of A.P. & Ors. Vs. M/S. Obulapuram Mining Co. Pvt. Ltd & Ors.  INSC
46 (14 January 2010)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.269-270 OF
2010 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C)NOS.35169-35170 OF 2009) GOVERNMENT OF A.P.
& ORS. ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS I.A.No.1 in & SLP(C)............../2009
CC NOS.21329-21330 SLP(C)NO.1301/2010 SLP(C)NO.1379/2010 O R D E R
SLP(C)NOS............ CC NOS.21329-21330:
to file SLPs granted.
herein filed an application for getting himself impleaded in a Writ Petition
filed before the High Court and the same was rejected by the High Court. The
petitioner alleges that before the High Court a reference has been made to the
petitioner in paragraphs in 16,17,18 and 21 in the Writ Petition filed by the
respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the
respondent is prepared to delete all statements/averments made in the Writ
Petition pertaining to respondent-Mr.Tapal Ganesh, who is the appellant herein.
We record the same. These statements/averments are deemed to have been expunged
and while considering the Writ Petition by the High Court, the averments be
Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
NOS............... CC NOS.21271-21272:
APPEAL NOS.269-270/2010 @ SLP(C)Nos.35169-35170/2009:
of Andhra Pradesh has filed these appeals challenging the interim order passed
by the High Court of Judicature of A.P. at Hyderabad in different Writ
Petitions which were jointly heard by the High Court. The respondents herein
were granted three leases for mining and there were allegations that the
lease/licence holders had extended the mining activities beyond the boundaries
of the leasehold properties and that the Central Empowered Committee (for short
'C.E.C.') has filed a Report on 19.11.2009 and in the Report it was stated that
there were certain violations of boundaries of the lease-hold area. After the
report of the C.E.C., the State Government passed an order stopping the mining
operations on 25.11.20090. This order was challenged by the respondents in
these two appeals. By the impugned order, the High Court permitted these
respondents to go on with the mining subject to certain conditions. The
operative portion of the order is as follows :
The applicants are entitled to carry on mining operations within the designated
mining areas covered by the leased deeds;
applicants shall not carry on mining operations to the extent of the area of
about 40 meters towards the Karnataka boundary as pointed out by the Three
Member Committee in respect of Compartment Nos.698 and 699 of Bellary reserved
forest, pending further orders;
State Government shall be free to identify, demarcate and fix the boundaries of
the 3 leased areas after giving notices to the applicants;
such demarcation, if the State Government finds that the applicants have
occupied any area beyond the leased areas, it is entitled to invoke its power
under Section 21 of the Act, evict the applicants from such unauthorized areas
and exercise all the powers vested in it under the said provision, after
following the prescribed procedure;
the applicants shall furnish bank guarantee for the entire A stock(iron ore) of
1,95,000 tons, which is said to be lying in their stock yards, at the rate as
fixed by the competent authority as per Rules in force, before transporting the
iron ore from their stock yards."
while entertaining these appeals, granted stay of the impugned order on
parties have filed their counter affidavits/replies and we have heard both
sides. We are told that the main Writ Petitions are coming up before the High
Court on 18.01.2010.
counsel appearing for the State Government shall file its counter affidavit and
documents, if any, within a week and as this Court has passed the interim stay
of the order, the High Court shall consider the main matters and dispose of the
same as early as possible at least within a period of four weeks. In the
impugned judgment the High Court has made certain observations regarding the
C.E.C. Report. We make it clear that both the parties are allowed to raise
their contentions in respect of the report of the C.E.C.
pendency of any matter regarding this before this Court need not preclude the
High Court from considering the C.E.C. Report on merits. We also make it clear
that this Court had not specifically directed the C.E.C. to file its report as
regards these leases. The 4 High Court shall also hear the C.E.C., who is made
as one of the respondents in these proceedings. The facts stated by the C.E.C.
considered on merits by the High Court. One of the conditions in the impugned
order is that the State Government shall be free to identify, demarcate and fix
the boundaries of the leased areas after giving notices to the applicants. It
may be done by the State Government and the interim stay ordered by this Court
will continue, except as regards this condition, till the High Court passes a
final order. The parties would appear before the High Court on 18.01.2010.
These appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Special Leave Petition (C)Nos.1301/2010 and 1379/2010 are also disposed of. No
learned counsel for the respondent points out that they have got international
agreements, the High Court should endeavour to dispose of the matters as early
as possible, at least within a period of four weeks.
..................CJI (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)
...................J. (DEEPAK VERMA)
...................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)