K. M Chinnappa in T. N Godavarman Thirumalpad v Union of India

I. A No. 670 of 2001, Writ petition @ No. 202/ 1995
Wild Life Protection Act 1972
Karnatakci Municipalities Act, 1964

The forests in the Western Chats of India are among 18 internationally recognized ‘Hotspots’ for bio-diversity con-servation in the world. It was noted that Kudremukh Na-tional Park in which mining activities were being carried out was declared as a National Park in terms of Sec. 35(1) of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972. The matter was re-ferred to the Central Empowered Committee constituted under Sec. 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The Committee after carefully considering all the views and suggestions on the exceedingly rich biodiversity of the area and investment made by the KIOCL, had recom-mended that the Company be asked to wind up its opera-tions within a period of five years or on the exhaustion of the oxidized weathered secondary ore. It was clarified that the period of five years would commence from July 25, 1999 (when the original lease period expired).

One member of the Committee, Shri Valmik Thapar gave a dissenting note. According to him all mining operations must stop immediately and the five-year period starting on July 25, 1999 must be treated as a ‘Restoration and Winding up period’ so that the company can restore all mined lands, plant indigenous species to protect the re-gion and return one of the World’s finest forests.

The petitioners prayed the Court to direct the Ministry of Environment and Forests to withdraw the illegal ‘tem-porary working permission’ issued by it and stop mining activities; to direct Kudermukh Iron Ore Company Lim-ited to stop polluting the Bhadra river with open cast min-ing; to take action against KIOCL for illegal encroachment in the forests and for destruction of forests in the Kudremukh National Park.

The Company contended that there was no violation of any law relating to forests and environment. Rule 24 (B) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, framed under the Mines and Minerals [Regulation and development] Act, 1957 authorized an extension of lease by another 25 years. Further, the draft notification under Sec. 35(1) of the Act was issued on September 2, 1987 and the final notifica-tion was published on June 16, 2001 under Sec. 35(4) of the Act, whereby the land under mining was specifically excluded. This in any event, (900 hectares of land) was outside the land covered by the Notification. All this make the land in question outside the purview of the opera-tions of all the Conservation Acts. Further the Company argued that the mining operations were continued with an existing legal right to get a renewal, which had already accrued. The Company had entered into contracts with foreign buyers and any stoppage would incur huge finan-cial implications and lead to impossibility of performance of contract.

The Court studied in detail, various judgments given by the Apex Court in mining operations over the years. After deliberating on the philosophy and past history of the Indian legal system, the Court seconded the recom-mendation of the Forest Advisory Committee and allowed mining till the end of 2005 by which time the weathered secondary ore available in the already broken area would be exhausted. This is however, subject to fulfillment of the recommendations made by the Committee on ecologi-cal and other aspects.