IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NO.248 OF 2015 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.562 OF 2009

Similar documents
Date: Feb 19, Reference to Model. As appearing in original Model Tender Document/ mine specific Tender Document. insertions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. I.A. NO.2134 of 2007 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.202 OF Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :INCOME TAX ACT W.P.(C) 5467/2010 Date of Decision : 2nd February, 2012.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION AHALYA A. SAMTANEY.APPELLANT. Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO.360 of 2016 (Arising from the SLP(Civil) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No. 7 OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014] Versus

2.3 Short recoveries of mining revenue

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through: Mr Ajay Verma, Adv. Through: Mr R.K. Saini, Adv with Mr Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Adv. AND LPA 709/2012.

Additional Pension on the basis of Contribution over and above Wage Limit of either Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6,500/- per Month.

Indian Employees [ Judgment - 68 ] NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Piramal Fund Management Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. DATED : 17 th MARCH, 2016.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO.4913 OF 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) NO.1257 OF 2010) versus

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.8408/2011. % C. RAJARAM, ADVOCATE & ANR...Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Khanna, Adv.

ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 5818/2013. versus THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE. With + W.P.(C) 7788/2013 & CM 16560/2013

$~R 66, 67 & 68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of Decision : 15 th May, 2012.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2017 VINOD VERMA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

Fertiliser Association Of India... vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2015

Jaipur Court Case IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER. 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2017] SHAMANNA AND ANOTHER...Appellants. Versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 969/2014

CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF 2004

ASN 1/18 WP-2632.doc. vs. 1. The Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) 11, having his office at Scindia House, Mumbai.

W.P.No.39548/2012 (T-IT)

MOOT PROBLEM. 5 TH GNLU MOOT ON SECURITIES & INVESTMENT LAW, 2019 Page 1 of 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos of 2018)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, WP(C) No.987/2010. Reserved on : 16th January, 2012.

Group 4 Securitas Guarding Ltd. vs The Regional Provident Fund... on 30 October, 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. Judgment reserved on: Judgment pronounced on:

Versus P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR This writ application has been filed for the following. reliefs:

Olympic Industries vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla... on 7 July, 2009

CWP No of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO OF 2015

SCRUTINY COMMENTS ON REVIEW AND UPDATION OF MINING PLAN(RMP), OF THIMMAPPANAGUDI IRON ORE MINE (ML.NO.2549) IN MURARIPURA VILLAGE, IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY WRIT PETITION NO.2468 OF 2008

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 9. + W.P.(C) 6422/2013 & CM No.14002/2013 (Stay) versus. With W.P.(C) 4558/2014.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO OF Versus. M/s Sesa Sterlite Ltd. & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 13 th DAY OF DECEMBER 2013 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

01 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.... Respondent Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No of 2018) VERSUS

5TH NLIU JURIS CORP NATIONAL CORPORATE LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2014 MOOT PROBLEM

D. Malleswara Rao vs Andhra Bank And Anr. on 22 August, 2005

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5522/2015. Versus

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No of 2014]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2016 VERSUS J U D G M E N T

Airfreight Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. on 4 August, 1999

$~23. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7131/2015 % Judgment dated 29 th July, versus

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).9310/2017 (Arising from Special Leave Petition(s)No.

2009 NTN 40) [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]

CONSULTATION PAPER: REGULATION OF EXCHANGES UNDER THE FINANCIAL MARKETS ACT 19 OF The FSB invites comments on all matters in this paper.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5566 OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO of 2006 Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 217 of 2002 Date of decision Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) Ludhiana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 2331/2011

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. OF State of Maharashtra and others

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision : 14 th August, W.P.(C) 7727/2015 and C.M.No /2015.

STATUS OF THE CASES OF PRE 2006 PENSIONERS IN VARIOUS COURTS : AS ON COMPILED BY M. L. KANAUJIA, IRSSE

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW. Original Application No. 06 of 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT Judgment delivered on W.P.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No OF Food Corporation of India.Appellant(s) VERSUS

THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2018

HIGH COURT, BOMBAY AND COMPANY SCHEME PETITION NO. 707 OF 2016 CONNECTED WITH COMPANY SUMMONS FOR DIRECTION NO. 533 OF And

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

-1- National Institute of Technology Teachers' Association, Saraikella Kharsawan Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents

WP NO. 507 of IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH AT CHANDIMANDIR. TA No.1139 of 2010 (arising out of C.W.P. No.8469 of 2004) Versus

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.

Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi. OA No.571/2017

Commissioner of Income Tax 24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 485 of 2018

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : FINANCE ACT, 1994 Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 4456/2012 & C.M.No.9237/2012( for stay)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2007 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS.

KARNATAKA ACT NO. 07 OF 2014 THE KARNATAKA PRIVATE AIDED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS EMPLOYEES (REGULATION OF PAY, PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS) ACT, 2014

VAT IMPLICATIONS ON REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS UNDER DELHI VAT ACT, 2004 BY

NETHERLANDS - ARBITRATION ACT DECEMBER 1986 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - BOOK IV: ARBITRATION TITLE ONE - ARBITRATION IN THE NETHERLANDS

In this petition short point is involved which is. with respect to the petitioner s right to get the benefit of

SALE AND INVESTOR SOLICITATION PROCEDURES

RANCHI CLUB LTD. IS STILL GOOD LAW [Published in 267 ITR (Jour.) p.40 (Part-5)]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Ex F.A 7/2011. Reserved on : Date of Decision :

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CUSAA 4/2013. Versus

MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION BHOPAL

IN WP No.22770/2016 BETWEEN:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 830 OF 2018 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.

August 17, 2018, New Delhi, INDIA

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 32 & 50 of 2018

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Independent Auditors Report 2. Consolidated Statements of Financial Position 3. Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss 4

Bar & Bench (

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF Versus. M/s Garg Sons International.

Transcription:

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NO.248 OF 2015 IN REPORTABLE WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.562 OF 2009 SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA AND ORS....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS....RESPONDENT(S) AND IN THE MATTER OF FEDERATION OF INDIAN MINERAL INDUSTRIES, SOUTHERN REGION [FIMI SOUTH)..APPLICANT(S) RANJAN GOGOI, J. JUDGMENT 1. This application (I.A. NO.248 of 2015) has been filed seeking the following direction from the Court: that iron-ore and manganese ore may be sold in Karnataka without recourse to e-auction conducted by the monitoring committee set up by this Hon'ble Court.

2 2. The response of the Central Empowered Committee ( CEC for short) was sought for by this Court. Pursuant thereto a report dated 28 th April, 2016 of the CEC has been submitted. In the said report the CEC has stated that it agrees with the statement of the applicant Federation of Indian Industries, Southern Region (FIMI South) that the basic objectives behind the sale of iron ore through the Monitoring Committee, in terms of the various orders passed by this Court from time to time, have been achieved and an alternative system needs to be put in place. The main suggestions of the CEC are as follows: (I) The mechanism must provide for the registration of both the buyers and sellers of iron-ore. The sellers of the ore, or the mining-ore lessees, must declare their statutory

3 approvals, modalities of the Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plan ('R & R Plan') and the estimated annual quantity of iron-ore produced by them. The buyers of the ore must declare their eligibility to purchase the ore and the industry connected with said purchase. (II)The sale of iron-ore by sellers to the buyers must be through an online platform. This e-platform must provide for all the relevant information concerning the iron-ore, such as the grade and moisture-content of the ore, minimum acceptable price by the seller and the provision to view the bids offered by registered buyers on a real-time basis so that there could be a price-match amongst prospective buyers.

4 (III)The mechanism must provide for online registration of the agreements and transactions executed between the registered buyers and sellers. (IV)The mechanism must provide a method for online deposit of applicable royalty, taxes, contribution to the Special Purpose Vehicle ('SPV') and other statutory duties; along with the subsequent online confirmation of such receipt. (V) The mechanism must consist of checks-and-balances which can be implemented across the e-platform, in order to ensure that the sale or purchase of iron-ore is not substantially below the market price. 3. In its counter/reply, the State of Karnataka has indicated its broad agreement with the suggestions of the CEC

5 and has incorporated certain additional recommendations including setting up of a Committee consisting of officials of the State Government to monitor the sale of iron-ore through the e-platform on the basis of long term agreements, a Model of which has also been submitted to the Court. 4. Other stake-holders like the writ petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 562/2009 Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and ors. have objected to any change from the existing pattern of sale of iron-ore through the Monitoring Committee whereas M/s Vedanta Ltd., an iron-ore lessee operating within the State of Karnataka has supported the stand taken by FIMI South in the present I.A. i.e. I.A. No.248 of 2015.

