SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

The present Writ Petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation is being filed before this Honble Court in order to draw the attention of this Honble Court to the continuing illegal mining in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. The failure of the respective states to control the illegal mining has led to large scale destruction both of forest land as well as non-forest land and adversely affected the livelihood of local people especially the rural poor. The Union of India through both the Ministry of Environment and Forest and the Ministry of Mines has not exercised enough checks and balances to curtail the illegal mining in the two states. This process was initiated after the New Economic Policy which led to dereservation of mining sites meant for exclusive mining by the State and its agencies to private entities. The process of dereservation was done in an ad hoc and haphazard manner which led to large scale irregularities including loss of valuable forest land much against the advice of the Forest Department of the State. This transfer of areas reserved for exclusive reservation by the State not only meant loss of revenue but also uncontrolled, unregulated mining. Various modus operandi were adopted to do the mining, viz., mining beyond the areas leased for mining, illegal mining in forest land, areas where mining were taking place not corresponding to the areas approved under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, sub leasing of the mining lease areas through raising contract and illegal transportation of minerals and the consequent loss of revenue of the State. All these activities resulted in an

encroachment of 1114.8 Ha of forest lands in Karnataka for purposes of mining. This problem was recognized by the State of Karnataka when the issues of illegal mining was raised in the Legislative Assembly and the Justice U.L Bhat Commission of Enquiry was constituted under the Commission of Enquiries Act to enquire into various aspects of illegal mining and certain allegations raised against Government of Karnataka. However, the Justice U.L. Bhat Commission did not function and a Reference was made to the Lokayukta of Karnataka. The Lokayukta submitted a detailed report on the large scale mining related irregularities in the State of Karnataka and how through the active connivance of miners, officials and politicians, established laws and procedures

were given a go by to benefit a few mining companies at the cost of the ecology as well as revenue of the State. Further, the Report highlights how forest area to the extent over 2000 Sq Km were made available for mining by private entities despite specific objections by the Forest Department. The entire illegal mining operation had led to a culture of corruption and a mal administration which threatens the rule of law. Despite the submission of the Report of the Lokayukta no action seems to have been taken place and the situation in the ground remains the same with illegal mining continuing. In particular no action has been taken against the illegal mining along the interstate border between Karnataka (Bellary district) and Andhra Pradesh (Anantpur district) with consequences such as (i) illegal transportation of iron ore across the interstate boundary without payment of royalty to either state, (ii) weakening law enforcement, as law enforcement agencies work within strict constraints of jurisdiction and (iii) harassment of the Karnataka Forest Department officials by Obalapuram Mining Co., which has encroached into Karnataka from Andhra Pradesh by destroying the pillars demarcating the interstate border. With respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh, the blatant illegality is evident with respect to mining and encroachment of 10 Ha of unalloted forest land in Bellary Reserve Forest by M/s Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC). The Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment and Forests which did the site visit of the same were not able to locate the boundary demarcation of the site where mining was supposed to take place legally. In the absence of the boundary demarcation it was concluded, that it was not possible to ascertain as to whether the mining was within the leased area. The Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF), directed the state of Andhra Pradesh to stop mining in the area of 5 mining leases until a survey is done by the Survey of India and proper boundaries fixed including those of the unalloted 10 Ha of forest land as per the sketch of the Indian Bureau of Mines. However undue pressure was brought to bear upon the MOEF, Govt. of India to keep the letter containing the above direction in abeyance. Nevertheless, MOEF has continued to insist on the completion of the survey by the Survey of India. The interstate boundary between Karnataka (Bellary district) and Andhra Pradesh (Anantpur district) also needs to be surveyed by the Survey of India as the boundaries between some of the mines is also the interstate boundary. Thus, the illegal mining and encroachment in the Bellary

Reserve Forests continues in violation of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as well as the various orders, especially the order dated 12-12-1996, passed by the Honble Supreme Court in T. N Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India (WP No. 202 / 1995)

LIST OF DATES
1956

Industrial Policy Resolution, which provides for reservation of mining areas for exploitation by the State and its agencies. The reservation was done by means of 11 GOs issued over the period 1958 to 1983.

1960

Mineral Concession Rules under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 & Mineral Concession Rules,

Government of Karnataka reserved 42 Blocks of 26,781 sq. kms. 1966 Mysore Mineral Ltd. (MML) incorporated for optimal exploitation of industrial minerals and ornamental granites in State of Karnataka 1993 The National Mineral Policy 1993 liberalized the restrictions imposed by the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956. According to the new policy, mining of 13 minerals including iron ore was thrown open to private entities
15.3.2003

GOs No. CI 16 MMM 2003 and CI 33 MMM 1994 issued by the Government of Karnataka whereby an area of 11,620 Sq Km reserved for mining by the Government was dereserved for private mining an area of 11,620 sq. km. in the State out of the reserved areas and notified the surrender of 6832.48 ha of prime iron ore bearing lands.

April 2004

Report of the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur on the planning and management of scientific mining in Karnataka.
4.3.2006 Report of PCCF (Wildlife) submitted to the Minister of Forest

Ecology and Environment, Government of Karnataka a report of the surprise inspection in Bellary division 22-24 February, 2006 & the irregularities noted in the mining operations in Bellary Division.

3-9-2006

Demolition of Sugalamma Devi Temple, situated on the highest hillock Bellary Reserved Forest, Andhra Pradesh by blasting operations of M/S Obulapuram Mining company

22/24-7-06

Government Of Karnataka appoints Justice U.L. Bhat Commission of Enquiry to enquire into various aspects of illegal mining and certain allegations raised against Government of Karnataka.

12.3.2007

GO No. CI 164 MMM 2006 referring the matter to Lokayukta defining the scope of investigation from 1-1-2000 to 22-7-2006

27.7.2007

Lease of 25.98 Ha of land to M/S Obulapuram Mining Company vide AP GO. No. 4 APC 335 / 2007 BAN

29-8-2007

Letter from Conservator of Forest

to PCCF, Andhra Pradesh

complaining about the abusive language used by M/s. Obalapuram Mining Company (OMC) and how the company people used threats to prevent them from inspecting the reserve forest land along the Karnataka-Andhra Pradesh border, where M/s. OMC had illegally mined 28 acres of land in Karnataka after encroachment.
20.9.2007 Letter from PCCF to Principal Secretary, Forest Ecology

and

Environment, Government of Karnataka forwarding the

information of the letter of 29-8-2007 and further urging for the swift and efficient resolution of the border problem failing which, there is a possibility of serious breakdown of law and order.
9.9.2008 GO No. CI 164 MMM 2006 extending the scope of Honble Lokayukta

up to 9-9-2008
17.9.2008 Complaint made by Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI), New

Delhi to DG of Forests, MoEF, Government of India regarding violation of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 by DFO Kallol Biswas in connivance with OMC by encroaching 10 acres of Reserve Forest land.
22.1.2009

Site Inspection of mining leases located at Bellary Reserve Forest of Anantpur Forest Division, Andhra Pradesh by Regional office of MoEF. The report stated that forest area between the mining leases could not be shown by the local forest officials. Some of the mining areas do not have demarcation pillars.

