
AND
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOs.179704 OF 2018
&  54364 0F 2019
AND
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.150858 0F 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.114 OF 2014
COMMON CAUSE                    … Petitioner (s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                  … R espondent (s)
O R D E R
I.A. Nos. 131281 and 131288 of 2019
1. These   applications   praying   respectively   for:   (i)
intervention in the main matter; and   (ii)   direction to the State to
permit   the   applicant   to   sell   off   the   undisposed   stock   and   for
issuance   of   transfer   permits   for   the   removal   of   ore   from   the
leasehold   areas,   are   taken   out   by   a   person   claiming   to   be   the
1

legal   heir   and   power   of   attorney   agent   of   the   deceased   mining
leaseholder.
2. Heard the  learned  counsel  for   the  applicant,  the  learned
counsel   for   the   State   of   Odisha,   the  learned   Amicus   Curiae  and
the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner.
3. The   claim   of   the   applicant   is   that   one   Mr.   Suresh
Chandra   Padhee   was   the   mining   leaseholder   in   respect   of
Banspani Iron Ore and Manganese Mines and the Gurubeda Iron
Ore Mines and that in terms of the amended Section 8A(6) of the
MMDR Act, 1957, the lease stood extended till 31.03.2020.   It is
further claimed by  the applicant that pursuant to the directions
issued by this Court on 02.08.2017 in Writ Petition (C) No.114 of
2014, a demand notice dated 02.09.2017 has been issued by the
Government   demanding   an   amount   of   Rs.1,20,22,711/­towards
compensation for the excess production.     This was in respect of
Banspani   Iron   Ore.     In   respect   of   Gurubeda   Iron   Ore   Mines,   a
2

separate demand notice demanding  a sum  of  Rs.27,71,73,835/­
was issued.  
4. According   to   the   applicant   he   has   already   deposited   a
sum   of   Rs.1,33,17,910/­   in   respect   of   Banspani   Mines   and   a
sum   of   Rs.1,40,00,000/­   in   respect   of   Gurubeda   Mines.
Petitioner wants permission to remove the ore already mined and
lying   at   site   so   that   the   compensation   amount   could   be   paid   to
the Government.
5. The   State   has   filed   a   reply   contending   inter­alia :   (i)   that
in   respect   of   Banspani   Mines,   the   last     lease   period   expired   on
28.11.1993;   (ii)   that   the   lease   is   non­operating   ever   since   2009
and was declared as lapsed by the proceeding dated 16.06.2015;
(iii)   that a revision application is pending against the said order;
(iv)   that   in   respect   of   Gurubeda   Mines,   the   last   lease   period
expired   on   04.07.2002;   and   (v)   that   the   mining   operation   was
3

discontinued   from   30.10.2009   for   want   of   statutory   clearances
and the revision filed against the same was also rejected.
6. After stating  the above objections, the State Government
has   also   indicated   its   no   objection   to   the   sale   of   the   already
raised   mineral.     Paragraph   6   of   the   reply   of   the   Government
reads as follows:
“It is further submitted that the State Government may have
no   objection   if   the   instant   case   is   considered   in   the   ratio   of
order   dated   15.01.2020   of   Hon’ble   Supreme   passed   in   I.A.
No.30915   of   2019   filed   by   M/s   Mideast   Integrated   Ltd.   in
W.P.(C)   No.114/2014   and   the   applicant   is   allowed   sell   of
raised   and   disposed   stack   lying   in   its   mining   leases   to   pay
the compensation  amount outstanding  against  it.    However,
no mining operation may be allowed for resumption.”
7. However,   it   is   submitted   by   Mr.   Prashant   Bhushan,
learned   counsel   for   the   writ   petitioner   that   while   there   could   be
no   objection   to   the   removal   and   sale   of   the   material   already
mined   and   kept,   there   is   every   likelihood   of   the   applicant
misusing   even   a   mere   permission   to   sell   the   existing   stock.
Therefore,  he suggested that the removal  of  the material and  its
4

sale   should   be   under   the   supervision   of   an   independent
Committee of persons, apart from the State Government officials.
8. Since   the   apprehension   is   genuine,   we   appoint   Hon’ble
Mr.   Justice   Bijoy   Krishna   Patel,   Chairperson,   Odisha   Human
Rights   Commission   and   Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   S.C.   Parija,   Former
Judge,   Odisha   High   Court   as   Members   of   the   Committee.
Subject to the supervision of the said Committee, adequately and
ably assisted by the concerned authorities of the State of Odisha,
the applicant is permitted to sell and remove the material already
mined.   The Committee shall ensure that no mining operation is
undertaken   under   the   cover   of   this   Order.     The   sale   proceeds
should go directly to the treasury of the State Government to be
adjusted   towards   compensation.     The   applications   are   disposed
of on the above terms. 
I.A. Nos    .179704 of 2018 and 54364 of 2019
9. These   applications   are   taken   out   by   a   leaseholder   of
Oraghat Iron and Manganese Ore Mines in Tehsil Bonai, District
5