6 5. The Monitoring Committee through whom iron-ore is currently being sold by e-auction was constituted by the order of this Court dated 2 nd September, 2011 accepting the recommendations of the CEC dated 1 st September, 2011 to sell the total quantity of illegally extracted iron-ore which at that point of time was 25 MMT (approximately). 6. After the sale of the illegally mined iron-ore was complete, this Court by order dated 23 rd September, 2011 continued to entrust the duty and responsibility of sale of iron-ore to the Monitoring Committee. The above position was continued by this Court by its Order dated 18.4.2013 disposing of Writ Petition (C) No. 562/2009 and other connected cases. This is how the current status/situation with regard to sale of iron-ore by e-auction through the Court Appointed

7 Monitoring Committee continues. 7. In the order of this Court dated 18 th April, 2013 in Writ Petition (C) No. 562 of 2009 there is a vivid and graphic description of the enormity of the illegal mining and consequential damage to the ecology and environment that had led to the intervention of this Court and had prompted exercise of its jurisdiction in the present matter. Innovative measures and orders with the aid of Article 142 of the Constitution of India were felt necessary and consequently passed by the Court from time to time including the final order dated 18 th April, 2013 to comprehensively deal with the issue of illegal mining and depredation of nature and environment. It is in the above said context that the constitution of the Monitoring Committee and the continuance of its role in the matter of sale of

8 iron-ore by e-auction had been conceived and continued by this Court on the basis of the various orders passed from time to time. 8. It is in the aforesaid backdrop and having regard to the progress achieved in terms of what was contemplated and visualized by this Court in its final order dated 18 th April, 2013 that the tenability of the prayers made by the FIMI South will have to be considered. 9. What has been suggested in the report of the CEC dated 28 th April, 2016 and the in-principle approval thereof by the State of Karnataka along with the suggestions offered by the State would seem to indicate that in place of Monitoring Committee constituted by this Court another Monitoring Committee consisting of officials of the State Government (of

9 Karnataka) is proposed to over-see and supervise the sale of iron-ore through a hybrid system of long term contracts and sales through an e-platform including payment of taxes, royalty, etc. 10. While it is correct that any trading process has to be free and fair with liberty to the contracting parties to work out their own terms of sale and purchase, what cannot be ignored are the circumstances which had prompted the Court to conceive of and continue with a departure from the normal rule and instead to have a regulated, if not, highly controlled system of sale and purchase of iron-ore. Sale and purchase of iron-ore through the Court Appointed Monitoring Committee and by e-auction is not a singular but a connected facet of what was visualized by the Court in its bid to check, control and regulate mining and

10 also to restore nature and environment to its earlier pristine purity, so far as possible. 11. A cap on production and restoration of ecology and environment through a Comprehensive Environment Plans for the Mining Impact Zone ('CEPMIZ' for short) has been visualized by this Court in its order dated 18 th April, 2013. The connected aspects i.e. lifting of the cap or enhancement thereof and launching of the CEPMIZ scheme is under active consideration of this Court in other connected Interlocutory Applications (I.As.). When the said connected issues are pending it cannot be said that the situation has become ripe for the normal rule of sale and purchase to be restored so far as the sale of iron-ore in the State of Karnataka is concerned. The experience of the past has been horrific.

11 It cannot be allowed to come back. Sale and purchase of iron-ore had been conducted in the most outrageous manner and on wholly unacceptable terms resulting, inter alia, in huge leakage of government revenue. Such experiences and events cannot be allowed to resurface. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that time has not come to dispense with the existing policy of sale and purchase of iron-ore in the State of Karnataka through the Court Appointed Monitoring Committee by e-auction. The restoration of 'normalcy' in the process of sale and purchase of iron-ore must wait for the future and at least till such time that significant headways are made in the other connected aspects of the matter dealt with by the final order of this Court dated 18 th April, 2013 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.562 of 2009.

12 12. We, therefore, for the present reject the application (I.A. No.248) filed by FIMI South and consequently do not entertain the support to the prayers made therein by M/s Vedanta Ltd. For the same reason we do not also accept the suggestions of the CEC and the State of Karnataka as made in their respective reports/affidavits filed before the Court. 13. I.A. No.248 accordingly is disposed of in the above terms....,j. (RANJAN GOGOI)...,J. (PRAFULLA C. PANT) NEW DELHI AUGUST 28, 2017...,J. (NAVIN SINHA)