28.1.2009

Letter by DCF (Central) MOEF to Special Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh communicating the report dated 22-1-2009.

17.3.2009

Letter of Sr. Asst. IG of Forests, MOEF, to Member Secretary, CEC regarding the inspection report of 22-1-2009.
20.3.2009

Letter of Member Secretary, CEC to DG of Forests Ministry

of Environment and Forests stating that the survey of mining areas be done by Survey of India and in the meantime no mining should be undertaken.
22.4.2009

Letter from Sr. Asst. IG of Forests, MoEF, to Principal Secretary (Forests), Andhra Pradesh to get the survey conducted by Survey of India and also conveying the suspension of the permission given under Forest

(Conservation) Act, 1980 to carry out mining operations.

28.4.2009

Letter of special Chief Secretary to Government, Environment, Forest, Science & Technology Department, Andhra Pradesh to Inspector

General of Forests, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India stating that all the lease boundaries are properly marked and

maintained, safety zones are clearly marked with barbed wire fencing and thus denying the existence of any unallotted reserve forest land.
1.5.2009

Letter from Sr. Asst. IG of Forests, MOEF, Government of India Principal Secretary (Forests), Govt. of Andhra Pradesh revoking

to the

suspension of approval under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in respect of the five mines until further orders.
1.5.2009

Honble Supreme Court recording in the matter of WP No. 201 / 2009, that the survey will be completed within six weeks. This submission is made by the Counsel appearing for the Ministry of Environment and Forest.

10.5.2009

Letter from National Committee for Protection of Natural Resources to Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of Karnataka on the issue of illegal mining .

13.5.2009

Letter from National Committee for Protection of Natural Resources to Secretary, MoEF, Government of India, requesting urgent actions against

illegal mining in Bellary (Karnataka) and effective implementation of Forest (Conservation) Act,1980 and other laws applicable in the border areas.
13.6.2009

Letter from the Secretary, Industries and Commerce, Department, Andhra Pradesh to the Director, Andhra Pradesh-Geo-Spatial Data Centre communicating that the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has not directed for the survey.

18.6.2009

Government of Karnataka withdraws the cases filed with reference to demolition of Sugalamma Devi Temple.

27.6.2009

Letter from Special Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh to the Inspector General of Forests, MoEF communicating the decision of the Andhra Pradesh Government that no survey is required by Survey of India.

8.7.2009

Letter from Sr. Asst. I.G of Forests to the Principal Secretary, (FEE), Government of Andhra Pradesh instructing that the MoEF, Government of India does not agree to the proposal of Government of Andhra Pradesh as proposed in the letter of 27-6-2009 and further insisting that the survey of the mining area should be done by 16-7-2009.

14.7.2009

Letter from NCPNR to the Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka urging urgent action.

14.7.2009

Press clipping reporting Lokayuktas reaction to the Action Taken Report (ATR) of the Government of Karnataka. ATR is silent on 39 raising contracts on mining leases. That according to the Lokayukta the ATR is Action to be taken report.

15.7.2009

Letter from Special Chief Secretary to Government, Environment Forest, Science and Technology Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh to IG of Forests, MOEF, Government of India firmly rejecting the survey by Survey of India and withdrawal of the statement made by the counsel, MOEF in the Supreme Court on completing the survey by six weeks.

24.7.2009

The MOEF changes it stand completely with respect to survey of mining areas by Survey of India. No action against illegal mining Hence this Writ Petition

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION] WRIT PETITION [CIVIL] No. OF 2009

[PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]

IN THE MATTER : SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

RESPONDENTS

With I.A. NO. OF 2009

An Application for Stay with Interim Relief

PAPER

BOOK

[ FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE ]

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION] WRIT PETITION [CIVIL] No. OF 2009

[PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION] WRIT PETITION [CIVIL] No. OF 2009

[PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]

IN THE MATTER : SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

RESPONDENTS

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Samaj Parivartan Samudaya

Through Shri S.R Hiremath Honorary Executive Director Ashadeep Jayanagar Cross Saptapur, Dharwad 580001

2. Dr Ravindranath Ramachandrao Kongovi S/o Dr. Ramchandra Rao Kongovi 1, Sarovar Nagar, IIIrd Cross Shri Raja Nele Dharwad 580008

3. P. Vishnu Kamath

S/o P. Venkatesh Kamath 315 SRINIKET APTS,

MSR College Road, Mathikere, Bangalore Karnataka-560054 Versus 1. State of Karnataka Through the Chief Secretary State Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001 2. State of Andhra Pradesh Through the Chief Secretary State Secretariat, Hyderabad 3. Ministry Of Environment And Forests Through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests CGO Complex, Lodi Road New Delhi 4. Ministry of Mines Through the Secretary, Ministry of Mines New Delhi 5. Ministry of Railways, Through the Secretary,

Ministry of Railways Rail Bhavan New Delhi PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Respondents

To The Honble the Chief Justice of India and His Honble Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.

The Humble Petition of the Petitioner above named MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed to draw the attention of this Honble Court to the large scale illegal mining in the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh which not only raises issues of serious concerns about the ecology and environment but also on issues concerning transparency and accountability in the functioning of the government. 2. 2.1 ARRAY OF PARTIES: That the Petitioner No.1 is Samaj Parivartan Samudaya (SPS for short) which is a registered Society. The Petitioner NGO has been at the forefront of various environmental movements in the Country having received from the Prime

Minister of India, the Indira Gandhi Paryavaran Puraskar (IGPP) of Ministry of Environment and Forest in 1992. SPS has also taken up a number of issues before different Courts such as with respect to the pollution of Tungabhadra river (WP No:19483 of 1985) in the High Court of Karnataka. The Member of the Society, Shri S. R. Hiremath is the recipient of the Government of Karnataka

Rajyotsava award for environment and rural development in 1987 . He has also served on the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board(KSPCB) as a Board