Sundergarh,   Odisha   praying   respectively   for:   (i)   condonation   of
delay   in   depositing   the   compensation   amount   as   per   the
Judgement of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.114 of 2014 and
for permission to resume mining operations subject to getting all
required clearances; and   (ii)   to take on record certain additional
documents   such   as   the   letter   seeking   extension   of   mining   lease
etc.
10. According   to   the   applicant,   he   had   a   mining   lease
executed on 06.04.1998 in respect of an area of 25.847 hectares
and that as per the Judgment of this Court dated 02.08.2017, he
was   obliged   to   make   payment   of   the   demand   on   or   before
31.12.2017.     However,   the   applicant   could   not   make   payment
within the time stipulated on account of various factors.   Hence,
the   application   for   condonation   of   delay   and   for   permission   to
resume mining operations.
11. The State has filed a reply contending that the applicant
does not at all have the requisite clearances to operate the mines
6

and   that   the   mining   operation,   though   valid   for   a   period   of   20
years   from   06.04.1998   to   05.04.2018,   the   mining   operations
were   stopped   on   01.04.2013   for   want   of   statutory   clearances.
According to the State, the applicant is not eligible for extension
under Section 8A, as he does not possess the forest clearance.
12. It   is   admitted   by   the   State   that   the   petitioner   has   paid
Rs.9,68,08,288/­ including  interest of  Rs.1,43,08,386/­  towards
delay   in   payment   together   with   the   demand   amount   of
Rs.8,24,32,549/­ for violation of the Environment Protection Act,
1986 and Forest Conservation Act, 1980.   It is also admitted by
the   State   that  the   applicant   has   paid   the   compensation   amount
of   Rs.21,12,599/­   including   interest   of   Rs.3,51,264/­   towards
delay   in   payment   together   with   the   demand   amount   of
Rs.17,60,177/­ for violation of MP/CTO.
13. More importantly, it is stated in paragraph 6 of the reply
that   the   applicant   has   approved   mining   plan   valid   upto
31.03.2023,   but   the   environment   clearance   expired   on
7

03.04.2018.  The applicant has also not obtained forest clearance
in respect of DLC forest land.
14. From   the   objections   of   the   State,   it   appears   that   the
applicant   has   cleared   all   monetary   liabilities   and   that   what
stands   as   an   impediment   is   the   non­availability   of   statutory
clearances.     Therefore   these   applications   are   disposed   of
permitting   the   State   Government   to   process   the   application
subject to all types of statutory clearances being obtained.
I.A. No    .150858 of 2019
15. This is an application filed by the holder of a mining lease
in   respect   of   Bholbeda   Iron   Ore   Mines   over   an   area   of   62.322
hectares.     The   mining   lease   deed   was   executed   on   10.06.1983,
effective for a period of 20 years upto 09.06.2003.  The applicant
filed an application  for  first renewal  on 05.06.2002, but when  it
was pending,  MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 came into effect.
16. According   to   the   applicant,   they   were   alleged   to   have
mined   32,254   MT   of   Iron   ore   in   violation   of   EC   and   that   as   per
8

the   Judgment   of   this   Court   dated   02.08.2017,   the   same   should
be compensated under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act.
17. The   applicant   claims   that   as   per   Form   H­1   of   the
applicant company the stock lying at the mining lease area is as
follows:
(i)  Lumps:
Grades (% of FE content)  Closing stock at mine site (MT)
60% to below 62% 1812.000
62% to below 65% 8489.180
65% and above 18107.145
(ii) Fines
Grades (% of FE content)  Closing stock at mine site (MT)
55% to below 58% 5511.000
18. Therefore,   the   applicant   seeks   permission   to   sell   the
stock   of   minerals   lying   in   the   leasehold   area   and   to   deposit   the
sale proceeds directly with the State Government.
19. From   the   averments   contained   in   the   application,   it
appears that what is claimed by  the applicant  to  be lying  at the
mining   lease   area   is   less   than   what   is   alleged   by   the   State
Government to have been mined in violation of EC.  While it may
be permissible to allow the applicant to sell the stock lying at site
9

and to deposit the sale proceeds entirely with the Government, it
must   be   ensured   that   the   applicant   does   not   carry   out   any
mining activity under cover of this Order.
20. Therefore,   this   application   is   disposed   of   permitting   the
applicant   to   sell  and   remove   the   ore   already   mined   and   lying   at
site,   under   the   supervision   of   the   Committee   appointed
hereinabove.   The Committee shall be assisted by the concerned
authorities of the State and the sale proceeds shall go directly to
the treasury of the State Government to be adjusted towards the
amount due under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act.
……………………………..CJI
(S.A. BOBDE)
……………………………….J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
………………………………..J.
(V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN)
New Delhi
January 06, 2021
10