Member, on the National committee on Voluntary Organizations of CAPART and a member of the State level Steering Committee of Government of Karnataka on Western Ghats Forestry Project. He was also the Petitioner for the Bastar (Malik Makbuja) forestry issue PIL (IA No:60 of 1997 in WP No:202 of 1995). 2.2 The Petitioner No. 2 is Dr Ravindranath Ramchandrarao Kongovi is a scientist with a Doctorate Degree in Chemistry from Indian Institute of Technology,

Powai, Mumbai. He is concerned with the environmental protection issues and has helped furthering the cause of the environmental movement by providing analysis of the situations in Pollution, Forest and Mining issues connected with Karnataka State. He has actively participated in the huge efforts of Petitioner No.1 in the effective containment of pollution caused by the Harihar Polyfibre and Grasim Industries into the Tungabhadra River, a main line river of Karnataka, brought about by a combination of peoples actions, representation to the government and Public Interest Litigation, WP 19483 of 1985 before the Karnataka High Court. He is also associated with Protection of Consumer

Rights through the local groups at Dharwad and in the issue of Protection of people from the injustices relating to Drugs through Drug Action Forum, Dharwad. He has been an author /Co-author of Reports on Case Study of

Tungabhadra Pollution sponsored by National Law School of India University, Bangalore, Book on Heamatinics and other scientific papers. 2.3 That the Petitioner No 3 is P Vishnu Kamath who teaches chemistry at the University of Bangalore. He has been actively involved with the environmental movement since the last two decades and has been active in the Save the Western Ghats Movement. He has also been involved in the collection of baseline data on health around the Kaiga Nuclear Plant and was part of the group which led a movement for restoration of common land in Karnataka and initiate a process of joint management by the people. He has brought many issues before the Courts covering a range of issues of environmental and social importance.

3.

That the Respondent No. 1 is the State of Karnataka and the Respondent No 2 is the State of Andhra Pradesh where the illegal mining is taking place. The respondent No 3 is the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests which is responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is implemented. The Respondent No. 4 is the Ministry of Mines which is the nodal ministry so far as Mining is concerned. While respondent No. 5 is the Ministry of Railways which has been included as a Respondent since significant transportation of illegally mined ores take place through the Railways

4 . FACTS IN BRIEF
i.

That the subject matter of the present petition relates to the issue of illegal mining in Forest areas as well as non forest areas in the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. This illegal mining has been possible due to blatant disregard for the rule of law as well as connivance of miners, officials and politicians. This has resulted in loss of valuable lands, both forest as well as agricultural land. There has been loss of revenue for the States in view of this continuing illegal mining and the illegal transportation of the same. Further, the illegal mining has also led to an atmosphere of corruption and maladministration which threatens to disrupt the ethical fabric of the society. The petitioners are approaching this Honble Court since Governments of both the States including the Central Government have failed to take remedial measures to curb this illegal mining.

ii.

Specifically, the Petitioners would like to highlight the following issues :

a)

Various specific instances of mining related illegalities and irregularities viz. Mining in Forest land in violation of various Forest Acts including the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and in violation of the orders of the Honble Supreme Court in WP No. 202/1995 especially the order dated 12-12-1996, Mining in patta lands, Mining beyond the Leased area,

trespassing into the forest areas for mining, Illegal dumping and mining contrary to the parameters laid down by the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), illegal Construction of roads in forest areas.

b)

Various different modus operandi to continue to do illegal mining which included Raising Contract. The term Raising Contract is not found in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or in the mining regulation viz. M & M (D & R) Act, Mineral Concession Rules and the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994.

c)

The illegal mining in Bellary Reserve Forest, Andhra Pradesh comprising of an area of 10 Ha which have been allowed to be encroached for purposes of mining in violation of the orders of this Honble Court in T. N Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India (W.P No. 202 of 1995) dated 12-12-1996 as well as the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. This has been due the fact that no clear demarcation of the mining lease areas exists. In the process of encroachment and the resultant illegal mining, there has been destruction of centuries old Sugalamma Devi temple as well as the GTS station. Despite, recording the violation no action has taken place against the violators. On the contrary, the officials who were trying to enforce the law were harassed by the mining companies therefore showing a complete breakdown of law and order in the State. The letter of the Conservator of Forests (Bellary) dated 7-92006 is annexed and marked as Annexure P-1.

iii.

That the Government of Karnataka, recognized the problem of illegal mining and made reference to the Lokayukta of Karnataka under Section 7 (2-A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. One of the specific issues for investigation was the large scale illegal mining activity in forest areas and the illegal transportation of illegally mined ores from forest areas. A copy of the Report (Part-1) of the Lokayukta of the Karnataka dated 18-12-2008 is hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-2 .

iv.

That the Report of the Karnataka Lokayukta submitted on 18-12-2008 pursuant to the Reference made by the Government of Karnataka refers to various

mining related irregularities had been noticed in the Bellary, Hospet and Sandur region of the State such as: (a) Mining beyond the Leased area; (b) Trespassing into the forest areas for mining; (c) Illegal dumping and mining contrary to the parameters laid down by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Lokayukata of Karnataka in order to investigate the issue sought the services of officer of different departments. Of particular significance was the report of Dr U. V Singh, Conservator of Forest (Annexure P3). The Report of Dr U.V Singh, Conservator of Forests which is enclosed as annexure to the Lokayukta Report mentions different types of encroachments and the same has been mentioned in the report of the Lokayukta. The main findings are:
a. Encroachment due to shifting of location of the notified lease area: In

Bellary, Hospet and Sandur (BHS) region the majority of encroachments have taken place due to shifting of the notified leased area to a different convenient location by the lessees.
b. Encroachments due to different lease sketch under two different

Acts. It has been observed during the survey and on examination of records that the lease drawings (Sketches) notified under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 are different that the lease sketches notified under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The lessees have not adhered to these sketches. Petitioners submit that as result of this areas much in excess of those approved under the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 are being mined. Further, there is every possibility that areas of much lesser tree density was shown while seeking approval from the Central Government under the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. This is leading to destruction of forests in the States and also large scale diversion of forest land for non forest purpose. It is further pertinent to point out that the mining in forest areas as well as non

forest areas which take place without approved plans and sketches also have larger negative consequences since no mitigation plan is in place and neither are there any Environment Management Plans or Mine Closure Plan. Further, in view of recent decision of the Honble Supreme Court with respect to payment of Net Present Value (NPV), by understating the total forest area involved, the miners are able to evade payment of NPV and depositing the same to CAMPA.
c. Extraction of Iron Ore in the adjoining areas and refilling of the pits

by encroaching on Forest land It was observed that some of the lessees have encroached the adjoining forest areas/ government land and removed iron ore. After removing the large quantities of iron ore from such encroached areas, the lessees have refilled the pits and in some cases even planting has been done over the refilled areas. d. Encroachment by Extending the lease boundaries and extraction of Iron ore involving in many instances Forest Land In many situations, the ore deposit is located at the periphery of notified lease boundaries and also on adjoining lands. The lessees have extracted the iron ores by encroaching such adjoining areas which are forest/ government land beyond the lease boundary. Such encroachments are found common in the Bellary, Hospet and Sandur region. e. Violation of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the orders of the Honble Supreme Court in W.P 202 of 1995 through illegal construction of roads. The Report states that the lessees have formed Kacchha Roads from PWD/ZP roads to their mines without obtaining prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 or Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The roads so formed have damaged the forest to a large extent. The report categorically

states that the formation of roads without prior approval is violation of the order dated 12-12-1996 in W.P 202 of 1995.
f. Lease sketches notify more areas than the extent notified under the

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The sketches are prepared for more notified areas against the less notified areas.
g. Encroachments due to dumping of waste material.

The report states

that the lessees have taken it for granted that it is their right to dump the waste outside the leased area.
h. Wrong boundary demarcation and encroachment by lessees in the

adjoining leased areas. During survey it was observed that some of the lessees have encroached the adjoining mining lease. There are cases wherein the sketches of the two leases are overlapping at certain points.
i.

Other specific instances of violations of the order of the Honble

Supreme Court dated 12-12-1996 in WP No. 202/1995 In the report of Dr. U.V. Singh on Report on illegal mining activities in Bellary, Hospet and Sandur region [pages 68 A to K] is given an account of how mining leases were granted in forest areas in violation of the orders of the Honble Supreme Court dated 12-12-1996 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad Vs Union of India in WP 202/1995. On pages 61-62 of the report are given 16 illustrative cases in Sandur Taluk where mining leases were given in forest areas without taking approval from under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. These leases have been granted by the Mines Department on the basis of No Objection Certificate issued by the officials of the Forest Department. Even the Revenue Department though fully aware of the orders of the Honble Supreme Court, has recommended the Mines Department to issue the mining licenses. There is no provision under the Karnataka Forest Act to issue such NOCs. There is no Government Order or any other directions to the Forest Department to issue such NOCs and the same are illegal and unlawful.

j.

Encroachment of forest areas by the mine lease holders Details of 99

instances of encroachments to the tune of 1114.8 Ha are listed in pages 68 A-K of Report of Dr U.V Singh. The Government of Karnataka has filed Forest Offence Cases (FOC) against 36 violators. 7 cases had been filed earlier. No cases have been filed against 17 major violators. The Government of Karnataka has not submitted the names involved in any of these cases. There is reasonable suspicion that prominent and powerful violators with political influence have been let off and symbolic action has been taken against a few. The copy of the reports of Dr. U.V. Singh, Conservator of Forests is filed and annexed and marked as Annexure P-3.

v.

The peculiar issue of Raising Contract and subleasing is hereby explained by the Petitioners. (a) That the Report of Dr U.V Singh (at page 55-56) provides list of 37 cases of raising contracts. These are clear violations of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. No action has been taken for cancellation of the raising contract. (b) That the Lokayukta Report refers to the issue of Raising Contract. During the survey and investigation by the Lokayukta it was revealed that many of the lessees have given their leases on contract popularly known in the field of mining as Raising Contract. The term Raising Contract is not found in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or in the mining regulation viz. M & M (D & R) Act, Mineral Concession Rules and the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1994. In this system, the raising contractor carries out all the mining operations. It is also observed that some of the lessees have transferred their leases to some other persons/ agencies on annual basis and sometimes for periods more than one year. This type of irregular transfer of mining is contrary to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and the relevant Rules and which also

lead to other irregularities like excess loading, transportation of minerals without permits and sale of unaccounted iron ore, sale of bul permits issued by the Mines Department and Way permits in Form No. 31 issued by the Forest Department to other parties, which documents are used for illegal transportation of Iron ore from Patta Lands. All the illegal activities are carried out in the name of the original lessees. In reality, none of the Raising Contract agreements have been entered into with the prior sanction of the Government and in many cases no document is forthcoming to show the terms of agreement between the original lessee and the Raising Contractor. (c) That the Report of the Lokayukta mentions in detail about the issue of ill effects of Raising Contracts and the system of Absentee lessee that has developed. The Report states the following: It has to be mentioned that at the time of the mining lease, the lessee provides information that he has all the expertise in the mining and has sufficient infrastructure and funds to carry out mining operations and it is only on considering such qualifications of the Applicant for grant of lease, the mining leases are granted by the Government. It is further noticed that the Government has given lease for extraction of minerals on payment of royalty which is very minimum and far below the value of the mineral in the open market. As a matter of fact, the State has not executed a lease bearing in mind the commercial or profit motive of the lessees. In such circumstances, giving further lease by the original lessee for extraction of minerals which is a public property will be against the object and term of the lease. By this process, the original lessee even without making any investment and putting any effort makes a fortune. It also creates unhealthy competition in the mining trade leading to people applying for mining lease without making proper prospecting study as to the existence of minerals, which in turn leads to lessees or his agents indulging in mining activities outside the leased areas. In the districts of Bellary and Chitradurga and Tumkur, the lessees have entered into commercial

transactions with middlemen who also do not have any experience in mining, thus leading to unscientific mining. This arrangement actually makes the original lessee an absentee lessee.
(d)

The manifestation of Raising Contract is also visible with respect to The Lokayukta Report states that the

the transportation of ores.

Mines/Forest Department are issuing permits in the name of the lessees or his agents for transportation. But in reality, these permits are being used by the Raising Contractors and other persons to transport ores from areas totally unconnected with the original lessees. According to the report the Department officials have closed their eyes and are ignoring totally the illegal activities. Such system from outside looks as if the lessee himself is doing the mining operation but the facts are otherwise. This is one of the serious concerns which have to be stopped forthwith. The report of the Lokayukta mentions of a list of lessees who have transferred their mining lease in favour of others who are either raising contractors or Sub Lessees. (e) The report concludes that the arrangement under Raising

Contract is literally a transfer of lease without the permission of the Government is opposed to law, in all such cases, the original leases should be terminated.
vi.

As described in detail Chapter IX of the report of Dr. U.V.Singh filed as Annexure P-3, several serious irregularities are taking place in the transportation of ore, such as: Transportation using fake Way Permits (Form 31) Transportation of iron ore on risk Transportation by use of Photostat copies of Mineral Dispatch Permit (MDP or Bulk Permits) Transportation without use of Trip Sheet Transportation by way of overloading

Transport of iron ore by sea or rail

(a)

There are many serious irregularities in the transportation of iron ore and other minerals from mine head to various destinations by using the services of trucks and railway, the vehicle is supposed to have a way permit (Form No 31) issued by the Forest Department in bulk, the Mineral Dispatch Permit (MDP or Bulk Permit) and trip issued by the Mines Department. The irregularities include transportation using fake Way Permits, transportation by using Photostat copy of MDP or bulk permit, transportation without use of the trip sheet, transportation by way of over loading. That the transport of iron ore has taken place by railways also to the tune of 20% of the total of the iron ore without authorized way permit issued by the competent authority.

(b)

The Department of Mines and Geology issues bulk permits under section 4(a) of the MMDR Act valid for 30 days by inspection of the material dumped in the stock yard. These permits are photocopied and used repeatedly with the connivance of the local officials. On all these materials no royalty is paid.

(c)

Trip sheets are issued with a one-week validity for a load of 10 MT per trip. Each lorry is however overloaded to at least up to 20 mT and no royalty is paid on the overloading. Further with a one week validity, enables more than one trip to be completed on a single trip sheet. Also once the loading is done there are no check posts up to the ports in Mangalore and Goa. All the field staff are corrupt and no checking is done.

(d)

Regarding transport of ore mined in the forest area, Way Permit has to be issued by the Forest Department for the transport of ore up to the stock yard in the form 31. Blank Form 31 forms are issued in bulk with the signature and stamp of the forest officials and the transporters are free to transport any amount of ore from forest areas. All most all of this ore is illegally mined and no royalty is paid on any of these.

(vii)

The reservation of mineral bearing areas in Karnataka was done in accordance with the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1956. The Government of Karnataka issued 11 Govt. orders from 1958-1983 and kept an extent of 43,630 sqKm. under reservation. The National Mineral Policy 1993 liberalized the restrictions imposed by the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956. According to the new policy, mining of 13 minerals including iron ore was thrown open to public. That the following sequence of events show how the dereservation was done which lead to forest land being included in the same :
(a)

The Director of Mines and Geology submitted a report to the Government of Karnataka on 21/28-07-1998 wherein, it was proposed to de-reserve 9802.83 sq Km and retain an area of 1391.58 sq Km. under reservation. In view of certain clarifications sought by the state government, a revised proposal was submitted on 29-11-2000. A meeting was held by the Government of India with the Government of Karnataka which also included Indian Bureau of Mines on 30-11-2000. It was decided by the Minister for Mines and Geology to change the category of six blocks namely 13, 14, 15,17,16 and 18A for iron titaniferrous iron and china clay in Bellary and Hassan District from the reservation list to the de-reservation list. The Minister for Mines and Geology had in his instructions for de-reservation of reserved blocks of 13, 14, 15, and 17 by holding that there are no forest on the leased areas. However, this was suppression of factual information as

mentioned in the report of Shri. Gaikwad submitted to the Lokayukta. (b) The aspect of illegality and arbitrariness arises from the fact that although the Minister had asked for de-reservation of blocks no. 13,14,15,17,16 and 18 only, the Director Mines and Geology added Block 5 from reserved category to de-reserved category for which there was neither any instructions from the Minister nor any justification was given by the Director of Mines and Geology.

(c)

At the instructions of the Minister of Mines and Geology Shri V. Muniyappa the lists were sent by the Director of Mines and Geology to the Secretary, Commerce and Industry. It also included a draft

Cabinet Note with stated that the de-reservation is mostly in respect of non- forest areas and not so forest thick area excluding western Ghats. The draft cabinet note clearly stated that the de-reservation is proposed mostly in respect of non-forest areas and forest areas which have lost vegetative cover. The Chief Secretary referred the file to the Forest, Ecology and Environment department (FEE) wherein the department stated that forest areas may not be included in proposal for de-reservation. This was endorsed by the Minister of the Department of Forest, Ecology Environment department who noted that In view of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 which prohibits non-forest activity and recent observation of the Honble Supreme Court, mining in forestland is Precluded. Thus the FEE department gave a categorical opinion to exclude forestland from de-reservation.
(d)

After receiving the comments of FEE, the Secretary, Commerce and Industries revised the Draft Cabinet note and incorporated the observation of FEE and placed before the cabinet with following note: the forest area proposed for de-reservation along with non-forest area is that which is bereft of forest cover.

(e)

The Secretary, Commerce and Industries, after receiving the opinion of the Forest, Ecology and Environment should have taken into account and accordingly excluded the blocks coming under forest area, instead he placed the same blocks and sought cabinet approval. This resulted in the following blocks coming under forest area being de-reserved against the opinion of the Forest, Ecology and Environment. i) Block no. 5 for manganese ore in the forests of kukwadi and Ubrani forests of Chikmagalur district over an extent of 196.35sq. Km.

ii) ) Block No. 8 for Titaniferous iron ore which partly include reserve forest and partly minor forest, over an extent of 115.75 Sq. Km. iii) Block No. 9 for Titaniferous iron ore in Shimoga district over an extent of 325.77 Sq. Km. which includes Rangaiahnagiri State forest, Kulwadi Ubrani State forest and Hadikere East State forest. iv) Block No. 13,14,15and 17 for iron ore in Bellary district over an extent of 188.47 Sq. Km. which includes Ramgad Reserve Forest, Gunda Reserved Forest, Hospet Reserved, Donimalai Reserved Forest and Kumaraswamy Reserved Forest. v) Block No. 18C for Fire Clay over an extent of 203 Sq. Km. in Bangalore and Kolar District which includes Gollahalli State Forest and Nandagudi State Forest.
vi)

Block No.22 for the mineral magnesite, was reserved over an extent of 808.67 sq. Km. in Mysore District. This block includes Chikkanahalli Reserve Forest and Bolegowdanakatte Tiger preserve reserve Forest.

vii) Block No. 24 for Feldspar in Hassan and Mandya District over an extent of 203.04 Sq. Km. which includes Kolal Bore State Forest. viii) Block No. 25 for vermiculite in Hassan district over an extent of 203.25 sq. Km. which includes Gaudanagere State Forest. ix) Block No. 27 was reserved for the mineral pyrite over an extent in 125.35 sq. Km. in Chitradurga District. This block includes Jogimatti reserve Forest in the reservation area.

x) Block No. 29 for limestone in Chitradurga district over an extent of 300.45 Sq. Km. includes Lakkihalli State Forest and Kudurekanive Kaval Forest. (f) While preparing the Draft Cabinet Note the Director, Mines and Geology stated that the de-reservation is mostly in respect of nonforest areas and not so thick forest area. This was reiterated in the Draft Cabinet Note proposed by Secretary, Commerce and Industries the forest area proposed for de-reservation along with non-forest area is that which is bereft of any forest cover.
(g)

But the fact is different from what is stated by the above 2 officers in Draft Cabinet Note. Some of the blocks especially block No. 13 and 17 proposed for de-reserve, have thick vegetative cover. It is pertinent to quote the remarks of Chief Conservator of Forests, Bellary to Conservator of Forests, Bellary over the areas covered under these blocks (vide letter No. M2-MNG-NM/96-97 dated 5-11-1998) in the case of Nadeem Minerals, Donomalai) Sandur forests of Bellary District have already got 62 MLS covering an area. Recent floristic study by M/s Foundation for Revitalization of Local Health Traditions. (FRLHT) reveal that there are 234 species of plants belonging to 60 different families in the area. Out of this, 43 species have proven medicinal properties. This vegetation density is 0.4.

(h)

On the Draft Cabinet Note based on the remarks of Director of Mines and Geology that the de-reservation is proposed in not so thick forest area. The secretary went a step further and added that .. the area proposed for de-reservation along is that which is bereft of any forest cover. This point was observed by the Chief Secretary and referred the file to Forest, Ecology and Environment with a request to peruse the Draft Cabinet Note and offer its remarks. The forest, Ecology and Environment categorically offered its general opinion to exclude forest areas from de-reservation.

(i)

Even

after

the

observation/remarks

of

Forest,

Ecology

and

Environment Department, the forest blocks in Draft Cabinet Note were changed. The Draft Cabinet Note just included the remarks of the Forest, Ecology and Environment as it is and placed before the Cabinet and got the approval and finally notification was issued. Therefore, de-reserving of 13 blocks over an extent of 2670.50 Sq. Km. in forest area took place. Out of these 6 blocks over 1112.88 Sq. Km. extents are in reserve and the remaining 7 blocks are in state Forests. These facts were stated in the Chapter 4 Observation and Finding of the report of Gaikwad and his team titled Irregularities In Dereservation Of Mining Areas For Grant To The General Public Which Were Reserved For State ExploitationAn Evaluation. The copy of the and the reports of Gaikwad and his team are filed and annexed as Annexure P-4(Colly). (viii) There has been illegal mining going on along the border of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka as reported in detail in Annexure P2 [at pages 100-101] and Annexure P 3[at pages 122-127]. Since this involves the integrity of the Inter state border and illegal transportation of the ore it is of outmost importance that the survey of India be directed to survey the area and also the demarcation of the mines whose boundaries coincide with the interstate boundaries.
(a)

There exists 10 ha of land forming part of the Bellary Reserve

Forest in Andhra Pradesh, this forms a patch of Reserve forest land which is surrounded by three mining leases viz. M/s Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC for short), Bellary Iron Ore Pvt Ltd (BIOP for short and M/s Y. Mahabaleshwar and sons, Bellary. This patch of 10 ha, is an unalloted forest land as clearly acknowledged in the report of Indian Bureau of Mines and reported in Para 42 of the order dated 15-12-2008 of the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No 1540 of 2008 and W.P No 645 of 2008, which reads as follows:

 It is pertinent to note here that the Indian Bureau of Mines (for brevity the IBM) which is a central organization, had conducted an inspection and submitted its report. Some of the excerpts of the report as under: During the site inspection representatives of both M/s Obulapuram Mining Company and M/s Obalapuram Mining Company and M/s Bellary Iron Ore (P) Ltd have informed that there is a piece of no mans land upto an extent of about 10 acres in between the leaseholds of an unsigned combined lease sketch depicting the no mans land alongwith the neighbouring lease areas of M/s Obulapuram mining company, M/s Bellary Iron Ore (P) Ltd and M/s Y.M and Sons (Refer to Plate) was obtained. It shows part of the common boundary land from pillar No 1 to 6 to 5 does not actually conform to the so called common boundary line between M/S Obalapuram Mining Company and M/s Bellary Iron Ore (P) Ltd leasehold. However, this needs to be checked and demarcated on the ground by a through survey through the competent authority using high precision survey instruments in order to fix up the actual common boundary between the leaseholds of M/s Obulapuram Mining Company and M/s Bellary Iron Ore (P) Ltd. A copy of the sketch showing the location of the 10 acre Reserve Forest Land is enclosed as Annexure P-5.
(b)

That prior to this, the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI

for short) had written to the Director General of Forests, Government of India bringing to his knowledge about the case wherein the Divisional Forest Officer, Ananthpur (Andhra Pradesh) in connivance with M/s Obulapuram Mining Company (P) Ltd had encroached on a Reserve forest land measuring 10 acres and subsequently encroached on mine lease areas of other mines. Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-6 is a copy of the letter dated 17-9-2008 written by FIMI to the DG Forests, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India.

(c)

That based on the letter of FIMI to DG Forest, the Regional Office

of the Ministry of Environment and Forests sent a letter to the Special Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh requesting that a factual report of the matter be made available at the earliest on top priority. A copy of the letter dated 3-11-2008 from the Regional Office of MoEF to the Special Chief Secretary is hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-7.
(d)

That the Government of Andhra Pradesh in response to the letter

sent by the Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment and Forests did not address the main issue of 10 acres of forest land being encroached by OMC in connivance with DFO, Ananthpur and diverted the issue by showing that Bellary Iron Ore Pvt Ltd (BIOP) had encroached into

Obulapuram Village to the extent of 2.7 hectres. Further, the Andhra Pradesh Government has diverted the main issue of encroachment of 10 acres of Reserve Forest land and did not reply to the key queries raised by the MoEF through its letter dated 3-11-2008. Instead of making the focus on the 10 acre Reserve Forest land, the Andhra Pradesh Government sought to divert the focus through constituting a High Level Committee headed by Chief Conservator of Forests, Ananthpur which in turn focused its attention to the alleged encroachment of 2.7 hectres of land by BIOP and keeping silent on the 10 acres issues by not dealing with the other leases in the area and this is evident through the sketch of the lease area which is limited to only one lease (i.e BIOP) and not to the combined stretch of three lease holder and the 10 acre Reserve Forest land A copy of the letter of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the Special Chief Secretary which is marked to the Regional Office of MoEF dated 1311-2008 is hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-8. (e) That pursuant to the letter of DG Forests, to Regional Office of

MoEF, Bangalore a site inspection was conducted on 23-1-2009 by the Regional Office, MoEF. As part of the inspection, five mining leases in the same area (i.e in Bellary Reserve Forest) were inspected. The relevant part of the Inspection Report reads as follows:

During the Inspection it was observed that two mines were having boundary pillars. It was informed that these two mines were of (i) Anantpur Mining Company having 6.5 Ha and (ii) M/S Oblapuram Mining Company having 39.65 ha. On the adjoining areas, proper demarcation pillars were not found. The forest area stated to be exiting between the mining leases in the complaint could not be shown by the local forest officials. This will be possible only after proper demarcation of the boundaries of the mining lease areas. The GTS station was also not shown. In the absence of demarcation pillar it is not possible to ascertain whether the mining activity was going on within the allotted area or not. Chief Conservator of Forests, Anantpur Circle and the Divisional Forest Officer, Anantpur were asked to ensure the demarcation of the boundary of all the mining leases immediately. In this regard letters were also sent to the State Government to demarcate the area on the ground and submit a combined sketch map duly authenticated of all the mines showing the mining area and un-allotted forest area . Only after the demarcation is done on the ground by the State Government, it will be possible to know the exact position regarding mining activity in the unallotted area (in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act,1980[ Emphasis supplied].
(f)

The MoEF, Southern Regional Office, Bangalore wrote to the

Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 28-1-2009, wherein it was emphasized that the Government of Andhra Pradesh should demarcate the boundary of all the five mining leases in Bellary Reserve Forest, Kalyandurg Range, Anantpurt Forest Division on the ground immediately and it was further requested to send combined sketch map duly authenticated by all the above mines showing the respective lease area and the (Reserve) forest area (10 acres). It was emphasized that the matter may be treated as most urgent. A copy of the letter dated 28.01.2009 is filed and annexed and marked as Annexure P-9.

(g)

That the Site inspection Report was sent to the Director General of

Forests, MoEF by the Regional office of the MoEF dated 30-1-2009. The relevant part of the letter reads as follows: ..inspecting officers could not ascertain whether mining operation was restricted to the approved leased forest area or not. Therefore the State Government of Andhra Pradesh have been asked to demarcate lease boundaries of the all the mines properly on the ground and also to prepare combined sketch map of all the mines and submit the same to this office. Meanwhile State Government have been informed to ensure no illegal mining takes place in the un-allotted forest area and submit action taken report on illegal mining activity, if any has taken place The covering letter of Southern regional office of MoEF to DG Forests emphasizes Meanwhile State Governments have been informed to ensure that no illegal mining takes place in the unallotted (Reserve) forest area (10 acres)after receipt of the combined sketch map of all the mines and report from the state government, inspection of the disputed mines will be carried out and report will be submitted on the complaint received for further necessary action A copy of the Inspection Report along with the letter dated 30-1-2009 which was sent by Southern Regional Office, MoEF to Director General of Forests hereto annexed and marked as Annexure P-10. (h) The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) constituted by this Honble Court in W.P No. (C) 202 of 1995 was kept informed of the developments with respect to the 10 acre of Reserve Forest land. Some of the key correspondence of the Central Empowered Committee and the Ministry of Environment and Forests were as follows: (a) In the letter of MoEF dated 17-3-2009, to the Member Secretary,

CEC , reference was made to the letter received by the CEC with respect to the said Reserve Forest land (10 acres) stating that the same has been

encroached by M/s Obulapuram Mining Company owned by a very powerful politician in connivance with a local forest officials ( DFO) and other senior State Government Officials and that the Company (OMC) has physically occupied at gun point the adjacent mine owned by Bellary Iron Ore Pvt Ltd. (b) The letter further reiterates that the mining lease areas were not found to be demarcated properly on the ground and that Government of Andhra Pradesh have been asked to demarcate the lease boundaries of all the mines properly on the ground and also prepare the combined sketch map. A copy of the letter dated 17.03.2009 of Shri B.K. Singh, Senior Assistant Inspector General of Forest to the Member Secretary Central Empowered Committee is hereto, annexed and marked as Annexure P-11. (i) That the report of the Lokayukta emphasizes on the need for a joint survey of the inter-state Border between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh by the Government of India. It is specifically mentioned in the Report of the Lokayukta that: ..Because of the proximity of the availability of mineral in this part of the border of two states, there has been some illegal transportation in and out of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, of the minerals illegally mined. There are allegation on one side that the company from Andhra is encroaching the mining areas within the Karnataka territory. While the counter allegation is that the areas in which the Andhra Company is mining really belongs to Andhra Pradesh..this dispute does not confine itself to the dispute between the few companies, but, involves the territorial integrity of two States. .I see and urgent need that the Government of Karnataka to approach the Government of India and get a joint Survey done to determine the property of the two States, so that the territorial integrity of the two states are protected..irrespective of the powers that are, my advice to the Government of Karnataka is to initiate steps in this regard at the earliest. At the same time, immediate steps

should be taken to stop all mining work in the disputed area so that no loss is caused to either State, forgetting the interests of the Individuals.[Emphasis supplied] (j) either That the large scale violations have been allowed to continue, through connivance of the officials and in instances where there

were efforts were made to implement the law of the land, the same were met with threats and stopping inspection work to be legitimately carried out by the forest department.
5. The Petitioners are, therefore, approaching this Honble Court on the

following, among other, grounds. GROUNDS

A) Because, the illegal mining is continuing in violation of the orders on the Honble

Supreme Court in W.P (C) No 202 and has led to encroachment of forest lands in the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
B) Because there has been a systematic breakdown of the governance structure

due to the illegal mining in both the states. The illegal mining has taken place in both forest land as well as non forest land and these have taken various forms such as mining in patta lands, mining beyond the leased areas , trespassing into forest areas for mining and illegal dumping and mining contrary to parameters laid down by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The illegality has taken place due to connivance of officials, politicians and miners and has led to not only loss of ecology, livelihood of the local people, loss of agricultural land and also loss of revenue of the State through both illegal mining as well as transportation of the same.
C) Because, the Government of Karnataka recognizing the issue of illegal mining

appointed the Justice U.L Bhat Commission of Inquiry, however the Commission never functioned. Subsequently, the Government of Karnataka made a reference to the Lokayukta of Karnataka and a detailed report Part I was submitted by the Lokayukata to the Government. The Report dealt at length at the various mining

related irregularities and illegalities and made recommendations to deal with the same. The Report highlighted the connivance of the Officials belonging to various Department at various levels, politicians including holders of Public Offices and the mining companies, traders, transporters and others which resulted in the continuing illegal mining in violation of the orders of the Supreme Court as well as Statutory laws such as the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and many other Rules and Local Acts.
D) Because, the Report of the Lokayukta refers to specific involvement of the

Former Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka, several Managing Directors of Mysore Minerals Ltd (MML for short) , Directors of Department of Geology and Mines and many others. Despite such categorical recommendations of the Lokayukta, the so called Action Taken Report (ATR), submitted by the Government of Karnataka, as failed to take any effective measures either to stop the illegal mining or initiate effective action against the officials. This inaction on the part of the Government of Karnataka in failing to take strict action will on the one hand not deter the violators in continuing to indulge in illegal mining and on the other hand, serve as a precedent for others to violate.
E) Because, the Report of Dr U. V Singh which forms part of the Report of the

Lokayukta has given details in 99 instances of illegal mining outside the leased area, encroachments into the forest lands, stock yards in forest and other government lands and the roads in the forest area. Out of the 99 instances cited by Dr U.V Singh, the Government of Karnataka has filed forest offence cases against 36 violators and no cases have been filed against the remaining violators. Thus this lack of action on the part of the Government has led to an atmosphere of lawlessness and breakdown of Rule of law as a result of which the illegal mining is continuing.
F) Because, various modus operandi are adopted by the miners in connivance with

officials and politicians and one such instance of blatant irregularity is the issue of Raising Contract. That the Mysore Minerals Ltd. (MML), which is a public sector

undertaking (PSU), which has been leased high quality iron ore areas on a preferential basis has allowed certain private miners a back door entry through raising contract. That raising contract itself is illegal since this type of irregular transfer of mining is contrary to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the relevant rules.
G) That the raising contract is the corner stone of the entire saga of illegal mining

and is the fountainhead of all other illegalities and irregularities. That through the phenomenon of raising contract, MML has enabled various vested interests, acting as contractors, to accumulate a fortune through mining operations without having any technical or other expertise in the matter of scientific and sustainable mining. That this phenomenon has depleted the MML, a PSU, of valuable revenue causing immense loss to the public exchequer. That the phenomenon of raising contracts has created a powerful lobby of contractors who have pervaded into all political parties and have risen to various positions in the Government, including the cabinet. That the raising contractors have got passed a questionable notification dereserving the forest lands to meet their increasing thirst for private profit at the expense of public good. That this unhealthy lobby has devoured the mineral wealth of the state by encroaching into forest lands, patta lands and even violated the interstate boundaries. That all these unhealthy developments, including engendering a popular culture of disdain for the law of the land, is a direct result of the umpteen raising contracts made by MML. H) Because the raising contract is literally a transfer of lease without the permission of the Government which is opposed to law. I) Because the large scale illegal mining has caused huge loss of revenue to the State due to non payment of royalty through illegal mining and transportation of the same.
J) Because, there are many serious irregularities in the transportation of iron ore

and other minerals from mine head to various destinations by using the services of trucks and railway, the vehicle is supposed to have a way permit (Form No 31) issued by the Forest Department in bulk, the Mineral Dispatch Permit (MDP or

Bulk Permit) and trip issued by the Mines Department. The irregularities include transportation using fake Way Permits, transportation by using Photostat copy of MDP or bulk permit, transportation without use of the trip sheet, transportation by way of over loading. That the transport of iron ore has taken place by railways also to the tune of 20% of the total of the iron ore without authorized way permit issued by the competent authority.
K) Because the Government of Karnataka illegal dereserved forest areas for mining

despite the specific opinion against it by the Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment. This was made possible due to the Director of Mines and Geology stating that the dereservation is mostly in respect of non forest areas and not so thick forest areas whereas the specific opinion of the Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment was that forest areas may not be included in proposal for dereservation. Further, the Minister for Ecology and Environment noted that in view of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 which prohibits non forest activity and recent observation of the Honble Supreme Court, mining in forest land is precluded. Thus the Forest, Ecology and Environment Department gave a categorical opinion to exclude forest land from de reservation. L) Because, despite the contrary opinion of the Forest Department, the Secretary, Commerce and industries rather than excluding the areas coming under forest from the purview of areas for dereservation included the same in the blocks selected for dereservation. This has led to various blocks having Reserve Forest being dereserved for the Mining. M) Because the State of Andhra Pradesh has failed to take action on the illegal encroachment and mining carried out in 10 acre of the Bellary Reserve Forest of Andhra Pradesh. This has been possible due to connivance of field level officers at the level of DFOs as well as higher ups in the Government.
N) Because, the Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment and Forest had

recommended for a survey to be done so that the boundaries of the area leased to M/S Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) could be ascertained. However, despite the specific recommendation of the MoEF no survey and demarcation of

the boundaries was done as a result the illegal mining continues in the 10 acres of the unalloted Bellary Reserve Forest.
O) Because, the Government of Andhra Pradesh despite directions of the Regional

Office of the Ministry of Environment and Forest has failed to address the issue of illegal encroachment and mining in 10 Ha of Reserve Forest land and instead had constituted a High Level Committee which did not deal with the central issue of 10 Ha of unalloted forest land between the mines of OMC and others neighboring mines. It is most disconcerting as to why the Government of Andhra Pradesh along with OMC are opposing the survey by the Survey of India. P) Because, however no action has been taken by the Government of Karnataka to stop the illegal mines or take action against those responsible for the illegal mining in forest areas as well as other areas. PRAYERS In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that:
(A) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,

directing immediate steps be initiated by both the Respondent States and the Union of India to stop all mining and other related activities in forest areas of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka which are in violation of the orders of this Honble Court dated 12-12-1996 in W.P (C) No 202 of 1995 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
(B) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,

directing as null and void retrospectively all raising contracts / sub leasing because which are in violation of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and initiate penal action against the violators.
(C) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,

directing the stoppage of all mining along the border and in forest areas in the Bellary Reserve Forest till a systematic survey of both the interstate border and the mine lease areas along the entire border is completed by the Survey of India along with a representative of the Lokayukta of Karnataka.

(D) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,

directing action against all the violators involved either directly or indirectly in illegal mining including those named in the Report of the Lokayukta of Karnataka (Part-I).
(E) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,

directing the recovery of the illegal wealth accumulated through the illegal mining and related activities; and
(F) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,

directing null and void notification No. CI 33 MMM 1994 dated 15-3-2003 and other related notifications/orders dereserving lands for mining operations. (G)Pass any such order that this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

Drawn by Ritwick Dutta Rahul Choudhary

FILED BY Aparna Bhatt ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS