{"id":21893,"date":"2010-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-08-02T01:24:49","modified_gmt":"2018-08-01T19:54:49","slug":"ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S V.S.Lad And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S V.S.Lad And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And Nazeer<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALGRE\nDATED THIS THE 19\"' DAY OF NOVEMBER, \n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HONBLE MR. 3.5. KHEHAR,  _:\"  \n\nAND \n\nTHE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE 5.._A'eouL,,N';p:*E'EA'R  A'\n\n \n\nWRIT PETITION No.2,4_1f03_\/'201 0' (GM:-MAMS)\n\nwp Nos. 25291, 25290,,252_s.3, 22526-3, 24532, 24529,\n24493, 24490-.-.91., 24;r4s5,'~.24432,,244s1, 24105, 24104,\n24062, 24530,\u00ab13,1,, 250_70-Z1,.2564'0, 25827, 26221,\n\n,.-  252-22, 25223\/2010 (GM-MMS)\n\nBetween A A A A A\n\n M\/s v..%_S. Lad & Sons _\nA\" \"-(A Re.g'is'u.ered ,,PartneVr\"'s'nip Firm),\n Prashanti N,ivas'~-Krishnanagar,\nATT5a'nduT~<A 583 i 19+ \nBe} is ry D'|'st"_rvi<:__t =3 "\n'  Rep, by its,P'artner\/Receiver Appointed\n_ Dr. E"l'<nat.h V;"E_ad\n>  \u00ab. \" \n\nUnion of Indiiaf-\u00bb.yy'l ,  --\nRep by its Secretary'-~.,y_ \" \nGovernme-n,t of_In*dia, \nMinistry of_Mine-'s \" \n..S{hastri Bhalvan ,\n\" vsN'ew'De'\u00a7--hi 1 10001\" A\nV. ,   Respondents\n\n ._   Haranahalli, Advocate General a\/w\n\nSri R---.G'Kolie, AGA for R1--5,\nSri Ravindran, Addl. Solicitor General a\/w\n'~ Sri Kalyan Basavaraj, Asst. SG for R6)\n\nVl\"\"This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the\n\nvC'onstitution of India praying to quash the Government Order\n\n;dated 26.7.2010 produced and marked as Annexure--A and\n\n\"Government Order dated 28.7.2010 vide Annexure~A1; direct\n\nthe respondents to issue mineral dispatch permits for\ntransportation of mines minerals to any destination including\nexports of ore on receipt of royalty; etc.\n\n\n\nW? NO.2S29O OF 2010\nBetween\n\nM\/s S 8 Minerals\nRep by Partner\n\n8 S Srinivas Singh\n\nP B No.58, K R Road,\nHospet 583201\nBe-Elary Distrtct\n\n(by Sri D.L.N. Ra'o,=--Sr. \/tdvowtate  \nSmt S R Anura'cfuh'a, Advocate)\n\nBad\n1 State of Karnataka __  ;\nRep by its Seacretaryy... _  '\nDepartment. of Forest, a \"\nEcoiogy &?__En\\{\u00e91ironment,rv_ _  '\nM S Bui;\u00a3d'in'g._, 'Dr--':-;f\\mbe.zjk'ar Road \nBangalore ii6!3_ 003  ._ '  '\n\nState of_Karnatak'a \" A _\n\nRep by its Secretary \"\n..E21epartment\"efyIndustries & Commerce\n\"M S..y'-\ufb01uli\ufb01ying, Dr\"A'rnbedkar Road\n\n'PO\n\n'A V .. Ba nga.Iore\"~-.5160 00 1\n\n3'. ~_ \" -ftate of.__K'a;rnataka\n' _Rep i_ny'it;_-.;'Secretary\n'Dep~artrn'ent of Pub\ufb01c: Works\nPort 8; Iniand Transportation\n\n~  y.  S\"Buiidfng, Dr Ambedkar Road\n''  Bangakore 560 001\n\n  4\" The Director of Mines & Geology\n\nDepartment of Mines & Geology\nKhanija Bhavan,\n\nSth Fioor\n\nRace Course Road,\n\nBangalore 560 001\n\n     -'\n\n\n\nThe Deputy Director\nDepartment Of Mines & Geology\nHospet, Beilary\n\nEJI\n\n6. Union of India   \nRep by its Secretary, Government of India   1'\nMinistry of Mines, Shastri Bhavanmh --- \nNew Delhi 110001  \n\n(by Sri Ashok Haranahwali-i..,_ Advocate Gen'e'ra1.a\/w \nSri R G Kolle, AGA for R'1..:-,S',\u00bb._ ._    \"\nSri Ravindran, Addl. Solicitor General a\/W ,\n\nSri Kalyan Basavaraj, As's\"L.=S_\"(3 for R6)  \n\nThis Writ Petition ispfiliiedl';'undiera_A:_n_Hinc\u00a3u'din\u00a7__exp,orts'-of .o__re on receipt of royalty; etc.\n\nwe No'.g_\u00a7g.3a'ioF--~V2'o1,Q\u00ab\u00bbl,'_:\"-_____ -- '\nBetween it it A M A at\n\nSri Ki,=jrn\"a raswamy Mineral Exports\n\n '~  \\\/iijaykumat;  ..... .. v\n\nGeneral Manager\n\n No 87,Sv..V'Cgo!o'ny, Near Kumaraswamy Temple,\n\niCE.ub'_R.oe3-d,''~._ , ..\nBeilary 583'--1iQ4A1'\n  .   Petitioner\n\n(by Sri D.L.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate a\/w\nSmt S R Anuradha, Advocate)\n\n  State of Karnataka\n\nrep by its Secretary\nDepartment of Forest, Ecology 8: Environment,\nM S Building, Dr Ambedkar Road, Bangalore 560 001\n\n V ;..{\"-Re'spo__n'd1ei1ts \n\n\n\n A \"vi-NVev;i\"De'l!fii 110001\"\n\n2. State of Karnataka\nRep by its Secretary\nDepartment of Industries & Commerce\nM S Buiiding, Dr Amhedkar Road\nBangalore 560 001\n\n3. State of Karnataka\n\nRep by its Secretary\nDepartment of Public Works\nPort & Iniand Transportation  ._ ~ .g\nM S Buiiding, Dr Ambedkar Road,' \nBangalore 560 001 * ' w\n\n4. The Director of Mines 8: Geoiogy _\nDepartment of Mines.& Gego'l'og.y_f\nKhanija Bhavan, Stvh-._Fioor--_  \"\nRace Course Road,   ;\nBangalore 560 001  '\n\n5. The   \nDepa rtn ren\"t\u00ab._of..lV!:i_Vnes._i?i__ Geoi'-ogy_' V _ \u00bb\nHospet,Bei:iai:y ' is 'S   '\n\n6. Union 'of1ndiafj-.._ '   \nRep by its Secretfaryf,  \nGovernment oi'.In'tlia, \nMinistry oF._Mi'nes ' \n\n..$has'tri Bhavan,\n\n Respondents\n\nA ('by\"_vSri~A'shok Haranahalli, Advocate Generai a\/w\nSri RG Kolle, AGA for R1--5,\n\"-.Sri'R'avindran, Addi. Solicitor General a\/w\n\" Siri Kalyan Basavaraj, Asst. SC; for R6)\n\n\"\"\"gT'\"his W.i3. is filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of\n\n.0  Iln---diia'ipraying to quash the government order dated 26.7.2010\n\nproduced and marked as Annexure-A and Government order\n\n \"dated 28.7.2010 vide Annexure~A1; quash the notification dated\nV 3i.7.2010, passed by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology,\n\nHospet vide Annexure--B; direct the respondents to issue mineral\ndispatch permits for transportation of mined minerals to any\ndestination including exports of ore on receipt of royalty; etc.\n\n\n\nWP NO.25268 OF 2010\n\nBetween\n\nVeerabhadrappa Sangappa & Co\n\n(A Registered Partnership Firm)\nNo.2\/138, Beilary Road, Sandur 583 119\nBettary District,   \nRep by its partner Sri K S Ravi\n\nE\n\nEx)\n\n _      \n(by Sri Udaya HQi'i'a.., Sr. \"Advocate   ' '~ '\nfor Sri K N Phanih<jra_, Advocate} \n\nState of Karnataka  ~\n\nRep by the Secretary V V ' \nDepartment of Pub|ic""v'v'or'ks *  _ a\nPort and InIa'r1.d'fTranspor.tatio.n'*  \n\nM s Buildmg, Am betikar Road, "" "\nBangalore ;'360V"0'0.1,  "   '\n\nState of KE\u00a7[Ifnat83.ka .4  .\n\nRe  by the S'ei:"retairyi'--{_M"i--nes)\nDepartment'of'C.omrngrce~"and Industries\nVikasa"S_oudha,_ Is? F!.oowr,\nDr_Ambedk_ar'Road';. \n\n..E{angaiore 560_()01_\n\nThe Director of Mines 8: Geology\n" V s_'Eiep'artrnent"of Mines and Geoiogy\n_ " -Khar'u3j"a..Bi1a'yan, 5th Floor,\n' _Rac:e_Cou_rse Road,\n\n"'Banvga|ore--56O 001\n\nA. ,_.The'*D..eputy Director of Mines & Geology (Mines)\n\nDepartment of Mines & Geoiogy\n\nV"iiospet\n\nBeiiary District\n\nThe Principai Chief Conservator of Forests\nAranya Bhavan\n\n18th Cross, Maiieswaram\n\nBangaiore 560 003\n\n\n\n10\n\n6. Union of India\nRep by Secretary to Govt of India\nMinistry of Mines\nShastri Bhavan\nNew Delhi 110 001\n\n(by Sri Ashok Haranahaiii, Advocatrz Ge.nera'i a'\/W--..g \nSri R G Koiie, AGA forvR1-5,  ' _  - =  \nSri Ravindran, Addi. E'+oii.r_:_itor General 7a\/Aw;  \n\nSri Kaiyan Basavaraj, \/ixsst-.,SG and _ _'_.  \n\nSri. A. Hanumanthapa, Ct"-3SC.for R--'6)_\n\nThis WP is filed un_dfer \/--'_rti:rV.--i\u00bbe 22.6 "of the Constitution of\nIndia praying to deciare andqua,sh;'the'Government order dated\n26.07.2010 passed by the.._1_st. r'espon'd'ent*~--v-Ede Annexure--A and\nthe Government,or.d_er jdatedp: 28i;'0?._201'0 passed by the 2nd\nrespondent vide A}m1ex.u're i-A1 as .be'in"g~--unconstitutionai, iiiegai\nand uitra-vir-esthe'-..pow'e\u00abrs.,.__of._th--e Stayte government, insofar as\nthe petitioner isi__concerned*~.,'ianciaisc; the intimation ietter\/order\ndated nii..issu'edi_by"t:he' 4th irespo-ndent vide Annexure C; etc.\n\n \n\nwp N03453:VC\u00e9\ufb012.01aQ4V"=__:"  0\nBetween 0'  0 \n\nM\/s  Miningsyndicate Pvt Ltd\n\n 0' "Regi's--tered Firm, rep.b"y its Managing Director\n Sri'Rajenvd'ra--Ku~~rnar Jain,\n'$a'meer ,lViansio~:1, _jNo.6, Martin Road,\n\nee.ii'ar.yi\u00bb5'83'_~'_1 o  "\nhaving Reg.istei'ed Office at S-7,\n\nV . 11i=io"cr, Esteem Arcade, No.26,\n\n 'Race Course Road, Bangaiore\n\n Petitioner\n\n(by Sri D.L.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate a\/w\nSmt S R Anuradha, Advocate)\n\n1. State of Karnataka\nRep by its Secretary\nDepartment of Forest, Ecoiogy &\n\n'"  "  .iievsp'ondent3g4 \n\n\n\nav\n\nLa.)\n\n11\n\nEnvironment,\nM.S.BuiIding, Dr.Ambedi<ar Road,\nBangaiore--560001\n\nState of Karnataka\nrep by its Secretary\n\nDepartment of Industries and Commerce'''''' 2\n\nM.S. Building, Dr. Ambedkar Road  .. \nBangalore --- 560 001 '  . \n\nState of Karnataka \n\nRep by its Secretary  \nDepartment of Public Works, \n\nPort 8; Inland Transportation" *  _\nM.S. Building, Dr. Ambe_dkar;_Road_"v.. \n\nBangaiore - 560 001  '  \n\nThe Director Mines :3: G'eoisog.yA"~.,"_--.._ .\nDepartment o;f~MVinesy Si" Geo|og.v " V' \nKhanijaBi1a\u00abva*r2-,':5t'h\u00ab..E--!_oo~r.V  ' _'  '\nRace Course Road , ' B_a'nvga.yIor'e--SV60001\nThe Depu'tyV_.DEyrector'  _\nDepartment Cfj'Min\u00bbesi'& Geology\nHosp'et,'Be||'a.ry'  v   \n\nL}n.Eon oi"In_:dia- \n\nRep by its Se--cre_ta ry\n" ~Gov,e:rn me nt of India\n\nA  Ministry.yof~\u00ab.Mines\n\nA    Shaistyri ~3'na_v_an\n~_ 'New'D_e|i1i'~{,--"11O 001\n\n Respondents\n\n("by Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Advocate Generai a\/w\n\nSri R G Kolle, AGA for R1-5,\n\nSri Ravindran, Addl. Soiicitor General \/w\n\nSri Kaiyan Basavaraj, Asst. SC} for R6)\n\nThis W.P. Fiied under Articie 226 of the Constitution of\n\n0' India praying to quash the Government order dated 26.7.2010\n\nproduced and marked as Annexure~\u00bbA and Government order\ndated 2.8.7.2010 vide Annexure---A1; quash the notification dated\n30.7.2010, passed by the Director of Mines and Geoiogy vide\n\n\n\n12\n\nAnnexure--8; direct the respondents to issue rnineral____dispatch\npermits for transportation of mined minerals to any des'ti.nation\nincluding exports of ore on receipt of royalty.   \n\nWP NCL24529 OF 2010\nBetween   ._\n\nM\/s Lakshminarayana Mining Cornpany, V\nRegd. Partnership Firm, ,  \nRep. by its Partner Sri. D.N. Gopa~iakrish'na, .\nKardikolla Iron Ore Mines, N.E.B';"-Range, '\nSiddapura Village, Sandur Taiuk,__Be\u00bb!lai"y\nHaving Registered Office"at_ No.33, "  j ,_\nSannidhi Road, Basavana'gi.i'd_i, 'Ban_ga|o--re-. \n\n  =_  pg"  Petitioner\n(_byv$r*_i.D.i.;.N., Rao,-..S'r. _Advoc'ate a\/w\n Szjfnt. :3, R. An1.irad..i'ia_.V AdVo'cate)\n\nState of_KVa'rnata'ka   .\nRep'.-_ byits Sec.r"e.ta'ry,"=._ " __\nDept of Forest, "   "\nEcology~& E.nvir=onine'n.i:~,'\nIVLS. Building," " V\nifyr. Arn bed ka R oa cl,\n\n " R "Ba n'galo"re,\n\npi .\n\n.,_i-Tne..Li.,recto.rV[of Mines & Geology,\n '\ufb02epartnwent of Mines 8: Geology,\n-.f'Kha.n~i_i_a\u00e9f\ufb01havan",\n5th "Floor,\n. Ra'ce__ Course Road,\n" *i3anga|ore.\n\n.' "Title Deputy Director\n\nDepartment of Mines and Geology,\n3-iospet,\nBellary.\n\n Respondents\n(by Sri Ashok Haranahaili, Advocate General a\/w\nSri R G Kolle, AGA for R1 to R3)\n\n\n\n13\n\nThis WP is \ufb01led Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying to quash the government order dated 28.7.2010 vide\nAnnexure--A; quash the notification dated 31.7.2010 paissed by\nthe Director of Mines and Geology vide Annexu-re'-~3',<.,'direct\nrespondents to issue mineral dispatch permits for;"t'r'an,sp:ort_ation\n\nof mined minerals to any destination including e'\u00a7;port.sV'of"o.re'aon\n\nreceipt of royalty. _. \n\nWP NO.24-493 OF 2010\nBetween\n\nM\/s Hothur Traders\n\n(Regd Partnership Firm) \n\nCorporate Office at No.7"?I*,_ . \n\nHothur Grand, 100 Feet Road, *  }\nIndiranagar, i3anga|ore--S6000_8 C 1\n\nRep By Its |Vianag_i*ng_ Partner'  0'  .  \u00bb\nSri. Mohamad Iqbal_Hoth=ur:    \n\n'~ _  _  _  Petitioner\n' , ('8.yf=-Srii  Hoila, Sr. Advocate\n. FoVr'Sjri._K"!\\_i'Phanindra, Advocate)\n\nI. _E_\u00a7tate. of Ka'i'n_ataka I\n~ ._R"ep_ -by the Sec'reta'ry\n\n  Department of Public Works, Port and\n\n ix)\n\n TIn_|a'nd'Transportation\n._ "',M..S;vB'u.ildiinV'g,' E)r.Ambedkar Road,\nA V Bang.aICite=;'56000l\n\nStateiof Karnataka\n., _ Rep'=by the Secretary (Mines)\nV V "Qepartment of Commerce and Industries\n*-\\.1ii<asa Soudha, 1st Floor,\nE)r.Ambed kar Road,\nBangalore~S60001\n\n 3. The Director of Mines 8.: Geology\n\nDepartment of Mines and Geology,\nKhanija Bhavan, 5th Floor,\nRace Course Road, Banga|ore--560001\n\n\n\n14\n\n4. The Deputy Director of Mines 8: Geology (Mines)_."*.fW,_ \nDepartment of Mines & Geology,  V " '\nHospet, \n\nBellary District\n\n5. The Principai Chief Conservatorfof Fore_st--s .y  \u00ab\nAranya Bhavan,    \n18th Cross, Malleswaram, V\nBangalore--560003 C\n\n6. Union of India  \nRep by Secretary to:"Govt of"Iiiid_:i'a \nMinistry of Mines, V V' --   "\nShastri Bhavan,  '  ;\n\nNew De|hi--11Q O01  '\n\n7. Union of Ir?idiE\u00a7B' . .    it  \nRep by the"Dexzeiopment'-Co'mrn_iss_ioner\nCochin '$._pe*c_ia'i Economiz'__- Zone (CSEZ)\nSub~-Offiyce-for"'1;\ufb02Q\u00b0\/e,'ECU Inl\u00e9avrinata ka\nMinistry o'fVi.C.om'mei'--Ce'V& Industry\nGovernmewnt 'oi' -I.nd.i,a';'-No-; 365, Ist Floor,\n8th Main, 4t'l":._C'rojss,"V_iVei<'nagar, Bangalore-47\n\n Respondents\n\n' {by Sri Ashovk\ufb01aranahalli, Advocate General a\/w\n_ _V Sri -R 'GiKolle, AGA for R1~S,\nV' . djrii RVai1in'dran, Addl. Solicitor General a\/w\n\u00ab V'Sri=i(_a'I~y'aVn Basavaraj, Asst. SG a\/w\nS_riR3_ 'Kothwal, CGSC for R6 & R7)\n\nThis':.WP is fiied under Article 226 of the Constitution of\n\nA  ._Indiia__ praying to declare and quash the Government order dated\n '*.26,07':_201O passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure A and\n_i._ti1.e'"G'overnment order dated 28.07.2010 passed by the 2nd\n\n  respondent vide Annexure A1 as being unconstitutional, illegai\n -and ultra-vires the powers of the State Government, in so far as\n the petitioner is concerned and also the intimation letter\/order\n" dated nil issued by the 4th respondent vide Annexure E; etc.\n\n\n\n15\n\nWP NOS.24490-91 OF 2010\n\nBetween\n\nM\/s Mineral Enterprises Ltd. ;\nCompany Registered under the Companies Act, \nRep by its Manager   \nMr. M.S. Srinivasaragavan S\/o M.S. Sundararn " V\nAge 54 Years   I   *4 = '\nOcc: Head, Direct 8: Indirect Taxation' I \n\nM\/s Mineral Enterprise Ltd y _  \n\nNo.300\/1B, 16th Cross, Sadasii:i_v'anagar"~ V\nBangaiore--8O  \n\n  Petitioner\n\n(By Dr. Abhishetg Siiv\u00e9ighvvi,.-..S'i*;A.'Adv.ocate\n\nforsri K on-:vra_jw Kurnar, Adyoc"ate)\n1. The Stategyoif  ~  It\n\nRepresented, b_y'lits J_oi~n_t Secretary (Mines),\nDepartment 'off{2gomm--er'ce'& Industries,\nVikas Soudha, ' jj " \n\nBangai'o_re- 560301.  \n\n 2.  Department of:Pub|ic Works,\n\n_ V-.c.Port\\.,,g[ Ivnjand W'a'te'r Transport\n.  _Represe.nte,d by its Under Secretary\n" a_V'i\u00e9<a's.xSoudh"as\n\n .  --\u00a3$anga"';*_e-.re~-560001\n\nI . 3. ""Thev'..'Secretary to Government\n\nDepartment of Commerce & Industries\n\n .. ,_'\\\/ika"'s Soudha, Banga|ore--560001\n\n    Tne Commissioner & Director of Mines & Geoiogy\n\nKhanija Bhavan,\nR.C.Road,\nBa ngatore--560001\n\n5. The Deputy Director\nDepartment of Mines & Geology\nChitradurga~577 501\n\n\n\n16\n\n6. The Deputy Director\nDepartment of Mines & Geology\nTumi<ur--572 102\n\n7. Union of India\n\nRepresented by its Secretary\nMinistry of Mines,\n\n3rd Floor, A Wing,\n\nShastri Bhawan,\n\nNew De|hi--110 001\n\n8. Ministry of Commerce & Indvustries\nRepresented by its Secretary \nGovernment of India...  _ \nUdyog Bhavan, A '\n\nNew De|hi--11O 107\n\n Respondents\n\n(by Sri 'Ash'o-ti:-_VHara--n_ah_aIii, Advocate General a\/ w\nSri 'R G--ii_Ko_||e, "AG_A"~ff0r_ R*1*--6,g '\n\n_.S--ri. Ra=v_ind'ran, A_cld.|_." So:--i--r:i.t_cr Genera! a\/w\n\n Sri. S;VKa|yah Basavaraj, Asst. SG for R6 and 7)\n\nThese 'wps erefj~fi'Ie'd,:"ura~der Articles 226 and 227 of the\nConstitutionnkofv. Ir1dia--._"p.ra'ying to quash the Govt. order\ndt.28,;7'.\u00bb1Q, issued' by the R1, prohibiting the issuance of permits\n\n _for vmoventepnt &'"'ex_p__.ort of iron ore, the copy of which is\n._ produced at_A~nn--D; quash the Govt. order dt.26.7.10, issued by\n the R2, p.roh,i'biti'n_q the exports of iron ore from 10 minor ports in\n\nt'he"~Statev,:'th3e  of which is produced at Ann-C.\n\n   L wi$"No.;=;'44,es or 2010\n\n  :.3_'3_t_Ween'x.-- "\n\n" _ 'S3.ri' H  Rangangoud\n  S\/':3 Sri H R Gaviappa\n  Aged About 69 Years,\n R\/o No.142, Ward No.15,\n~ N.C. Coiony, Hospet~583 203\n\nBeliary District\n Petitioner\n(by Sri Udaya Holla, Sr. Advocate\nfor Sri K N Phanindra, Advocate)\n\n\n\n' U3 \n\nEU\n\n17\n\nState of Karnataka\n\nRep by the Secretary\n\nDepartment of Public Works, Port and\nIniand Transportation\nM.S.Bui|cling,\nDr.Ambedkar Road,\nBangaiore--5600\u20ac)1\n\nState of Karnataka V\n\nRep by the Secretary (Mines) _ 1  \nDepartment of Commerce a.nd.{\u00bbndustr.ies--..(( \nVikasa Soudha, Est Fioor, 9  '\nDr.Ambedkar Road,.~ \n\nBangaiore~--S6OGO1'  \n\nThe Director of Mines.&"Ge0I.ogy "  \nDepartment..ofMines and*.Geo'Io'gy, '  '\nKhanija Bhhav<\u00a7icn',V     \n5th Floor';    \n\nRace Coursie 'Road,' _  (_\nBan9aio.r\u00e9~~56\u20ac7'3+01  \n\nThe'ADuepuMty 'Di.r'e:_tj;'i:oir'*o(f"i4i"nes & Geoiogy (Mines)\nDepa rtmetnt of Mii1.eS.($\u00a7.'t'Geoiogy,\n\nHospet, " _ \n\n..B:e||a'ry District _\n\n' 2 ., "jfirtei Principal Chief Conservator of Forests\n' cmanyta ~Bh'n._a.van,\n\n._  18th \u00abC_ro__ss,_"i'V1a!ieswaram,\n' ,_.Bang_a!or-34560003\n\nUnion; of India\n\nat ,_Rep"Dy Secretary to Govt of India\n\nMinistry of Mines,\n\nit  Shastri Bhavan,\n\n (by Sri Ashok Haranahaiii, Advocate General a\/w\n\nNew De!hi\u00ab~11O O01\n Respondents\n\nSri R G Kolfe, AGA for R1~5,\n\nSri Ravindran, Addi. Solicitor Genera! a\/w\nSri Kaiyan Basavaraj, Asst. SG\n\nand Smt. Prema Hatti, CGSC for R6)\n\n\n\n'33:"\n3\n\n18\n\nThis WP is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying to deciare & quash the Govt. order dt.26.7.10,\npassed by the R1, vide Ann-A and the Govt. order dt.28.'\/'.10,\npassed by the R2, vide Ann~A1, as being unconstitutional, iiiegai\n& ultra~vires the powers of the state govt. 'insofar as petitioner is\nconcerned; declare by issue of appropriate writ or direc\ufb01on that\nthe State Govt. has no power under the provisions _of.t'he'Mines\n8: Minerals [Development & Regulation] Act 195.7,'\u00bbE$L'r-Mign':~3rai\nConcession Rules 1960 to either ban the export of irori .16-re mm\n\nthe State of Karnataka or to ban the issuance of 'i'niner_ia.i dispatcli-._\npermits in respect of iron ore extracted, under'v'aiid.f_mining,leases1 \n\n& meant for being exported; etc.\nWP NO.24482 OF 2010\n\nBetween\n\nM\/s Shree Gavisiddeswara,Minerralsi \n\n(A Registered Partnership.._F:irm)_ _ . "  \n\nUnit No 101, I Floor, 'Pride E.ii'te":.-*    -.\n\nNo 10, Museum Road, Ban.ga_|c1re'56.O 001  \n\nRep by its Managi-ngv-.Part:_ner  Dinesh Singhi\n         Petitioner\n\n it (by  Holla, Sr. Advocate\n" ._for.Sri K N'Phanindra, Advocate)\n\n   V _  l<a:r"r1.ata ka\n\n_ " -Rep" b\\,r_v\u00bbt_he, Secreta ry\n' .__Departm\u00a7=:nt of Public Works, Port and\n'inland Transportation\nM "S Eiuidling Dr Ambedkar Road\n\n A. .\u00bb_BanVg'a|ore 560 001\n\n    State of Karnataka\n\nRep by the Secretary (Mines)\nDepartment of Commerce and Industries\nVikasa Souciha I Fioor\n\nDr Ambedkar Road\n\nBangaiore 560 001\n\n\n\n19\n\nThe Director of Mines and Geology\nDepartment of Mines and Geology\nKhanija Bhavan, 5th Floor\n\nRace Course Road\n\nBangalore 560 001\n\nS..;.'I\n\n4. The Deputy Director of Mines andHGeo|ogy"(M.i:rjsves')\u00bb: \nDepartment Of Mines and Geology " _ ~ " \u00ab_ '\nHospet, Bellary District   . \n\n5. The Principal Chief Conservator oifiiioirests  " V\n.Aranya Bhavan, 18th Cross;,iVl'alieswa'rarn,T \nBangalore 560 003  "\n\n6. Union ofindia,  ;   \nRep by Secretary to Govt of.,India_   "\nMinistry of Mines   2 .  V\nShastri Bhay.ara-._   _  \nNew Deihi2_'11Q.i.oo1.    'V  \n\n.- ..  ' 4.     \u00bb  Respondents\n\n(by Sri Ashok V'Hara'i'i:ah_aiii_,' Advocate\ufb01eneral a\/w\nsri R G ;i<olie, GAGA for r\n\n_.\n\n(by Sri Udaya Hciij\u00e9ysr. Advocate: J\nfor Sri K N Phanindra, Advocate) }\n\nState of Karnataka ._\n\nRep by the Secretary. _ = . \nDepartment. of Pubifc Wo'r;i<s,_ \nPort and I:_r_i|ar'\u00a7ii-3*Trar;spertation._  \nM s Buiid'ing._,  '    ' '\nDr Ambeidkia_r,'Roa"d  \n\nBang a , ' \nState of' Kar'i1.a.ta:_i{eiii  \n\nRep by it_4h"e _Sec_reta ryi\u00e9raes)\nDe_partmen_t ofcomm\u00e9rce and Industries\n\n..\\..:{ikas~a Soudha,\n'21 st a,F3.ooir, "\n\nA  Dr Arnb-edkar Road,\n\n  Banga_|iore:_5f;:O0O1\n\nR' flihe  of Mines & Geoiogy\n'Dep--artm"ent of Mines and Geology\n\nKhaniija Bhavan, Sth Fioor\n\nA. ,_.RacV'e' Course Road, Bangalore\u00bb-560001\n\nV"Ti1e Deputy Director of Mines & Geoiogy (Mines)\n\nDepartment of Mines and Geology\nHospet, Beiiary\n\nThe Principe! Chief Conservator of Forests\nAranya Bhavan\n18th Cross, Maiieswaram, Barigaiore-560003\n\n   \n\n\n\n21\n\n6. Union of India\nRep by Secretary to Govt of India\nMinistry of Mines\nShastri Bhavan\nNew De|hi--110001\n\n7. Union of India b -\nRep by the Development Comm'issiorie.r \nCochin Speciai Economic Zone (ACSEEZ).\nSub--Office for 100% EOU In Karrzataiga\nMinistry of Commerce & Iendustry '\nGovernment of India, " \nNo.365, 1st Floor,\n8th Main 4th Cross,"  y =   'A "\nViveknagar, BangaIo.re*'-47*_  V.    Respondents\n\n(by Sri Ashok Hara.nah.aI'|i., Advocatei.,Generai a\/w\nSri R G_KoFie_, AGA for'.R1\u00a2'5~,.f'--.._ '\n\nSri Rav?'inchia'n,,. Ac-!d|i,_SG a_\/w  \n\nSri S."Ka.iya.n-':-Basayvaraj,"-Asst. SG and\n\nSri T._A.iRa_machandraiahr,'CGSC for R6 & 7)\n\nThis WP"fi_'|e"d, under A_rticie 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying to declare, a'n.d"quash the Government order dated\n26.07.2010 passedi'byV.th'e_ '15'"respondent vide Annexure--A and\nthe Government order "dated 28.07.2010 passed by the 2""\n\nrespondent viide Annexiure"-Aft as being unconstitutional, iiiegal\nand ,u.i.tra--'vires the. powers of the State Government, in so far as\n\n'iivthe "pe'tit.i'oneir,, is concerned and also the intimation letter\/order\n\n EI"<?t\u00a2# R   \n\ndated 30.0712U~--10 issued by the 4th respondent vide Annexure-\n\nwe i$i'o.241o,si:oF 2010\n\n  2 ' \ufb01etweenvyi \n\n 'HM,\/.s Zeenath Transport Co\n\n, -_(A Regd Partnership Firm)\n\n  Mine Owners,\n\n Zeenath House, Cowi Bazaar\n Beiiary 583102\n" Rep by General Manager\n\nSri G Srinivasa Murthy  Petitioner\n\n(by Sri Udaya Hoiia, Sr. Advocate for Sri. K.N. Phanincfra, Adv.)\n\n\n\n \n\n7"'):\n3\n:2.\n\nEx)\n\n22\n\nState of Karnataka\n\nRep by the Secretary\n\nDepartment of Public Works, Port and\ninland Transportation, M S Building\nDr Ambedkar Road,\n\nBangalore 560 001\n\nState of Karnataka ,\nRep by the Secretary (Mines)  _ ..=\nDepartment of Commerce & Indus '\ufb01es\nVikasa Soudha, Ist Floor,'   '\nDr Ambedkar Road,  \nBangalore 560 001\n\nThe Director of Mines ':8; Geology"~--.__*.,, _\nDepartment of Mines and Geology  \nKhanija Bhavan 5th E!.o,or., ' " '\n\nRace Course-,Road,  .\nBangalore?_'56'\u00a3LOQ1   \n\nThe Deputv"'VDi'recto'r"lof'Mines & Geology (Mines)\nDepartment' of 'M,ine's~..and*'Geology\nHos pet ,_ Belyla r'y_ D'i.st'ri;'t_;\n\n Principal-.Ghiefgflonservator of Forests\n. V-.u.Arain~,\/a"Bhavan,"1'8th Cross, Malleswaram\n _l3angalo.re'~-560 003\n\nV"i.--.UniVon\u00b0_of_ 3'.-ijdi\u00e9\n\nR' Rep by' Sercretary to Govt of India\n\n'Mini.stry"of Mines, Shastri Bhavan,\nNew Delhi 110 001\n  Respondents\n\n  (by Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Advocate General a\/w\n\nSri R G Kolle, AGA for R1~5,\nSri Ravindran, Addl. Solicitor General a\/w\nSri Kalyan Basavaraj, Asst. $36 for R6)\n\nThis WP is filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of\n\nIndia praying to declare & quash the Govt. order dt.26.7.10,\npassed by the R1, vide Ann~A and the Govt. order dt.28.7.10,\n\n\n\n \n\n23\n\npassed by the R2, vide Ann---A1, as being unconstitutionai, illegal\n& uitra\u00ab-vires the powers of the state govt. in so far asfpetitioner\nis concerned; declare by issue of appropriate writ..'or['d.ireVction\nthat the State Govt. has no power under the pr,o.v.i$ions',;of" the\nMines & Minerals [Deveiopment & Regu|atiO_F-3. Act-.1',:'1--.9;?--?_ri--&\n\nMinerai Concession Rules 1960 to either ban th'e._exiport of--iron\u00a7proited\u00bb;_ 'etc. \"  \n\nWP N0.24104 OF 203.Q\n\nBetween\n\nSri R Praveenchandra ._ V, 1\nS\/o Late Sri E Ramamurthy \nAged about 36 years     '  .y--\nR\/o.No.59, 12th Main (ogid 24th Main).._ ' *\nSrinagar, Banashai\u00e9izari,1\"-Stage _'   \n\nI Block, Bangaioressc 05.o..___  \" ' r\n\n ----       hr   Petitioner\n\nV r(rbyf:'S.rii Llvdia.ya*~Ho'|ia, Sr. Advocate\n' for S-!firK 'r~i,___P'ha\"nindra, Advocate)\n\n _ 1. ..s{tate~ of i<a}-riiata ka .\n\n. "-Rep\ufb01by the Secrretarry\n Depairtmyent of Pubiic Works, Port and\nV' V ,,Inia'r':dTransportation, M S Building\n~. " -Dr AmI:ied'i;,a'r Road,\n' .__Bang.aio'reS6O O01\n\n State':.of Karnataka\n\nit .\u00bb_.Rep"by the Secretary (Mines)\n_ Department of Commerce & Industries\n"'v'ii<asa Soudha, Ist Fioor,\nDr Ambedkar Road, Bangalore 560 001\n\n 3. The Director of Mines & Geoiogy\n\nDepartment of Mines and Geoiogy\nKhanija Bhavan, Sth Fioor,\nRace Course Road, Bangaiore 560 001\n\n\n\n \n\n   wp ta   .msaai= at is\n\n24\n\n\u00abft\u00bb. The Deputy Director of Mines & Geoiogy (Mines)_"~if-\u00ab.i"",,\nDepartment of Mines and Geoiogy   '  , \nChitradurga -' \n\n5. The Principal Chief Conservatorof Forests * '\nAranya Bhavan ' i  \n18th Cross, Maiieswaram\nBangalore 560 003\n\n6. Union of India  \nRep by Secretary to Govt of India-\nMinistry of Mines, V    *  \nShastri Bhavan, New izeihi 130  \n\n A'    Respondents\n\n(by Sri3._Asi}Lok Hva'-rarttahaii\u00e9\ufb02. tAd'vocate Genera! a\/w\nSri ;R' c: Kai:-e;_ AtEiA~.__fo~r VR"hII'\ufb01V&:'\u00a5  i\nSri i?,a'\u00a7!_in'dran,' Add,'i'. .S'o'iicit'or General a\/w\n ---- Sri.'KaiyanI:::E5~asa_va.raj,  S6 for R6)\n\nThis WP is filedff-:i_nd.er\u00bb__Artici'es 226 and 227 of the\nConstitution of' 'India, 'p-s:ayirig_ "to deciare and quash the\nGovernment ortiseri _dated', 23.07.2010 passed by the 1st\nrespondentwide A'r'm_exu.re-A'- and the Government order dated\n28_.Q7.2OI.G{ passed by"th_e_2nd respondent vide Annexure A1 a-s\nbeing--.unconstit.gti'enai, mega: and uitra-\\\/ires the powers of the\nState iGovernment,.u in so far-as the petitioner is concerned; etc.\n\n3.\n\n Eetween \n\n. .F'\u00a5;'$':' S_es2:s.Gda"'Lir\u00a5?=i-W1\n, '~._g';i.:g:'gy;:;i.(;ffice'i_at P .O"B_ax 125,\n i . . ksesagrwar 'Z13, "EEC-'-'Ce-inpiex ,\n \u00a5\u00b02\u00a7nj-irn, i "\n\ni\ufb01egafby its Dire<:i:or'_, sr: Chandra Prakash Baid\n\nGoa 433 091\n Petitioner\n\n(by Gr". 'Ai3hishek Shirzghvi, Sr. Advocate\nfor S5"? K N Phanindra, Advocate)\n\n\n\n \n\n25\n\nState of Karnataka\n\nRep by the Secretary\n\nDepartment of Pubiic Works, Port and\nIniand Transportation, M S Buiiding\n\nDr Ambedkar Road,\n\nBangalore 560 001\n\nState of Karnataka , v ,_ \nRep by the Secretary (Mines)   _\nDepartment of Commerce & Industries\nVikasa Soudha, Ist Fioor,   A '\nDr Ambedkar Road,  "\nBangalore 560 001\n\nThe Director of Min'e.s"8-. Geology   \nDepartment of Minestand Gieoilogy\ufb02   -.\nKhanija Bhavan Sth EE0,or-,, ' "  -. \nRace CoursefRo.ad,  " \n8anga|ore?_'S6Ci~0Q1.   \n\nMines & Geoiogy (Mines)\nDepartment' of 'i'4.1,,\u20acne's'~.and"Geology\nChitraciuyrga, ' " \n\n..\u00ab":?{he i'~rincipa'ii-Chief Conservator of Forests\n'-.i.A'ranya 'B,havan"' """ \nV .. _1E}th 'Cross, Maiieswaram\n V _ Ban'gaierei~,.S"6.0 003\n\n' 'Union nzdia\n"Rep'--.by'vSecretary to Govt of India\n\nMa'nisi;ry of Mines,\n\nis ,_Sha'strE Bhavan, New Deihi 110 001\n\n Union of India\n\nRep by the Deveiopment Commissioner\nCochin Speciai Economic Zone (CSEZ)\nSub Office For 100% EOU In Karnataka\nMinistry of Commerce & Industry\nGovernment of India,\n\nNo.365, Ist Floor\n\n8th Main, 4th Cross,\n\n\n\n \n\n26\n\nViveknagar, Bangalore\n\n Respondents\n\n(by Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Advocate General a\/w\n\nSri R G Kolle, AGA for R1-5, \nSri Ravindran, Addl. Solicitor General a\/w J _  \nSri. i<.Nageshwarapa, CGSC for R6 & 7)  . V  \n\nThis WP is filed under Articles 226 of theV._Co.nstitutIon"i 01",\nIndia praying to deciare & quash the Govt-.'"ord:e.ry 'dt.26.?_.1'0, \npassed by the R1, vide Ann-A the Govt'. "order. dt_i.i2_8'.'?'_.10',-passed T\nby the R2, vide Ann--A1, as being unt;onstittitionail, i'l!eg'a"E-,.._&=i;E*:ra- \n\nvires the powers of the State Govt; in-_so far as ..petiL1io~ne'i'._is\nconcerned; deciare by issue o.f'appropr5.ate writ"'orgd,i_recti\u00a7t)nthat\nthe State Govt. has no power u-nder the p_rovi,si"ons'-.oVf'the Mines\n& Minerals [Development & Reguiation] 'A-:_t"1'95'7\u00a7 & Minerai\nConcession Rules 1960 to eitheriibani-thee, export'vof.i\u00abi-'on ore from\nthe State of Karnataka osfo ban the"issu,Va'nce of mineral dispatch\npermits in respect of iron ore' iext_r\u00e91ctedurine':-.valid mining leases\n& meant for being Vexportedj etc, L "  _ \n\nwp No\u00a7.24si.siI;3_i\u00b03p,_E_3a.\u00a7to   i \nBetween" . it it it\n1. Sri..Laksh"m_i Nahrasirnhas Mining Company Pvt Ltd\n\nSri Krishna Gardenia Apartment,\n'=No.5-i59,~-- 5th Mai'n',"F|at No.3,\n\nA  _Gro,un.d--F|'oor, New BEL Road,\n\n  \n~. '-Repres'e.nt'e,d by its Director\nA ._Sri D.a.sara'thrami Reddy\n\n Dasar:'atharan'iiReddy\n\nA. ,_S\/o'M Narasi Reddy\n_ Aged About 69 Years,\n R\/A No.5S9, Sri Krishna Gardenia Apartments,\nNew BEL Road,\nBangalore\n\n Petitioners\n\n(By Sri Brijesh Patil, Advocate)\n\n\n\n \n\n27\n\nID\n3\n\n1. Government of Karnataka\nthrough its Principal Secretary\nVidhana Soudha C & I Dept\nBangaiore--560001\n\nI\\-)\n\nThe Secretary V . ---  ~ ,\nDepartment of Public Works Departsment-., .y . \u00ab\nPorts & Iniand Water Transport '{Ports)--= \nGovernment of Karnataka V 4* \n\n3. The Secretary    \nDepartment of Commerce andaindustries\nGovernment of Karnataka  -   '\n\nBangaiore   --_\n\n:1. Director ,     g 2,\nDepartment of Mines and';.\u00a35e\u00a2o'ioDg.y ' *\nNo.49, i<h::inij\u00a73~Bhavanj,  "   \nBangaioa"e4'5.6GQO~_1 '    \u00bb\n\n5. Deputy DirTectorAi.4 , _ .\nDepartment'of"Mi'ries"aAn'd Geology\nChitradurga' _ "    \n\n " V V'  Respondents\n\n (by Sri Ashok Haranahalii, Advocate Generai a\/w\n\n  Sri"'RAG Koiie, AGA for R1-S)\n\n  WP,s"are filed under Articies 226 of the Constitution\noi'.'India'W'p.rayi;'rig to quash G.O.No.PW.NO.186 PSP 2010\nBangaiore.dt.._26.7.10, issued by the R2, vide Ann--N & ail\n\n _ proce'edings'vpursuant thereto; quash G.O.No.CI.162.MMM.201O\n vi3angaiore":.dt.28.7.10, vide Ann-P issued by the R3 & ali\n  .,'pm.Ceediri"gs pursuant thereto.\n\n -_'_\\,i'1VIVi"r's"': \u00a7.25o7o-71 gr 2010\n\nis  Beitween\n\nV 1. Balaji Mines & Minerais Pvt Ltd\n\nNo.322\/3, 2nd Fioor, Sree Saptagiri Enciave,\nCoilege Road, Hospet 583 201,\n\n\n\n \n\nl\\)\n\n28\n\nBellary District\nRep by its Director 8 Ramasubba Reddy\n\nMr Anil V Salgocar\n\nAged Major\n\nNo.322\/3, 2nd Floor,\n\nSree Saptagiri Enclave, V\nCollege Road, Hospet 583 201 \nBellary District \n\n1   _HPet\u00a3itioners\n\n(By Sri Brijesh r3\u00e9't.{i, Aovoc"a*-te:):' H' 1\n\nGovernment of Karnat.agka.. ' g . -.\nthrough its P-riruvc_ipa\u00a7_'Secre:ta.ry'~..l"--.._ ' "\nVidhana S-i__3udj?ir:--3,V    W  V'\nC 811 Depa'it.m'ev-ht, V  ~_\nBangalore 359 003 ' \n\nThe Secre'ta_ry_&    _ --\nDepartment 0f:'P,U t;.!,ici'-Works" Department\nPorts' 8: 'inlarid Wawte'r*~Ira.nsport (Ports)\nGovernment of_Ka.rn'atal<a\n\nVidhana So._ud'ha*, Bangalore 56000:\n\ny.'_\ufb01_.]eEg"_$eCgretary .... ..... .. \\\\\n\n Department of Commerce and industry\nV' V ,Geyernm"en_t"_of Karnataka\n~_ "--V\u00a7'd?\u00a7'ar1a._dS'Q;Udha,\n' .__C & I_ Department,\n\n'Bangalore 560003.\n\nis .\u00bb.DireCtor\n\nDepartment of Mines and Geology\n\n0' "No.49, Khanija Bhavan, Bangalore 560001\n\nU':\n\nDeputy Director\nDepartment of Mines and Geology\nBangalore  Respondents\n(by Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Advocate General a\/w\nSri R G Kolle, AGA for R1-5)\n\n\n\n \n\n29\n\nThese WPs are fiied under Articies 226 and 227 of the\nConstitution of India praying to quash G.O.No.PW.186.P_SP.201O\nBangatore dtd 26.7.10 issued by R2 vid\u00e9' Annex\u00bb~J to the"W.P and\naii proceedings pursuant thereto;  the\nG.o.No.CI.162.MMM.20iO Bangalore dtd 28.7.10_.ti,$_sue'd.'fay R3\nvide Annex\u00ab-K to the WP and ail proceedings pursuant 't'hefreto'..,_._ ' .\n\nWP NO.25640 OF 2010\n\nBetween\n\nM\/s. P Baiasubba Setty & Sons' \n\n(A registered Partnership Firm) \n\nP.B. No 3, Hampi Road,  \n\nHospet 583 201, Bellary D.i..strict.,*"" -  \n\nRep by its Partner Sri P \\\/---._Pfr~akash  V.  \n     R  Petitioner\n\n sri uidgya 'i::%oi.:|ja'\u00ab,:Sr_. Ad'yo'cate\n folgiirsifi  P_h'anind.r_a",' Advocate)\n\nState of'~Karnata\u00a3\n\nV  'v:5e::sgft_i\"o ner\n\n(by Sri av. Acharya, SVr,._Advor:at1e\"r.--']4 1'  \nfor Srl M M Swamy, Ad}\/gojcate)'\u00bb     f\n\nThe State of Karnataka _ \nRep. by its Secretary (Mines)   M-\nDepartment of Commerce &_Ir.\u00bbdust_ries, \"\n15' Floor,Vikas Sondra, V \"  l \nBangalore  \n\nThe State of.Karnata'ka. .  _ \nDepartme_rJto_f'Publ\u00a7EC Works-\u00ab.V    V:\nPort & Inland ;Wa'tevr\"Tra.nspo,rtation \nreprese'nteq'----by\"its Se.c;:et'aryy_ \" '\nM.S BLn'iolinvg,.;f_ '  .. \nBanga'lo.re'g \n\nThegDli'eC'IEOI' 'offiV_liiries=& Geology\nDepartment' of P-1,i'nes\"& Geology\nKhanija4_Bihava'a1_, Sth' Cross,\nRace Cou*rs_e P..oad , ':Ba'nga I ore\n\nV-':j:lie2,.AE):ep.uty [Director of Mines & Geology (Mines)\n'Department of Mines & Geology\n\nHospet .,  .\n\n*I'_'_r3~e|l'a rjy .,vDi.'3fl'\u00a7Ct\n\nA The V_\u00a73rsn;\u00a2l'pa| Chief Conservator of Forests\n\nAranya Bhavan, 18th Cross,\nMa|le.s'hwaram,\n\nit 'l Bangalore\n\nV \"The Union of India\nF Represented by Its Secretary\nMinistry of Mines,\n\n3rd Floor, A- Wing,\nShastr: Bhavan,\nNew Delhi\n\n\n\n \n\n32\n\n7. The Ministry of Commerce & Industries\nRepresented by its Secretary,\nGovernment of India,\n\nUdyog Bhavan,\nNew Delhi\n\n(by Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Advocate Ge.ne.ra'E a}':5.Ia~... ._\nSri RGKo|le, AGAfQr\"R_1---5,  N 2 \nSri Ravindra'n,=.Addl. :36 a\/w    \nSri Kalyan Basavaraj;.._Asst. SG=Fo'r'R6'_:& '7.) \n\nThis WP is filed  14nder.t\"\ufb01\\ri{i:C!esi.. 226C am:~\u00e927 of the\nConstitution of India pragtinwg to qi;a.sfi~--._thCe'Government order no.\nCI 162 MMM 2010 did 28.7.10 i$S1LiE\u00a5d _|:}y-.tfh.e\"P_.1 vide Annex--D.\nwp NO..26221 or: 2o1q~- a if V '  'V \n\nBetween\n\nM\/s Sug_galamn'1a; Gpudda-.Mi~n_i_ng 8.: Co\nNo.7\/19;-.Kanai<a Stfreet=,_" __ C _\n\nCowl Bazaargi-3e|Ia.ry 583 'J;.(.'_J2\u00ab \n\nRep By Its General Mana'ge_rf'\n\nSri D S.' Maheshh Kumar '\n\n \u00abAgedratbout 41 Ye"ar$,. _____ \n\n Petitioner\n\n   Sri B.V. Acharya, Sr. Advocate\nC for Sri M M Swamy, Advocate)\n\n\n\n,,,C,'i} * fine State of Karnataka\n\n"Represented by its Secretary (Mines)\nDepartment of Commerce and Industries\nVikas Soudha,\n\n15' Floor\nBangalore -- 560 001\n\n2. The State of Karnataka\nDepartment of Public Works,\n\n'"  "  R'esp'ond.entsL' \n\n\n\n \n\n34\n\nremoved from the leased area granted under M.L.N_o.,___2541 at\nBelagal Village, Bellary, Bellary District. 7\n\nWP N0.26222 OF 2010\n\nBetween\n\nM\/s. Vibhutigudda Mines Pvt Ltd 1\nA Company registered under the Com\nhaving its Office at No.60\/356~!\\_,\nHospet Road, Allipura, Bellary?04",-~_ V . _   \nRep by its General Manager Sri Ds.V"iMahesi'z._Kumar \nAged 41 Years    3\n\npa-nies Act  \n\n  Petitioner\n(by Sri   S,r._.iiV'AlC\u00a7"s\u00bb!i<i3'c_:ate\nfor Sri |:\\i'lv;~l'c".v...S.5wwa~rrl"~,\/V, Ad_voCate)\n\nLC?\n\nThe State of Fiarnata-ka"v.' ~ ,1 .5\n\nRep "by its '1Secr'e;ta ry'--(M-ines)"*"' '0\nDeipartrnentsofgCoymmerce .&_' Industries\nVikas Soudh_a',ff--t_  "\n\n15' Floor', _   '-- _  i\n\nBangalore 3600017, ' \n\n A2. The State o'f"\u00a7<ar_n_ataka\n\nA "'rDep\u00bb-artrnent of Public Works,\nf \u00bb Port &.In.lkanc_i Water Transportation\n" ,.Rep,r'ese"nted jiay its Secretary\nr "MS E\u00a7u'i'lding,\nA .._Banga.loije 560001\n\n  Th\u00e9:'.Director of Mines 8: Geology\n\n" +D4epa'rtment of Mines & Geology\n\n  l\n:5\nQ.\n\nie..ii\u00e9eit;:i\u00a2.ner\n\n(by Sri B.V. Acharya, Sr. Advocate-..:. _ g\nfor Sri MM. Swamy_,.Acivocate) \"  '\n\nThe State of Karnataka _V\nRep by its Secretary (Minesi,   _ \nDepartment of Commerce & I\"ndus.tries '\nVikas Soudha, I Fioo: A  *  \nBangalore 560 001   _ \n\nThe State ofgKarnata!<e._'=. ' A \nDepartment. -of Publ\ufb01\ufb01c Wo_"r}<s..4  \nPort & Inland Water'-Tra_nVspo4rtati'on"W"\nRep by \ufb01ts S\u00abeC'i=\u20ac:tary'-._\u00bb.__    '\n\nM S Buiid.En'g,{_ ' '   ._\nBanga'lore*'i56G':ia90.1  \n\nTh e D irecto r   ines '&"C5eo'Iogy\nDepa'rtrnent'of I*~*?.i'nes'*+3;"C.?e"o|ogy\nKhan\u00a7ja..Bhava'n_, 5\u00a7""Cross\n\nRace Couise Rovadf '\n\n..E\u00e91ang'iaore 56vo.ooi_\n\nA * --. The ASen\u00a7\u00a7.jr- Geologist\n\nV' _,Dep:art%m\u00e9nt"_of Mines & Geology\n. "seller-\/;--__ \n' .__Beilary District\n\nTh'evvP'rincipai Chief Conservator of Forests\n\nit .\u00ab_Aranya Bhavan 18"' Cross\n\nNiaiieshwaram\n\nV' "Bangalore 550 003\n\nThe Union of India\n\nRep by its Secretary Ministry of Mines\n3rd Floor, A Wing, Shastri Bhavan\nNew Delhi 110 001\n\n\n\n \n\n37\n\n7. The Ministry of Commerce & Industries\nRep by its Secretary\nGovernment of India\nUdyog Bhavan\nNew Deihi 110 107\n\n(by Sri Ashok Haranahaiii, Advocate Ge.ne.ra'E a]".{\\isA.__ \nSri R G Koile, AGA for"R1--S,  ' -- \nSri Ravindra'n,v.Add|. :'.S._G'a\/w  I' A;  \nSri Kalyan Basavar'aj}"'-Asst. st; for fP_..5)"--, \n\nThis Writ Petition isfiled Au'n'd--e_r*Ar't\u00a7cies 226-'and 227 of the\nConstitution of India pray._i_nfg tc--_ qL;-ash..th.e'Government Order No.\nCI 162 MMM 2010 E)ater_\u00a3_" 2'8.,?.:10_ eiss*.1.e'd. by the R1 vide\nAnnexure-A; and etc.  _  3 2 -' 1, -- \n\nIn these" W'\u00a7:iet.'VPet.itions\u00e9V arggjrnentsi having been heard,\nreserved for,j'u:i'g_n*i~eVn'.t2 a'n\u00abd--.;;o--emVing 'forpronouncement today, the\nCourt passed __the__fo||owing'oi_derv:~*\n\n"  "  Riespondentsy \n\n\n\n \n\n38\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
J..S.KI~lEI-IAR, C.J. :\n<\/p>\n
A number of writ petitions seeking to ass;a’Ei*\u00ab’two:’ tfders<\/p>\n
passed by the State government dated….2_i$:.07:,A.202Git<\/p>\n
28.07.2010 have been clubbed togiethggf’\u00a7;;f;,,dis’po:saE,.~yul\u00e9ygthe 0<\/p>\n
aforesaid two orders, the State_4govei*–nment hast p;’ohibi’te”d the<\/p>\n
export of iron–ore from 10 ports’Vii’o.eated inv”i<ar'naVtak'a:. ihe State<\/p>\n
government, in 0rder:'~~..to  to)" its aforesaid
\ndetermination, has not  '"n.i_n'ing_.'0d'i_spatch permits for
\ntransport of Ervo'nv,oVi'e   0' Accord\u00e9ngiy, Writ
\npetitions   Lad & Sons v. State of
\nKarnataka)’<\/a>“&-   (Kariganuru Minerais v.\n<\/p>\n
State ofir\ufb01airnataka*0i&r\u00aboth.e’rs):;’_.2S290 of 2010 (M\/s. S.B.MineraIs<\/p>\n
 v. State or Karnata:kaW& others); 25288 of 2010 (Kumarswamy<\/p>\n
hi\/li:n\u00aber_ai  of Karnataka 8: others); 25268 of 2010<\/p>\n
(Veerabha’d_ra__p’p,a”Sangappa and Co., v. State of Karnataka &<\/p>\n
V<\/a> . others);  0152010 (M\/s.Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd.,<\/p>\n
 .–_State. of Karnataka & others); 24529 of 2010<\/p>\n
‘(Mi\/s.Lakshminarayana Mining Company v. State of Karnataka &<\/a><\/p>\n
-others); 24493 of 2010 (M\/s.Hothur Traders v. State of<\/p>\n
” Karnataka & others);\n<\/p>\n
24490–24-491 of 2010 (M\/s. Mineral<\/p>\n
Enterprises Ltd., v. State of Karnataka & others<\/a>); 24485 of 2010<\/p>\n
T<\/p>\n
 ‘ 1.    ka & othe rs);\n<\/p>\n
39<\/span>
\n(H.G.Rangangoud v. State of Karnataka<\/a> 8: others); 24482 of
\n2010 (M\/s.Shree Gavisiddeshwara Minerals v. State of._K\u00bba:rr1ataka<\/p>\n
& others); 24481 of 2010 (M\/s.Bharath Mines <\/p>\n
State of Karnataka 81 others); 24105 of  Zeen’ath>4\u00b0–.._<\/p>\n
Transport v. State of Karnataka  others’);\n<\/p>\n
(R.Praveen Chandra v. State of K_.arnata_l<"a 8: ot\u00bbh'ers:);: 2'{iO.62:of
\n2010 (M\/s. Sesa Goa Limited vufstate ofikairnaytaltag & others);<\/p>\n
22945 of 2010 (M\/s.V.'S'_.'l'_'~M.,  |_td.;wv. State of
\nKarnataka 81 others);  o.ri,,i2)()\\i_Q\u00bbb._(Lakshmi Narayana
\nMining Compan'y"Fivt.' l-td._.,  a"no:th.er.,.v,;.fAState of Karnataka 8:
\nothers);  Mines and Minerals Pvt.\n<\/p>\n
Ltd., v.:,j%Vstet;\u00a21tjet  aieithieivrs); 25640 of 2010 (M\/s.
\nP.Ba|asuVb’ba  State of Karnataka & others);\n<\/p>\n
2582? of 20 (_:M,’s…’-MAS;.PLV.l”‘l._td., v. State of Karnataka & others);<\/p>\n
“V””v2522.i”* of\u00bb. 2010 (ivi\/’s’;’s’uggaIamma Gudda Mining and Co., v.<\/p>\n
25222 of 2010 (M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
Vibhtiitiguvdda’l:Miines Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka 8: others);<\/p>\n
‘Wand ~~V2’e.223 of 2010 (M\/s. Vibhutigudda Mines Pvt. Ltd., v.
\nA “:TState”of Karnataka & others) have been filed. During the course
\n of’; hearing, learned counsel for the rival parties, in all the<\/p>\n
 aforesaid writ petitions agreed, that Writ Petition No.24103 of<\/p>\n
2010 should be treated as the main case. Accordingly, the<\/p>\n
factual matrix of the controversy has mainly been recorded on<\/p>\n
CS”\n<\/p>\n
40<\/span><\/p>\n
the basis of the pleadings contained in W.P.No.24103 of 2010,<\/p>\n
additional facts were also recorded from some other_.pe,ti.tio\u00bbns as<\/p>\n
well, when learned counsel invited our attention some,”–fa:c’.t_ua,l<\/p>\n
aspects therefrom.\n<\/p>\n
Preface to the submissions advanced byathe iearried
\nthe petitioners. V’ 4_  H   V’  <\n<\/p>\n
2. M\/s. v.s. Lad & Sons, the,:p’etitioner,in’=i,Ii}.i.P.”i.ivoViV24103 dr<\/p>\n
2010, claims to be engaged inthe m’i’n’ing”V4since 1956.\n<\/p>\n
M\/s. V.S. Lad and Sons,    firm, asserts that
\nit hoids Mining   Karnataka. In order
\nto substantiate;tifiiatiits”carried out in the most
\nprofessiioniai   the petitioner firm was
\nconferre:d–wit.h awards for safety. In this behalf, it<\/p>\n
is sought to””he”p.oVi’nted_\u00bb cut, that the Indian Bureau of Mines,<\/p>\n
  Mines,”‘Go-vernment of India has commended it for<\/p>\n
V.”everail”-.__per’fo’rmance”, “Afforestation”, “Dust Suppression<\/p>\n
Arra,n’g’ement’f, “Top Soil Management”, “Waste Dump<\/p>\n
‘,lVianageme_nt”, “Drilling and Blasting”, “Environment Controi and
\n2’ ‘X_’Dusit”Separation” by conferring awards on the petitioner. A
\n‘  prestigious award i.e. CAPEXIL, was bestowed on the petitioner<\/p>\n
 by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, in<\/p>\n
recognition of its outstanding performance in the activity of iron-<\/p>\n
ore export during the year 2005-2006. It is also the case of the<\/p>\n
41<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner firm, that one of its Managing Partner has received the
\n‘Rashtriya Ratan’ award in 2807, from the Global Economic<\/p>\n
Council, New Delhi, and has also received the ‘Udyog Ratan’<\/p>\n
award from the institute of Economic Studies, New Delhi”… It is<\/p>\n
therefore the case of the petitioner firm, that it is  all<\/p>\n
its activities in the most scientific and transpa_re?nt.
\nwhich it has repeatedly won acclaims,’ Itis’accor~dingI’y_us,o’ugVht7to it.<\/p>\n
be canvassed, that the petitioner Vfiyrrn. cannc;t:”be Vclubibie-d<\/p>\n
together with others involved””i’e.i:tn’l\u00bb the activity of
\nexporting illegally mined, i’r’en~ore’.W ‘ -I’;<\/p>\n
3. Having invitedthis courtfs attention Vtoi.g,’t’he reputation and<\/p>\n
status olithe ‘petivtioihelrl fi’r’iin,”‘i*t is “also pointed out that the export<\/p>\n
activities with which_the petiti\u00e9oner firm is engaged, is earning an<\/p>\n
 enornious’~amou’n-t._,of foreign exchange for the country. For the<\/p>\n
 period fr’orr:.;\u00a7p.ri| 2.003 to December 2008, the petitioner firm<\/p>\n
ciairnsl to\u00abaf_nvavei.,;”earned foreign exchange from its business of<\/p>\n
 _ iron-Pare  to the tune of u.s.$ 359,584,450.88. Besides
\n.V,,.earni.ng. enormous foreign exchange for the country, it is also
\n ‘.j_A’a’:sVsert.fed, that the petitioner’s activities earn the Government
\n ~\u00bbsui;)stantial revenue. The petitioner firm, for the same period,<\/p>\n
V claims to have paid Rs.272,330,410\/– towards geological permits<\/p>\n
and forest way permits; Rs.988,174,27S\/~ towards VAT, CST,<\/p>\n
KTEG and service tax; Rs.2,188,581,229\/— towards income tax<\/p>\n
Cl”\n<\/p>\n
43<\/span><\/p>\n
has a direct bearing to the employment or un~employment of<\/p>\n
approximately 3,000 persons. It is, therefore, soug,h~t,,_:’to be<\/p>\n
asserted, that stalling the activities of the petitio_ri_e.r”‘fi\u00ab{fi:ri:
\ndirect impact on approximately 15,000mpeople;or.’
\nthat each employed individual by  o_fA,a.ve4rage.’.’of ”<\/p>\n
four other famiiy members beslides hims\u00e9if   llwifi\u00e9,<\/p>\n
chiidren and parents). Based lvoniitiiegp aforesaiidi statistics, it is
\nsought to be asserted, th\ufb01ra:”t’:..;3’ngractionistoppingvthexactivities of
\nthe petitioner firmwould…re’su,Itl.”V.iVn::gth’e~,:d’eVpVrivation of earnings
\nutilized for they  ofiat  Given the fact
\nthat the   many affected by the
\nimpugned  irorjitgjlre, it is submitted, that the
\nbearing, on the bread and butter<\/p>\n
of :t0–_i5 lakhpeople;  istherefore sought to be asserted, that<\/p>\n
‘ ‘”‘extre-m’ei,care– and ca’u’ti’on deserves to be exercised before orders<\/p>\n
of'”t_h_e’  Aw’!\\:i|;i’l’,Cl”i are the subject matter of challenge at the<\/p>\n
halndsi of vthleiipetitioners, are passed. Such orders, according to<\/p>\n
l”~.\u00ab..”Vthe lea’~rne:id counsel for the petitioners, should not be passed<\/p>\n
‘r_r.erel’y because unsubstantiated rumours have been spread in
\nl  the public, or because a few questions have been raised on the<\/p>\n
 floor of the Legislative Assembly, that illegaliy mined iron-ore is<\/p>\n
being exported from Karnataka.\n<\/p>\n
3″”iiW”.\u20acW*%i”\n<\/p>\n
45<\/span><\/p>\n
in mining activities in the Union Territory of Goa and in the State
\nof Orissa ( besides its mining related activities in the State of
\nKarnataka). M\/s. Sesa Goa has been granted a lease over
\n116.15 hectares of land in (Madakeripura and other vigillages in<\/p>\n
Holalkere and Chitradurga Taluks in Chitradu.r.ga_\u00bbV.’:District)<\/p>\n
through Mining Lease No.2236, in the State ofV_i<'a~r,nata'i<va.'I 'Thel'
\naforesaid lease, according to |earnedmMcouin_sel,  7<\/p>\n
28.10.2012. The petitioner cornpanyV4h_a1s'.,_i.3een.:rec'oigniie4d'–~aVs~a<\/p>\n
1000\/o export-oriented unit in reisvipect of'–t,he\u00bb.a'f_or\u00e9s'aVi'd mining<\/p>\n
lease. It is   on 15.05.2009, the
\npetitioner Vui\ufb01inistry of Commerce and
\n  the enhancement of its
\nDroductioiri metric tones to 6.0 metric tones<\/p>\n
per year. Ita"t's,_also'.'–thAe_ case of the petitioners, that the mines<\/p>\n
 under xM'i'iiinig' Lease No.2236 have been certified in<\/p>\n
 standards, i.e. ISO 9002, ISO 14001 and<\/p>\n
Ol4iS23;S~1E.i0.0i1_…5'IVt is submitted, that the M\/s. Sesa Goa limited is<\/p>\n
'the l"irst7.._company in the country, to maintain such high
\nA ~f_stand\u00abaArds. On the pointed issue of illegal mining, it is asserted
\n' that the company has invested in computerization of its<\/p>\n
operations, by using the Enterprise Resources Planning (ERP)<\/p>\n
package. Its mine planning activities, are carried out by using<\/p>\n
another software package — SURPAC. SURPAC, according to the<\/p>\n
46<\/span><\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner is considered as a world leader
\nin mine planning software. The movement of saleable ore is
\nmonitored and tracked using RFIDS fixed to transport trucks. It
\nis the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner,V”th’a.t_ the<\/p>\n
petitioner is also very Seriously engaged in enviro;n’rrientaIV5r;areM,<\/p>\n
as well as, in social development and infrastructurefirri’p:if0vem’ent
\nactivities. In this behalf it is pointedout,_that–_th4e’ ‘c_ompan\\_.(__hi:as 7<\/p>\n
been planting over one lakh trees every”–year,,V.a\u00a5s.a part of its<\/p>\n
afforestation activities. In additi’o.n_’,’ a bra’n.ch”coVf  petitioner<\/p>\n
company tit|e_di_:a’s:.1’\u00a7\u00a7iptegrate.d $io:;tech.n:ological Approach for
\nMine Land  an in–house programme in
\ncollaboratioVn’_Ali  Department of Bio-\n<\/p>\n
Technology,  and the University of LUND,<\/p>\n
Sweden. Inkthe im.med.iat’e-f vicinity of its mining activities, the<\/p>\n
. if”peytitioneir”i.co’mApany’s’,””i<arnataka Unit in Chitradurga District, is<\/p>\n
\u00bb.'4as.si's.ting aii the 1,709 families (from the five<\/p>\n
surioundivng'villages) in improving their crop outputs and farm<\/p>\n
 'yields, " by faciiitating suitable commercial plantation in
\n'ic_o.|,lal5'oration with the State Agricuiturai University, Dharwad. it
\n  isgiasserted, that the petitioner company has also invested more<\/p>\n
 than Rs.10O crore in Karnataka, and is committed to still further<\/p>\n
investments (towards machinery, equipment and infrastructure<\/p>\n
required) to support its mining activities. The petitioner<\/p>\n
47<\/span><\/p>\n
company’s activities in the State of Karnataka, it is submitted,
\ninvolve the direct and indirect engagement of 5,000 people, and
\nas such, impairment in the activities of the petitioner company
\nwould directly affect the life and livelihood of more than-.,5,000<\/p>\n
families, i.e., approximately 25,000 individuals. <\/p>\n
mining activity of the petitioner company isV__co.nceirned,%
\nsubmitted, that its exports to the ex’tent'”of._8-<7"\/ci' alre\u00ab.of_iron;oreb T.<\/p>\n
"Fines", whereas, the remaining, 13\u00b0\/oils "'Lumpy"V_gore\u00bb. '~Insofar'as<\/p>\n
iron-ore "Fines" are concerned, llexarrwed cou—nsewlfor the petitioner<\/p>\n
asserts, that  '~7,l;'}~.iY   State of Karnataka
\nwhich can  as such, contends that,
\nin the the option is between either
\nwasting iron-'ore"'.VEin,es.l'"o:r_:"exporting them to foreign countries<\/p>\n
for earning vamablehforeignvexchange, the only option which any<\/p>\n
' "reas'onal:~,i'-'.=. person 'would exercise is, to earn profits for the<\/p>\n
0'covtiyntlrylf..;it~4"is,_:submitted, that in processing of the iron~ore<\/p>\n
"Fir.e4sh", coykelijslan essential requirement, but India being deficit<\/p>\n
'Kin coke, the only option for India (if it desires to process iron-ore
\n":0.""_l'i,ne's{') is to first earn foreign exchange (by sale of iron-ore
\n0  "Fines") and to purchase coke with the foreign exchange earned,<\/p>\n
 so as to be able to process iron-ore "Fines" within the country.<\/p>\n
7. Through the factual position expressed above, it is sought<\/p>\n
to be highlighted by the petitioners, that the impugned orders<\/p>\n
._\u00a7Wa’~<\/p>\n
48<\/span><\/p>\n
dated 26.07.2010 and 28.07.2010 have far reaching implications<\/p>\n
adversely affecting not only the petitioners, but also,_,vth_e~.._fc.reign<\/p>\n
exchange earnings, as also, the revenue ea-:5ni’n’g\u00a7V:~-.,i:\u00a7’;r.v,_the
\ngovernment and its agencies. The saidmadverse”e*\u00a7iects’iex–teno to
\nthose whose employment is directlyV’\u00bband._-iinclireectly. depenedyerate on ‘<\/p>\n
mining related activities in the S_tate,2a_lso_, tc-I’th,eiF.,_i’es’pective.<\/p>\n
families. It is also highlighted,  muostaof  iron ore being
\nexported is of a kind whic_ti’:’–:an’n0t:’,lb\u00e9j'{plrocessedliinliythe country,
\nand yet is being sold so_as,:l’to,   the country. Ail
\nthe petitioners?__’:a4l’sp:c!a.irn  in social aswell as
\nenvironmental  the country. All the
\naforesaid,  .l,a;’ridHconselguential progressive activities<\/p>\n
have been adverseyly’  the impugned orders.\n<\/p>\n
Preface to.t:he s’ub_rnissions advanced by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
     …..\n<\/p>\n
   the same manner as the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners ‘i”r.ijf.Ii..*3ed our attention to certain introductory facts<\/p>\n
‘.,depictiri.g:” cause and effect of the impugned orders dated
\nV’ “{_26i.07’\u00ab–…y2010 and 28.07.2010, similarly the learned counsel for
\nrespondent Nos. 1 to 5 also prefaced his submissions by taking<\/p>\n
 through the foundational basis, which prompted the State<\/p>\n
Government, to issue the impugned orders. In this behalf, it is<\/p>\n
the assertion of the learned counsel for the respondents, that<\/p>\n
T<\/p>\n
49<\/span><\/p>\n
there was a spurt of demand for iron–ore in the giobai market
\nfrom the year 2001 onwards. This came about as a c_ons’e_guence<\/p>\n
of increase in the price of iron–ore, wherein ChinaHeirie-rgettlmas<\/p>\n
the major global consumer of iron-ore, in theTo-o:tw~st’eps_of__the,<\/p>\n
demand of iron~ore, emerged the illegal iactivity..of.’expioitatiiaVniAof <\/p>\n
iron–ore in the State of i<arna.tai<a.V'7.V_l'X chart'%".Vdepicti:'ngvdthe<\/p>\n
production of iron–ore in Karnata'i<a' {.which'w\/valsi reproduced in
\nparagraph 3, of the statement? of.obj.ecti"ons filed on behalf of<\/p>\n
respondent nos. 1_t_o 5) is'.._h.ei_ng e.:l<t:rac\u00b0ted'h.ere'under:<\/p>\n
"Following is \u00ab'the sta.tem'erit showing.' the production of Iron one in<\/p>\n
Karnataka & Expoi"ts.outsilde7;\u00a7\u00a7i'e, llmlfzis of India.<\/p>\n
SliNo’.”i    Dornes’t’lc Exports Total
\n*   __Con$umption Quantity
\n1  _ ‘2oo5+o6 If V.  ”10 MN?” 33 MNT 43 MN?”\n<\/p>\n
W2. _ “2oo5~-V0.73 V ” 11 MNT 23 MNT 34 MNT
\n  i..2oo7\u00a5o8v– —– –\u00ab * 18 MNT 25 MNT 44 MNT
\n i.4M_;__”_\u00ab_ f;ci’c’1a\u00bbo9 22 MNT 23 MN?’ 45 MN?’\n<\/p>\n
-;-W5′   ‘2og9.ii’10 31 MN?” 18 MN?’ 49 MNT<\/p>\n
In do-rder_.to’_ct1rlb the activity of illegal mining of iron-ore, which<\/p>\n
l.'””~.__V’wasg mai<.i_ng in\u00bbroads in Karnataka, the State government as far
\nit  i"ti.a'cl<_  in the year 2003, through a notification dated
\n.?1'SiO3.2\u20ac)O3, de-reserved for private mining, an area of 11,620<\/p>\n
 sq.l<ms. The State government also notified the surrender of an<\/p>\n
area of 6,832.48 hectares of prime iron-ore bearing lands. The<\/p>\n
action of the Government for distribution of mining iicenses to a<\/p>\n
" V ,illegal transportation<\/p>\n
50<\/span><\/p>\n
select few private individuals, without regard to their
\nprofessional, technical or business background was  the<\/p>\n
general public as a covert act so as to benefit only ‘a”sei’e.Tct-‘._f_\u00e9’N<\/p>\n
individuals\/organisations, whereas themmain ob]’ective’Vbeh–i,nd.,_de’~.
\nreservation was to encourage mining baseid ‘indust-riesfa_nd;:Vsto ‘<\/p>\n
create more employment opport_unities,_’i’n vthev”‘ip,,i-ivayte_:’\u00a7seVcto:r.i.<\/p>\n
Illegal mining, followed the  p’rofi.t:abV’:ility} connected
\ntherewith. The general-…_..’:pub~l\ufb01ifc  alsoi was, that
\ntransportation facilities we.re_  to carry out the
\nactivity of illegally  nsgzyfortation permits were
\nissued to   from patta lands.\n<\/p>\n
TranSpoarta’tio_n  ironeore was allowed out of forest
\nareas onzfthe”basi’s_of:.fo.re’st_:’passes\/transportation permits. Even<\/p>\n
the Transporters As.sociatio:ns\/Unions were aggrieved with the<\/p>\n
  o,fi.ov-e,r~loaVding'”of transport vehicles. It was alleged by<\/p>\n
‘thevgixlssoc\ufb01titins\/’tgnions, that illegal gratification was sought by<\/p>\n
the’ transvportlgaiuthorities from trucl<~owners for allowing over~\u00ab<\/p>\n
'Vl,oading"iro:n–ore. But, it was pointed out, that overloading had<\/p>\n
''\u00abcaused_. extensive damage to roads used E transporting iron~ore.<\/p>\n
   The cumulative effect of illegal mining of iron–ore, as also<\/p>\n
of such iron–ore, led to an extensive
\ndebate on the floor of both houses of the State Legislatures, in<\/p>\n
Karnataka. During the course of aforesaid debates, it was<\/p>\n
U"\n<\/p>\n
u-…\u00ab–…..\n<\/p>\n
51<\/span><\/p>\n
alleged, that large scale lllegalities and irregularities hadresulted
\nin enormous revenue loss to the State exchequ_er,_:”~..be.sides<\/p>\n
plundering of State’s mineral wealth. On <\/p>\n
Department of Forest, Uttar Kannada, l<arwar,"'seig:ed"l:8,Q5,f\u00a791,
\nmetric tones of ironmore unauthorisedly :_tra.nsprort'ed'-aridfigllegaallly '<\/p>\n
stored, without any legal or va:llc|__.documentVs.  ilron-1<\/p>\n
ore was intended to be exporteidoutsaide llllridiaat bgelekeri Port
\narea. Another similar Se-ifure   tones of iron—
\nore was made in the  same day ie., on
\n30.03.2010.  to :i'gi\u00a7\u00a7't':–"rreem7 media reports, that
\n6,00,000   Vhad been clandestinely
\nPortpllalnd another, 65,409 metric
\ntones ofR'i'roVn"–oVre' lbeenrcjlandestinely removed from Karwar<\/p>\n
Port_ :.The aC'hi_ef*.M'inister"':of Karnataka, accordingly made a<\/p>\n
 "s.taterrler1,t, that he'VwVo"u'ld ensure the highest level of fairness and<\/p>\n
""prob:itya, :a's,,:also.,,:o;:der an impartial enquiry into the illegal mining<\/p>\n
related avctivitiels in Karnataka.\n<\/p>\n
 ll  would be relevant to mention, that the first of such<\/p>\n
gV.’irive,stAlgations was sought to be carried–out in the State of<\/p>\n
hliarnataka, by appointing a former Chief Justice (Hon’ble Mr.<\/p>\n
 Justice U.L.Bhat) of Madhya Pradesh, as a one~man Commission,<\/p>\n
to probe into the allegations of wide spread and unabated illegal<\/p>\n
mining and unauthorised transportation of iron–ore from<\/p>\n
52<\/span><\/p>\n
government revenue and forest lands. Thereafter two
\nGovernment orders dated 12.03.2007 and 09.09.2007, were<\/p>\n
issued in exercise of powers conferred u\/s.\n<\/p>\n
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter referireditoy
\nLokayukta Act) for investigation introluthe’afore+sta_ted,_Vmatters T.<\/p>\n
and for submission of a report with spe.cifi<; FeCOiTi'l'ifl\u00e9ndaxt'E.tjl"iSv.'V'-It<\/p>\n
was pointed out by the learnerlV:V"Advoca'teVGejrieraglilltlhat the
\nKarnataka Lokayukta, (H'on'ble.~riVl'r.'* N.Santosh Hegde), a<\/p>\n
former Judge of the Supreme'  bmitted his first<\/p>\n
interim report  The aforesaid
\ninterim report"(ai_pVp_encl'ed.jto'i,'i_th:e'statement of objections fiied on
\nbehalf    S, Annexure-R-1) highlighted<\/p>\n
various aspects of.the1'act'i*v_ilties' of iron–ore mining.<\/p>\n
11.  0′ In the”‘interim report of the Karkataka Lokayukta, in so<\/p>\n
   jvjeeonomics of mining iron–ore in Karnataka is
\nC’QVnce_rned,”‘\u00ab’i.tV_was”:’sought to be concluded, that one metric tonne<\/p>\n
 _ of iro4n~ore’brings in a revenue of Rs.16\/– to Rs.27\/– to the State
\nKarn.a’tal<a (by way of royalty). The interim report, reveals
\n  total cost of extraction of one tonne of ironvore works to
\n  .a_r.ound Rs.300\/-. As against the aforesaid, it was pointed out,<\/p>\n
 that during the peak years 2004 and 2006, the export price of<\/p>\n
one metric tonne of iron–ore was in the range of Rs.6,000\/– to<\/p>\n
Rs.7,000\/–. Even in lean periods, (as per the Karnataka<\/p>\n
wawsw<\/p>\n
0' . 'by "the iessees.\n<\/p>\n
53<\/span><\/p>\n
Lokayukta’s interim report) the export price of ironfore per<\/p>\n
metric tonne was between Rs.1,S00\/– to Rs.2,000\/–._;~Kie~ep’ing in<\/p>\n
mind the sale price of iron–ore per metric tonne  it
\nwas sought to be calculated, that the iron–ore’ commu_ni’ty. <\/p>\n
in Karnataka earned approximately’  ‘c’rCres,;,i_iAon’<\/p>\n
account of having mined aboUt’\u00ab.;20 vmililwion toinessviofmironaoreg
\nduring the year 2007-2008. In  as the domestic market is<\/p>\n
concerned, the statemento’ otijectiorss_’fi,E’e’d _by respondents 1 to<\/p>\n
5 shows, a profit of Rs.15,0.00\/+iV._icrpresv.,0″itgis pointed out, that _<\/p>\n
there is no trade0′:-‘er.’_l3ais’inessiixorrcornnaerice in the world which
\ncan give such_a –h_uu;gVe\n<\/p>\n
12.  -‘.i’he.Vvinter.i:m ,,rep:ort. ofthe Karnataka Lokayukta dated<\/p>\n
18.12.2008′-aisovyre’v_eals,=  mining lease holders, besides<\/p>\n
 othersjgivhad be’en.V_,:carr!ying out illegai mining of iron~ore by
\n _v1e:ncroa.chments into lands beyond the mining area
\nAe;ipressediiiinithievrespective lease deeds. This was sought to be<\/p>\n
 _ done; as_’:’p-effthe Karnataka Lokayukta’s interim report, by<\/p>\n
 ;sh.ifting the notified leased area to different convenient locations<\/p>\n
The instant iiiegality was sought to be<\/p>\n
  cornmitted by taking a wrong reference point, or by altering the<\/p>\n
” original reference point, or sometimes even with the connivance<\/p>\n
of the iocai staff. Such encroachments in a large number of<\/p>\n
cases, also traversed into the adjoining forest areas and\/or<\/p>\n
54<\/span><\/p>\n
government revenue lands. Encroachments beyond lease<\/p>\n
boundaries, was aiso sought to be carried out by depositing iron~<\/p>\n
ore beyond the pheriphery of the notified <\/p>\n
Another mode of encroachment, which wa_s””~s:oug’ht’ <\/p>\n
highlighted in the interim report of l<g'arna'taka-;'Lo:i<aly'ukta'wasnyxbyl it 0<\/p>\n
formation of roads to mining ,,|easeV"a_re'a_s located *vd'eep'\\l'i~nVsid,e
\nforest\/government revenue land's,,.V"'–,It was.po'iint'edxV"ou't," that the<\/p>\n
aforesaid road formations. ha,d'""cau5e'd-_extens'ive7damage to<\/p>\n
forest areas. Such and si.mil_a–r ki.nd_ of2'encroa'chments, made by
\nthose engaged:in}1j,~itne.Vactivi'ty o'f"ii'iegal mining of iron~ore<\/p>\n
required imrriediiate attenti'on_'o:f"'the Stalte government.<\/p>\n
13.  learned Advocate General, illegal
\ntransportation ‘of m’iner,al\u00bb~w”a.s4another aspect, highlighted in the<\/p>\n
interyimlyreport Vofntne l<Zarnataka Lokayukta. On the instant<\/p>\n
  o_\ufb01f".thevj'rn.atter, it was pointed out, that there was evidence
\n district alone 4,000 to 5,000 lorries, at<\/p>\n
 _ any"give__n'  of time, were engaged in carrying mineral
\n and from, the mining head to various transportation
\n .._l'po:i'rits:'llike railway stations, sea~ports, etc. The interim report of
\n    Karnataka Lokayukta also emphasized, that almost all lorries<\/p>\n
" engaged in carrying minerals were over-loaded, far in excess of<\/p>\n
the permissible limits. These over~loaded trucks carrying<\/p>\n
mineral ore had, caused extensive damage to all roads used for<\/p>\n
55<\/span><\/p>\n
the transportation of iron~ore. Resultantly, roads including
\nnationai highways had practically been rendered u\ufb01mi\u00a7to’i=ab|e.<\/p>\n
The interim report suggests, that in the transpo~E{tation[j–act’ivity<\/p>\n
itself, there was a need to provideJcheck–p.o’sts—-.:with’=:suffic_ien’t.
\nnumber of weigh-bridges. It was also recor:nrne_nd’ed,’that  l<\/p>\n
of GPS equipment in lorries ciairryuing VironV’\u00bbore,ti’shoaVl.dV  <\/p>\n
compulsory, so as to keep a che:c:k\u00ab.’o’ver thje”m:ov:emVent of these
\nvehicles. The interim rep.ort’allso theiintroduction of
\na new transport permit  the existing
\nsystem  were  pointed out, that
\nsuch bulk   period of 30 days, were
\nbeing    even incorporate the name
\nof mining Jlease “the quantity of material being<\/p>\n
transported or’ e_:ven…the”.ve’hicle number. It was suggested, that<\/p>\n
‘i it “buoil<"::2iermitswere  misused for t:"an5l30rtir19 more than the<\/p>\n
 of mineral. Whereby, legally mined iron ore<\/p>\n
was.__mixed.'w1iVth' the illegally mined iron-ore, and conveniently<\/p>\n
7.\u00ab.,_”Vt,ranspo’*rtee:l to the desired destinations. The Karnataka
\n“:i;okaly’ukta suggested the idea of having one permit for one
\n vehicle for one trip, with a maximum transport duration of seven<\/p>\n
 days. The aforesaid permit according to the suggestion made by<\/p>\n
the Karnataka Lokayukta, should have a hologram as also a<\/p>\n
computer bar-code, wherein, the name of the transporter, the<\/p>\n
56<\/span><\/p>\n
number of vehicle, the quantity of ore to be transported,___as also,<\/p>\n
the point from where the iron–ore was to be collecterfalndnn the<\/p>\n
point to which it was to be delivered, shouid <\/p>\n
was also suggested, that at the end, of th_e”‘tr”io,j,th’eV’Qrigin’al.<\/p>\n
transport permit would have to be surre’nidere’d.,l so ‘that’iii_t “could i<\/p>\n
not be re–used.\n<\/p>\n
14. Based on the pleadingsA,coxntairied in’t”iie.j,oi,nt statement
\nof objections (filed on beha:ilf~..1nto 5), as also, the
\naction taken  made by the
\nKarnataka   -…fu:rth:e_r’subrnitted at the hands of
\nthe learned.,   out of ‘153 mining lease
\nholders :V’eng.a’gedl”uinf:-..rninni4ng:’major minerals, cases of nearly 99<\/p>\n
mining leas’e.4_hoiclers_ ‘i\u00e9viiadsbee\u00e9n taken up for scrutiny. Out of the<\/p>\n
 afores_\u00a7’ai”d,i*.it was found that nearly 81 mining lease holders were<\/p>\n
 t.he*i..r operations in forest land, and the remaining 18<\/p>\n
rr.in’i’n_g. iea’_se_ ih’o’i’ders were carrying on their operations in<\/p>\n
 _ revenue v–i’andi”belonging to the State government. . It was also<\/p>\n
:co..ntende’cl,. that it was found that 60 mining lease holders, had<\/p>\n
.._e’n_croa’ched into forest land adjoining their permissible lease<\/p>\n
area, and were carrying on mining activities on encroached<\/p>\n
“forest land. It was submitted, that 56 forest offence cases had<\/p>\n
been registered in the courts of jurisdictionai magistrate at<\/p>\n
Beilary, Hospet and Sandur. It was pointed out that neariy 15<\/p>\n
d  %<\/p>\n
5?\n<\/p>\n
charge sheets had been filed before jurisdictional courts for<\/p>\n
prosecuting different mining lease holders, for loss  the<\/p>\n
green cover, flora and fauna, running into s–ejvera’\u00a7..j’,’hund_r’ed
\ncrores of rupees. It was also submitted, thata'”l-a:rge”‘nu’mber”of <\/p>\n
show cause notices had been issuedi’-by  <\/p>\n
Geology, Karnataka, to erriwnggg mining Vlease  for-
\nterminating their lease agreemieintsg  V it it 1<\/p>\n
15. It was emphasiZ”e*d,t.h:at’  instance the State of
\nKarnataka had ve_ntured,to”prevefit}:he..act\u00a74v.iti’es of illegal mining
\nand transportat.i,on\u00ab:’::\u00a7f.:w1irota.  the provisions of the
\n VTransport) Rules, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
However,  holders, aggrieved by the
\naforesaidiiam\u00e9endedw. challenged the validity’ of the same<\/p>\n
beforetlwies court  pointed out, that some of the petitioners<\/p>\n
  also approached this Court, for the said purpose.<\/p>\n
I had stayed the operation of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
 _ rules;— m_aki-ngiit impossible for the State government, to<\/p>\n
K..4l”—-V,V,imp|em.e’n-ti. even the recommendations made by the Karnataka
\n   kta.\n<\/p>\n
  It was also the vehement contention of the learned<\/p>\n
V Advocate General, that the entire activity under reference being<\/p>\n
in public interest, had been initiated by the State government to<\/p>\n
58<\/span><\/p>\n
prevent ioss on account of various unscrupulous activities at the<\/p>\n
hands of individuals engaged in the activity of and<\/p>\n
transport of iron-ore. It was pointed out,__-that” State
\ngovernment had no other alternativehbcut to_-t’a’ke:s_te’r’i’1 vremediialc <\/p>\n
measures. It was submitted, that?._the,”activity’ ofjillegal.._mii,r_i’ing <\/p>\n
as also its transportation, whereby
\nexported out of the country,  permitted, by
\nany legitimate governme-n_t:,”  the assertion of
\nthe learned Advocate General.,  orders dated
\n26.07.2010 an?\u00a7l41\u00a7:;:a:l07,Vi:–01i0 Aitoiibei-reissued, to enable the
\nState goverhme\ufb01htgto”p1lt:?~’i.riV…:pi’alcei”\u00a7etfective measures to stop
\nillegal   export of illegally mined
\niron~ oref Jit  the instant measures are only<\/p>\n
temporary,  much .as,”‘they wouid be continued for a period<\/p>\n
‘JV'”of,a’p-piroximately sixvmonths, by which time, the final report of<\/p>\n
“‘ti_he_:Kaxrna.tal{a~_:Lo.kayukta wouid be obtained, and the, State<\/p>\n
gove.r’nme_nt'”woVuld have been in a position to adopt adequate<\/p>\n
itneasuresito prevent the illegal activities.<\/p>\n
 Elhrough the factual position expressed by the learned
\n_\/c\u00e9rclvocate Generai it emerges, that the impugned orders were<\/p>\n
{issued as a matter of compulsion, to prevent the illegal iron-ore<\/p>\n
reiated activities in the State of Karnataka. It was pointed out,<\/p>\n
that there was hue and cry in the pubiic, about large scale illegal<\/p>\n
59<\/span><\/p>\n
activities concerning ironwore mining in Karnataka. The matter<\/p>\n
also came to be discussed on the floors of the Legisia’t~i.ve\u00ab_pHovuses<\/p>\n
in Karnataka. The public perception having be_ei3
\nthe interim report submitted by theMHKarnata’ka”‘-t.OkayLikta,.._v4th”eH<\/p>\n
government commenced to impiementiithe’\u00bbre’coinme’n.giai;i’ons <\/p>\n
made in the report, by first ir-‘tr@_ducing_necessary;vamenldments
\nin the Karnataka Mining (Regulationuaniyd Tra’i”.sp_o.’rt) VRUi\u20acS, 2008.
\nAnd then, by putting ir.—._._pia_cei_i_ certa’in_’\u00bbphysica| measures aiso.
\nThe course acioptecl by the..S_tateV._qove’r’n,m’ent’could not progress
\nmuch on acco’u’nitij.is\u00bbi’of yijnteirim .o’rdie’rs”‘*–passed by this Court.
\nAccordingiy, as-i_a;_i\u00aba:st_:’i~esio.rt._the impugned orders had to be
\npassed; it i  <\/p>\n
The Impuqne-dy orci\u00e9r.”:\u00a7j:~.ii <\/p>\n
 18. ,,.i\u00a7’eVfore  to the main controversy, pertaining to the
\n  at the hands of the petitioners, to the orders
\n and 28.07.2010, it is imperative for us to<\/p>\n
 _ understatiid  exact purport of the same. The aforesaid two<\/p>\n
 iyorders, ought to be extracted herein . The Engiish translation of<\/p>\n
 .._ith_e”first impugned order dated 26.07.2010 is accordingiy being<\/p>\n
  reproduced hereunder: –\n<\/p>\n
” PROCEEDINGS OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA<\/p>\n
Sub: Prohibition of exporting iron ores from the Ports in the
\nState — reg.\n<\/p>\n
l<\/p>\n
:6<\/p>\n
62<\/span><\/p>\n
following 1.0 minor Ports in the State, with immediate effect,
\nuntil further orders:\n<\/p>\n
2. Belikeri Port<\/p>\n
4. Honnavar Port\n<\/p>\n
6. Kundapura Port\n<\/p>\n
8. Hongaarakatta Pqr’t””–..  ” ;.\n<\/p>\n
10. Padubidri Port  ”  ‘2 <\/p>\n
1. Karwar Port<\/p>\n
3. Tadhadi Port<\/p>\n
5. Batkal Port<\/p>\n
7. Malpe Port<\/p>\n
9. Old Mangalore Port<\/p>\n
The Port Officers of the aforesaid ‘Ports ”   are’ it<\/p>\n
hereby instructed to initiate strict action to preueilt iron ore<\/p>\n
exports from the Ports, as exporting ;:’ron”ores_ is prohib’iite(\u00a7l:1g3),<\/p>\n
the Government.\n<\/p>\n
of Karnatalga,<\/p>\n
BY order and in “th’e..name of C30.’\/\u00e9-.=*nd’F.  <\/p>\n
_ 5 sd\/4 V.\n<\/p>\n
 (S.iThio\ufb012eS;w\u00e9i7iyg) l  _
\nUnder Secretaryito Govejrnrrien t,
\nPublic Worl<s,.."Port_and Inland' Water
\n'  fTransport.l:iepartrn_enVt (i-j"orts)"\n<\/p>\n
The EHQIESF} _Atiravi.*z_-sEe_tV\u00a7’~on  second impugned order dated<\/p>\n
28.07.20’1′{)VV_ is eEso.Vjl:le-en\u00bbre-::n’e’oduced hereunder:-<\/p>\n
. ., x ” A “~.r.:Q” mv.~,s4’Q” :F QQV\ufb02\ufb02MElVI QE gAgiyA”rAKg<\/p>\n
Q} t;’  Prohibitindissuance of permits for exporting iron ores –<\/p>\n
 ieg.\u00ab_ ,<\/p>\n
A  Governnvent order l\\io.l..oE.186:PSP 2010 dated 26.07.2010<\/p>\n
of’ the Department of Public Works, Ports and Inland Water
\n‘ifransport.\n<\/p>\n
2.’ Demi Official letter i\\io.DMG\/201041 dated 26.0?.2010 of<\/p>\n
the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Khanija
\nBhavan, Bangalore.\n<\/p>\n
Preamble:\n<\/p>\n
On 20.03.2010 the Forest Department has seized
\napproximately 8, 05,991 metric tones illegal stock of iron ores
\nfrom Belikeri Port and approximately 1,155,399 metric ton iron
\nore illegally stocked at Kanwar Port. Out of this, about 6. 00
\nlakh tones of iron ore at Belilceri Port and about 65,409 metric
\ntones of iron ore at Kerwar Port’ are illegally exported, in this<\/p>\n
63<\/span><\/p>\n
regard, Forest Department has filed cases before Honible
\nCourt, which are pending consideration. Apart from __ this, it
\nhas come to the knowledge of the Government aboutstorage
\nof iron ore at various Ports with an intention to trar:\u00bbsp’ort* and
\nexport iron ore illegally. —\n<\/p>\n
On considering the quantity of iron orefbeinghgiillega_liy 4_
\nproduced in the State from past many yea-rs,__in_comparison, <\/p>\n
with the quantity of its local use.and..its e’xport’quantity,. it”.is
\nlearnt that, iron ore in excess of the qua_ntityl.permitted is;
\nbeing exported to foreign countries a:nd~’also=su’m totalthe<\/p>\n
quantity of iron are exported and quantity of ,o’1fei’for”domestic’–
\nuse are considerably higherthian the quantity ~of~a_uthorized., ‘<\/p>\n
production of iron ore.\n<\/p>\n
In the Government Order. _dated_ 12.03′.’20\u00a317, the case
\nwas handed over to, the I-lon.’bie’\u00ab..i_o_ka,vukta as per Section
\n7(2)A of Karnataka ‘ Lokayiiikta ‘A_ct,  1984 to conduct
\ninvestigation with regard to purported ‘.’llegal mining activities
\nin the State and theichargles against’.thersovernment for the
\nperiod frorri’C7;I.(?~1.2002g tof;?2;\u00abO7′.2f1’J06 \u00e9hd thereafter the said
\ninvestigation period is extended ,upto””24.12.2008 and finally
\nextended upto”’ “1 9_,O7;-.2016′ .and “handed over the case to the
\nHon’ble –s..Lol<a'yul<ta to "conduct fdetailed investigation with
\nregard ..to"j.expo:rt. ofores frorn–"the State in excess of the
\nquantity foraivhich transport_ permits were issued.<\/p>\n
 With a 't4iew._0jit'o0limpede illegal mining activities and illegal
\ntransportation"and toicontrol re~use of the permits issued for
\ntransporting .m;fne'rals;' Government has already initiated<\/p>\n
_;_vari'o.us necessary actions.\n<\/p>\n
 VTo..,inip_ede illegal mining and transportation of iron ore,<\/p>\n
 ugu.idelines’s._ai.e being formulated with regard to the further\n<\/p>\n
–..,action_”_to be taken by the Department and also for issuance of<\/p>\n
permits’.—-_ T he Government has intended to gather information<\/p>\n
,.,.._as “f0 the quantity of iron ore being produced in the State,<\/p>\n
quantity out of the same being used for industrial
\ndevelopment and the quantity of ore being exported to foreign<\/p>\n
0′ \u00abcountries and as to the Contractors supplying iron ores to the
\n iron ore exporting companies, and to re-examine thoroughly<\/p>\n
and initiate necessary reformatory actions. With a view to
\ncontrol illegal mining activities and export of iron ores without
\npermits and to seize the ores and also with a view to protect
\nnatural resources, it is inevitable to provisionally withhold
\nissuing permits. Hence, the following order:<\/p>\n
GOVERNMENT ORDER N0.CI.162 MMM 2010. BANGALORE
\nDATED 28. 07. 2010<\/p>\n
..i’~4t”*<\/p>\n
64<\/span><\/p>\n
In view of the factors explained in the preambie, the
\nGovernment hereby prohibits issuance of mineral uispatch
\npermit for transportation iron ore for the purpose of.,expor_ting
\nthe same from the State with immediate effect”. a’nd–_un.tii
\nfurther orders.   ‘ u .\n<\/p>\n
The Deputy Directors and Senior Geo_iogis,ts’–.o’f aii the
\nDistricts are hereby instructed _to…s_trictiy compiy iwith. this V’
\norder and to initiate aii necessary effect atctionsimmediateiy
\nto preventi\/legal mining: tran5POiT?L’ati{Jri… ” ” ”  <\/p>\n
By order and in ‘the name of Gov’ern,or,_,
\nof Ka.rna_tai<a, '  <\/p>\n
' __ '~{G.\/Ti.Ada_ci7att'.{)
\nUnder"3ecretary{ to Government,
\nDepartment of ,Cornmerce_& Industries.\n<\/p>\n
\/1<\/p>\n
The Leqai issue?’      <\/p>\n
The First ,__(;onte”I:t’i:o_h {    qoverhment has no
\niurisdiction toiiissue the i_nzougned orders):<\/p>\n
19. The first .con’tenitio,hn’–\u00bbadvanced by the iearned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioners wasv,’vthAa–tsthe impugned orders dated 26.07.2010<\/p>\n
not have been issued by the State<\/p>\n
V,gov’ern,rrsen’t;,”a:s—-_it was not within the jurisdictionai authority<\/p>\n
vested in tti\u00e9’j_S.tate government, to issue the same. In order to<\/p>\n
‘rsubstantiiiatey the instant contention, reliance was first of an
\n“..fpiaceti_on’ Article 162 of the Constitution of India, for deiineating
\nthe ‘limits of executive power vested in a State government.<\/p>\n
 “Article 162 aforementioned is being reproduced hereunder:<\/p>\n
“1 62. Extent of executive power of State- Subject to
\nthe provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of
\na State shall extend to the matters with respect to which
\nthe Legislature of the State has power to make laws:<\/p>\n
we<\/p>\n
65<\/span><\/p>\n
Provided that in any matter with respect to which the
\nLegislature of a State and Parliament have power to make
\nlaws, the executive power of the State shall be subject-to,
\nand limited by, the executive power expressly conferred
\nby this Constitution or by any law made by Parllam__ent”‘.,
\nupon the Union or authorities thereof”.  ‘ V 0′  A<\/p>\n
It is apparent from a perusal of Articie 3.62,.~thaf’~th”e::exAecuti–ve\ufb01”—_<\/p>\n
power of a State is co~extensiveI_withy\u00e9the-,9l’e.gi’slative power”—-<\/p>\n
vested with the State Eegislattiresh. Itw_as’ accordeinigil\u00e9yi
\nby learned counsel for the petitio’n:e’rs,_that’  determine
\nwhether or not the ‘SLt’ate  hadxthe executive
\nauthority to passythe  26.07.2010 and
\n28.07.2010,: Vilthlatvtgvvilll have to be carried out
\nwould    State legislatures had the
\ncompetenceto on the subject on which the<\/p>\n
impugned, orders ‘d’a’ted” 2.6..0?.2010 and 28.07.2010 had been<\/p>\n
. .'”issue’da.. ?”An<5't.her alternative mode for determining the instant<\/p>\n
 issue,Vaccerding\ufb01a learned counsel, was to examine whether the<\/p>\n
legislative.jurisdiction of the subject (on which the impugned<\/p>\n
ii'"~..__"orders had been issued) was exciusively within the domain of the
\nV"-i5_airl_ia4ment. This iatter alternative, according to learned counsel,
\n  if answered in the affirmative, would also lead to the same<\/p>\n
ujfconclusion, namely, that the subject was beyond the scope of<\/p>\n
legislative competence of the State, because in respect of<\/p>\n
subjects on which the Parliament can legislate, the executive<\/p>\n
\u00b0"%""'*.?""a\u00a3"\n<\/p>\n
66<\/span><\/p>\n
power vests with the Centre! government under Articie 73 of the
\nConstitution of India. As a matter of fact, iearnedrtsounsei
\nadopted both the aforesaid aiternatives to <\/p>\n
contention.\n<\/p>\n
20. Learned counsei for the petitioners i'”n_vit’ed._.:ou(r\u00bbajttention <\/p>\n
to Articies 245 and 246 of thesicuonstitution  L’ Thceisarne<\/p>\n
are reproduced hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
“245. Extent of la ws ‘m’acie_._ by.vPar!iament and by the
\nLegislatures of States; ._— (1) ‘Su–f)jeCt..V(_i’O_ the provisions
\nof this Constitution,’Parliarnel:.t’;rnay’. make laws for the
\nwhole or;a’n’y.. ,’uart*_ofg the territ_or..y_ of India, and the
\nLegislature, offja State may make laws for the whole or<\/p>\n
any part of_the”State.”-Q.K <\/p>\n
(2) No iaxwmaide =by”–the–.Parllarnent shall be deemed to be
\ninvalid on’the_2groun.d*thatit would have extra–territorial
\nop’eration.i ‘ ‘ L .  ~ ‘<\/p>\n
246. *$_ubject–matter”.\u00bbsof laws made by Parliament
\nand by ‘  ‘=_LegisIatures of States.- (1)
\nuglvoiwithstaiiding anything in clauses (2) and (3),
\n ‘Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect<\/p>\n
\u00ab , ‘ to any of,_the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh\n<\/p>\n
 -.Sc*h_eduie_ (in_ this Constitution referred to as the “Union<\/p>\n
 ‘ ”\n<\/p>\n
 (2)(..iVotwlthstandl’ng anything in clause (3), Parliament
\n“and, subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any State
\naiso,’:.have power to make laws with respect to any of the<\/p>\n
.  matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule
\n“( in this Constitution referred to as the “Concurrent List. “).<\/p>\n
(3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any
\nState has exclusive power to make laws for such or any
\npart thereof with respect to any of the matters
\nenumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule (in this
\nConstitution referred to as the ‘State List’).<\/p>\n
(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to
\nany matter for any part of the territory of India not<\/p>\n
67<\/span><\/p>\n
included notwithstanding that such matter is a matter
\nenumerated in the State List. ”\n<\/p>\n
Broadly speaking, according to learned counsel, it emerges from
\nthe provisions extracted hereinabove, that Pari_ia~nfie.nt._v has<\/p>\n
exclusive power to frame laws in respect of subjects’e’r1-iii’in\u00a7erate.d<\/p>\n
in the Union List of the Seventh Schedule ofth’e=.Co,nstit’u,tio_n <\/p>\n
India, and State legislatures have the exacijusAi’ve -po’\u00bbve’r:’to “eriract <\/p>\n
laws in respect of subjects’iV’e.n’umeratedV
\ncontained in the Seventh SchedVuil’e.V’,Vofuthe”Consitnitutifon of India.
\nHowever, according to  was essential to
\nal\ufb01iilreciate, that ,._|69isia.ti\\i\u00e9_}.silIl$efrio”rityV’I’:VV–l$~–“V”vested with the
\nParliament, lehgjilhsiat-Evie authority vested in
\nState  tvestied Iwith the Parliament. It<\/p>\n
was inajthe aforesaid legal submission, that<\/p>\n
iearne_\u00e9d’counsei” forthe: petitioner first invited our attention to<\/p>\n
 entry’  t,h’e.._VState List contained in the Seventh Schedule of<\/p>\n
the”-I’CoAn”stitutEo.nV<'of India, and thereafter, to entry 54 of the<\/p>\n
Union List 'c'c-ritained in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution<\/p>\n
 ,Vof..India."'-' "Entry 23 of the State List reads as under:~<\/p>\n
 .."23. Regulation of mines and mineral development
\nsubject to the provisions of List I with respect to
\nregulation and development under the control' of the
\nUnion." –\n<\/p>\n
It Entry 54 of the Union List contained in the Seventh Schedule of<\/p>\n
the Constitution of India, reads as under:~<\/p>\n
f””a””~<\/p>\n
68<\/span><\/p>\n
“54.Regulation of mines and mineral development to the
\nextent to which such regulation and development under
\nthe control of the Union is declared by Parliament byjlaw
\nto be expedient in the public interest”  2 r<\/p>\n
It was the submission of the learned counsei f’or’.,’:t:i1eV.p:etitio,n’ers’,4_<\/p>\n
based on entry 23 of the State:*iiLi\u00bbst,,  .Vl\u00a7.{_–_;;\u00ab5latiyVes,<\/p>\n
competence of a State Legisiature’i<,wo_ul'tl extend, to'vi_Tmatters
\npertaining to regulation of mi.ne's.V_and"' minerals 't_le'x.*elo:pmer*:t,'<\/p>\n
subject to one condition ie.,  tohiproyisigoins of List I<\/p>\n
with respect to regulations  the control of
\nthe Union". it \u00a7\u00bbia's.,,t:h.ere\u00a7\u00a79re  the authority of the
\nState  4..\u00e9Ll@l:3,\u00a73l'Vlent to any legislative
\nprovisionjefnacted by Parliament under
\nentry Stiqot the  to entry 54 of the Union<\/p>\n
List, it waxsytheV'asse.rti'o.n of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
~"'~._vpetit,'io7neEr_fs, that o"n\u00abt.h.e.'entire subject matter contained in entry<\/p>\n
 List, it is open also to the Parliament to enact<\/p>\n
legislation, \u00e9–sg:_bjiect to the condition, that the same was done in<\/p>\n
',V"pubiic ,in"terest". Accordingly, it is sought to be asserted, that if
\nuuV'\ufb02fl\u00a7ari'iameVn"t enacts legislation on the subject of regulation of
\nrninesiiiand development of minerals in "public interest", the
\n"State Legislature would be denuded of the power vested with it<\/p>\n
it under entry 23 of the State List, corresponding to the extent to<\/p>\n
which the former had chosen to legislate. Since the assertion<\/p>\n
"7<\/p>\n
69<\/span><\/p>\n
made above, has not been contested by the learned counsel
\nrepresenting the respondents, we shall proceed further by<\/p>\n
assuming, that the jurisdiction vested with the StatejLe.g–is’la,ture<\/p>\n
flowing from entry 23 contained in the State Listfaf
\nSchedule, will be co~extensiveIy reduced_._to _-thelilea-it;en’t”o4_niVw*hVichi 1 <\/p>\n
the Parliament has enacted legislationfun’der=_ei:try:VS\u00a7,._,oi1.i.the 2<\/p>\n
Union List of the Seventh  oftthe  India;\n<\/p>\n
The primary reason for making ythwe-..efor_esaid  was to
\ndemonstrate, that  enacted the Mines
\nand Minerals (\ufb02eveloiprnenit   Act, 1957
\n(hereinafteri. Minerals Act’) for which
\nlegislativelcoympeteynce  entry 54 of the Union List
\ncontained’in”the’Sev.e\u00e9nltlj–~.:\u00a7ch’edule; the legislative competence<\/p>\n
vestedin theu”Statei.Legislatures under entry 23 of the State List<\/p>\n
‘st'”co,nta.i.ned’i~.in”the sex\/’e’r1t’h Schedule of the Constitution of India,<\/p>\n
 reduced ie., to the extent of the area of<\/p>\n
legislation. coixieried by the Mines and Minerals Act.<\/p>\n
 _ Z inviting the courts attention to the Mines and Minerals
\n _..”‘:tCt.,’\u00bb.iE.””VVaS the vehement contention of the learned counsel for
\n the petitioners, that the entire field of legislative competence,<\/p>\n
{vested in the State Legislature under entry 23 of the State List,<\/p>\n
must be deemed to have been taken~over by the Parliament in<\/p>\n
terms of the mandate of Article 246(1) of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
70<\/span><\/p>\n
India, read with entry 23 of the State List, and entry 54 of the
\nUnion List. The instant aspect of the matter is also not..d’isputed<\/p>\n
at the hands of the Advocate General, <\/p>\n
respondents E to 5. Having taken us throu.g,_h”vv.the::’a.foresai.d7..<\/p>\n
contours of legal craftsmanship; |ea,rned”._<\/p>\n
petitioners principally referred to thhei-,tw~o pr\u00a2i.\u00ab’;ii,i\u00a2’ns;
\nMines and Minerals Act. Reiiahcaer was   “placed on
\nSection 15, thereof whic’r’i’i’s,_  hereunder:~
\n.415. Powergof State  jlmake rules in
\nrespect      ., <\/p>\n
(1)The State. Goivernmjent’—n3ay,, by notification in the
\nOfficial Gazette,\u00bb rriakeg rul’e5.___forregulating the grant of
\nquarry’ leases, rriin+ing~leases orother mineral concessions
\ninlrespect of minor ‘minerals and for purposes connected
\ntherewith.’ V  ‘  ”\n<\/p>\n
(IA) \u00abparticularAanhdyiilthout prejudice to the generality
\nof. the foregoing’power, such rules may provide for all or
\n.. ifanyiof the fo’llowing, matters, namely.’-<\/p>\n
 a._ theperson by whom and the manner in which,
\n “applications for quarry leases, mining leases or
\nV”‘o’ther’i.miheral concessions may be made and the<\/p>\n
fees to” be paid therefor;\n<\/p>\n
 lathe time within which, and the form in which,\n<\/p>\n
-,_a”cl<nowledgement of the receipt of any such
\napplications may be sent;\n<\/p>\n
at  the matters which may be considered where
\napplications in respect of the same land are
\nreceived within the same day,’<\/p>\n
cf. the terms on which, and the conditions subject to
\nwhich and the authority by which quarry leases,
\nmining leases or other mineral concessions may
\nbe granted or renewed,’<\/p>\n
71<\/span><\/p>\n
the procedure for obtaining quarry leases, mining
\nleases or other mineral concessions;\n<\/p>\n
the facilities to be afforded by holders of quarry\u00bb-.44
\nleases, mining leases or other mineral concessions- —  l
\nto persons deputed by the Government i_’or”‘the ” ;.
\npurpose of undertaking research or training in <\/p>\n
matters relating to mining operations;   _ <\/p>\n
the fixing and collection olj.ren’_t,’ ‘ royalti_v,– .l’ees,.
\ndead rent, fines or other cliargi\u00e9s ~and4the_ firne.
\nwithin which and the manner in which these shell  ‘<\/p>\n
be payable;\n<\/p>\n
the manner in which the “rights or”third parties
\nmay be protected (whether–.by way of payment or
\ncompensation or ‘”otherwise)” ~ln.case where any
\nsuch party is pre’judiciallyF e-\ufb01ected hby reason of
\nany prospecting or mining ogberations;.’v __ <\/p>\n
the men;”7er1’.’n which the reh’eb’iiitati\u00a7jn of flora and
\nother =vege’tatio~n,V such as trees, ‘shrubs and the
\nlike des’tro’yez_l ebyjg’*—reasens7o:’..any quarrying or
\nmininVg”\u00bbo,t5eratir:ns shall be made in the same area<\/p>\n
.~”o’rv ..in”j.any3i::,;oth”er”‘=area””selected by the State<\/p>\n
Governimeni<i.(wh'ether by way of reimbursement<\/p>\n
of the cosft-of rehabil_itat'ion or otherwise) by the<\/p>\n
'person holdlrig theg1ia~rrying or mining lease;<\/p>\n
theilmanner-.inA'which and the conditions subject to<\/p>\n
V which,  quarry lease, mining lease or other
\n;_..min_eral concessions may be transferred;<\/p>\n
L fth-ei cgnstruC_tion, maintenance and use of roads,<\/p>\n
pe'e\u00abert:: transmission "lines, tramways, railways,<\/p>\n
.a.eri.js-lb ropeways, pipelines and the making of<\/p>\n
 passage for _water_for mining purposes or any land<\/p>\n
" _ \u00e9emprised in '_a. quarry or mining lease or other
\n"'mirier'a_l. eoht:ess'ions," Z<\/p>\n
' the'fgrnr"l bf re_'gisters'to be maintained under this<\/p>\n
Art;\n<\/p>\n
the reports and statements to be submitted by
\nholders -of quarry or mining leases or other
\nmineral concessions and the authority to which
\nsuch reports and statements shall be submitted;<\/p>\n
‘U-In-mam-..\n<\/p>\n
72<\/span><\/p>\n
n. the period within which and the manner in which
\nand the authority to which applications for revision
\nof any order passed by any authority under these ” ,
\nrules may be made, the fees to be paid thereforce,
\nand the powers of the revisional authority; and_ ‘ . V   *<\/p>\n
0. any other matter which is to be, or mayxb.e” M
\nprescribed.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Until rules are made under sub\u00bbse.cticn'(1),_ any ‘rules f
\nmade by a State Government regulating the grant\ufb01of._
\nquarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions ”
\nin respect of minor minerals which . are irj”-.foirce
\nimmediately before the commencement of “this Act shall
\ncontinue in force.  — ‘ ~ %<\/p>\n
(3) The holder of a’-\u00ab.rn;Fnin’g lc-ase*–..ori any other mineral
\nconcession granted uinder-‘. 7’any_ ‘rule ” –made under
\nsubsection (1) shall payroyalty or dead’rer-rt,’ whichever is
\nmore in respect._ of minor mineiiaisxremoved or consumed
\nby him or 2:’) y his agent, rnanager, ‘ernployee, contractor or
\nsub~les_see’~vat thVer’.rate’prescribed for the time being in the
\nrules friamedby the .St’afteA Government in respect of minor
\nmii7_’3f’3ls’;~.’.’  ;_   &_ E<\/p>\n
Provided  Government shall not enhance
\nthe”>_ra’te_ of royalty ‘ore’.eai:_l_ rent in respect of any minor
\nmineral for more. ‘thanorice during any period of three
\nVears”.>,_ 7 i V <\/p>\n
“‘\u00ab–.Refe’rr’iing_..tto.,i,Section’*—-1–S’ of Mines and Minerais Act, it was the<\/p>\n
 learned counsei for the petitioners, that the<\/p>\n
sarneiis to minor minerais. It is pointed out, that the<\/p>\n
fterm ‘nz.in’o:r minerals has been defined in Section 3(e) of Mines
\nC_anVd;iM;neraEs Act, it is however the contention of the Eearned
\n‘ coonsel for the petitioners, that iron–ore does not fall within the<\/p>\n
“”gHcVfefinition of the term “minor minerais” on account of the fact<\/p>\n
that the same has not been declared as a minor minerai in terms<\/p>\n
of the requirement of Section 3(e) of the Mines and Minerals Act.<\/p>\n
73<\/span><\/p>\n
Thus it is asserted, that reference to Section 15 of the Mines and
\nMinerals Act, in respect of the controversy raised in theinstant<\/p>\n
petitions would be wholly misplaced. Since–\u00abj”it:K_stands<\/p>\n
acknowledged at the hands of the iearned <\/p>\n
respondents, the iron ore is not  sha’Ii\u00bb_<\/p>\n
proceed on the assumption that Sections Minesiand<\/p>\n
Minerais Act, would have no alpp-l.i.cabi’l’ltyV–Lo tl’ie”convt.ro\\;9ersy-in<\/p>\n
hand.\n<\/p>\n
22. Reference was then.rnacie;to”‘–S’ection 23C of the Mines<\/p>\n
and Minerals Act.*–The aforesaid”.p’rovis’io.n” being reproduced<\/p>\n
hereund_e–r:–\u00bb+.  M<\/p>\n
“23C.: Povverf’-of -Government to make rules for
\npreventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of
\nminerals: V ” ” .- .\n<\/p>\n
(1),”i”he State Government may, by notification in the Official<\/p>\n
 ‘c3az.ette, mal<e– ….. rules for preventing illegal mining,<\/p>\n
,  transportation and storage of minerals and for the purposes
\n' " .. connected 'th erewith.\n<\/p>\n
 -_(2inviniparticular and without prejudice to the generality of the
\n foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the
\n“following matters, nameiyh<\/p>\n
 an “establishment of checl<–posts for checking of minerals
\n"~ under transit,'<\/p>\n
(b) establishment of weigh-bridges to measure the quantity
\nof mineral being transported;\n<\/p>\n
(c) regulation of mineral being transported from the area
\ngranted under a prospecting licence or a mining lease or a
\nquarrying licence or a permit, in whatever name the
\npermission to excavate minerals, has been given;<\/p>\n
3%’<\/p>\n
Cl”\n<\/p>\n
75<\/span><\/p>\n
exclusively been vested with the State government, wouid be
\ndeemed to have been vested with the Centrai government.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it was the submission of the learned cou.nse’If..for_ the<\/p>\n
petitioners, that in issuing the impugned__A~’:orde’rsf~-.Tcia–t.eti<\/p>\n
26.07.2010 and 28.07.2010, the…__$tat_eW'”ei%e:’ut\u00bbiv’e,V <\/p>\n
transgressed into the jurisdiction 7.exc’l’us’iVve’l~,.r_ “ve’sted:”*—..in*igthe<\/p>\n
Central government. Accordingto theuiearned: cojunselfor the<\/p>\n
petitioners, the legislative comp_ete.n_ce._V_vincl.u’d..i.ng’\u00a7  reguiatory
\ncontroi in respect of the”su”b,j’ect  impugned orders
\nhave been issued,.ivests:wiit\u00bbh_ government. As such,
\nit is also  rules framed in this
\nbehalf empovv.erin’g’,.’tghe”  to introduce regulatory
\nmeasures, _V  Orders dated 26.07.2010 and<\/p>\n
28.07.20’1\u00b00__c”o,uld  issued, for the alleged purpose<\/p>\n
“cot iritrod..ucirrg, regullatory measures, by the State government.<\/p>\n
 \u00bbivva:s”_:,sought to be concluded, that the impugned<\/p>\n
orders were iiable to be deciared unconstitutionai and void, as<\/p>\n
“the sarnvegare beyond the jurisdictional authority of the State
\n”  ove rnm e nt.\n<\/p>\n
  23}. In order to substantiate the first contention advanced by<\/p>\n
 the learned counsel for the petitioner, reliance has first of ail<\/p>\n
been placed on the judgment rendered in State of Orissa v. MA.<\/p>\n
SW26″\n<\/p>\n
83<\/span>
\nus, of the stance of respondent No.6 ie., the Union of India.
\nAppearing for the Union of India, it was the categoric suilbrnission<\/p>\n
of the learned Additionai Solicitor General, that;the’\u00a7i’m_pugned<\/p>\n
orders dated 25.07.2010 and 28.07.2010, p1ass\u00ab.=.4\u00a2ii~i..at-ftfhe ‘n3ar.ds’
\nof the State government, fail withing the,,4gexec_utiv’e–..,authorityi’of V<\/p>\n
the State government, under.i’S4ection_”23C of.v–‘Vtl*ie’ lzviiniesiainda<\/p>\n
Minerals Act. It was sought to””‘be:assertedV_ o’i’.-“V-thezstirength of
\nSection 23C aforementioned,jg’Vtlhiatcilswat’-..$tategovernment is
\nauthorized to frame rules_inte,rV  iiiegal mining,
\nillegal  illegaglljj’storageigof minerals. And as
\nsuch, the  be deemed to have the
\njurisdictiolnligtol actions, as may. be called
\nfor, within theVareaof\u00bb.the,:_:aut’hority vested in it, under Section<\/p>\n
23C of the I’\/lliiues and Il\\?iinerals Act. Referring to the impugned<\/p>\n
‘V.”‘orders,’ it: is the alsvs\u00e9rtion of the learned Additional Solicitor<\/p>\n
Q’Geriera\ufb02”\ufb02rebidesenting respondent No.6, that the scope of<\/p>\n
activity conlternlplated in the impugned orders falls squarely<\/p>\n
 ‘within thvellambit of preventing illegal mining, transportation and
\n of minerals, and as such, the Central government was
\nful\ufb01ly satisfied, that the State of Karnataka was competent to<\/p>\n
 pass the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
25. Learned Additional Solicitor General, however expressed<\/p>\n
one reservation in the matter, namely, that the subject of<\/p>\n
Cl”\n<\/p>\n
84<\/span><\/p>\n
“export” falls exciusively within the domain of the authority<\/p>\n
vested in Parliament and\/or the Centrai govern’mVe~n_t,..,_and<\/p>\n
therefore, to the extent of the impugned Edrated
\n26.07.2010 and 28.07.2010 ordered a ban Or:-\u00ab’\u00bb’\u00e95:\u00a7iiiC:Jrt,’:’ of
\nore, the same was unsustainabie. Itgwas. ”<\/p>\n
of the learned Additionai Solicitor V’G.elnerai,,\u00bb’t’hVVat:’_the’; <\/p>\n
government has neither any jurliisdiction “narfaniy authority, to
\nissue an order by which’if,e’>E.por.:tV’ lanythiing, including iron–ore,<\/p>\n
can be banned.   ‘V<\/p>\n
26. In. ‘to;_.t’l’ie_fia.’stfcontention advanced at the
\nhands o_f..ithe'”*!.e’arne_d_ c.o’u.nse’l\u00ab–for_,the petitioners, the stance
\nadoptedlton –.b’ehal’F.of.:State._o1’..K’arrnatai<a was, that the Mines and<\/p>\n
Minerals Acttcleariy' authoriifges the State government to pass the<\/p>\n
 impu,g_%;nedri.orders,and as such, the impugned orders were well<\/p>\n
  thveijgurisdictionai authority of the State government.<\/p>\n
27, V""i3efore'iiclw'eV||ing into the submission advanced at the hands<\/p>\n
fof the learned Advocate General, it wouid be necessary to point
\nV' '.j_'cuVt,ll"that the Advocate General in clear terms acknowledged,
\n"l\u00ab.-'thatl the submission advanced at the hands of the learned<\/p>\n
 counsei representing the petitioners, that legisiation made at the<\/p>\n
hands of the Pariiament under entry 54 of the Union List<\/p>\n
contained in the Seventh Scheduie of the Constitution of India,<\/p>\n
_5_f'""6e"\n<\/p>\n
85<\/span><\/p>\n
would co–extensively reduce the legislative competence of the
\nState Legislature under entry 23 of the State List coritaliined in<\/p>\n
the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of ,.:f’u.l,ly<\/p>\n
justified. In fact, during the course of hearing’,~–..the:’Advocatel
\nGeneral went to the extent of assertingpthait'”h_aving_.:  the 7,<\/p>\n
Mines and Minerals Act, andhhaving-., Ir-ecorded,.a” deci.ar’ati’on,<\/p>\n
therein (in Section 2 thereof), to”tihhel\u00bbeffect,” that  vvahsllexpedienlt
\nand in “public interest’.”i.’hat the luniogn”-should”‘ta’ke under its
\ncontrol, the regulation of~i.”Vm’ihes%’V  development of<\/p>\n
~.t,h.atVj’ifor all intents and<\/p>\n
minerals, it
\npurposes, the vested in the State
\nLe9islati1’re”‘uind}?.r.&e:i?itrv””ii13’-Viol”the\u00b0State list contained in the
\nSeventhV:”‘;Sched’ulVe’ofirhe.4V_:Co:n’stitution of India, had been taken<\/p>\n
over by Pairliigarnent, iliviltepfns of express provision to the said<\/p>\n
itI”effect.A:(im”i~.en’try 5\u00e9i’o’f”‘tVhe Union list contained in the Seventh<\/p>\n
 the.:C;Qnstitution of India). It was expressed at the<\/p>\n
hahdsof  Advocate General, that he would establish the<\/p>\n
hl”~.\u00ab..”ivalidity’*of the impugned orders dated 26,07.2010 and<\/p>\n
“i2_8,0″7’;_20 10, from the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act.<\/p>\n
   The aforesaid assertion at the hands of the learned<\/p>\n
 Advocate General, to substantiate the validity of the impugned<\/p>\n
orders dated 26.07.2010 and 28.07.2010, was based on Section<\/p>\n
23C of the Mines and Minerals Act. It was his submission, that<\/p>\n
uaa\u00e9ayihwswq\ufb01<\/p>\n
86<\/span><\/p>\n
under the Mines and Minerais Act, every State government has<\/p>\n
been vested with the exciusive authority to frame..VVr~-dies for<\/p>\n
preventing iilegal mining, iiiegal transportation oifmmiin_’e-ra’is.,.___”as
\naiso, iilegai storage of minerai ore. It was*va\u00bbssie~ri:ed,: t\u00abhat_:ti’iep’V–_
\nState government can adopt various.,_reg-uiaftory “measures under 2′<\/p>\n
Section 23C of the Mines and.\u00bbi’i’~3i_.r’1erai’;<3_v_.\u20ac'\\'t:t, as\u00bb'io0r,i:i'nstaTnc\u20ac, <\/p>\n
establish check posts for checi<'i'vng_t'ti1_e  under transit,
\nunder Sub–section 2(a)'th'e.reo.i,.""\u00a7V_f\u00a2-Si\ufb01g\u00e9abglish  bridges to
\nmeasure the quantity of  under sub-\n<\/p>\n
section 2(b) th_eref;1ii,’Vtoil-.reg:.u:i’ate”theV”tra.nsportation of minerai
\nore in the  to excavate the same has
\nbeen  thereof: to inspect, check
\nand searc’h!’niinei’aVis’.iat._tr*ie’:i’pia.ce of excavation, during transport<\/p>\n
or at the p|a’ce_of_storagVe’,”Vunder sub-section 2(d) thereof; to<\/p>\n
‘ it”;3res’c.ribe,”ranyygother”regouiatoiny measure required for prevention<\/p>\n
i\u00e9iiiegiai”..rjni~nin.g,_;.illegai transportation of minerais and iiiegal<\/p>\n
storage of.’mir’erai ore, under sub-section 2(9) thereof. It is<\/p>\n
i”~.\u00ab.._’*therefore ‘asserted, that the impugned orders dated 26.07.2010
\n 28.07.2010 having been passed for the purposes referred to
\n  in\u00a7Section 23C of the Mines and Minerais Act, the orders issued<\/p>\n
 by the State government were within its jurisdiction, competence<\/p>\n
and authority.\n<\/p>\n
leewwe<\/p>\n
88<\/span><\/p>\n
amongst various limbs of the Government working within their
\nrespective spheres of allocation. The object of regulating the
\nrecruitment and conditions of Service by statutory provisions is
\nto rule out arbitrariness, provide consistency and crystallige
\nthe rights of employees concerned. The statutory prcvis-ion’s
\nwhich are unworkable and inoperative cannot a.ci:i.eve.*th’ese
\nobjectives. Such provisions are non est till made opera-tion~;_al.,_<\/p>\n
It is the operative statutory provisions which have ,*:he “effectof* <\/p>\n
ousting executive power of the State from–…the same f,ield\u00ab..,
\nWhen in a peculiar situation, as””in..the’ prese–.t:t’ case, the ‘
\nstatutory provisions could not beioperated there ‘w_as–no_ bar for
\nthe State Government to act in exe-rci’se of its~.eXecutivei’po”vver.
\nThe impugned notification to hold special selection’ ‘was1is”sued.<\/p>\n
almost four years after the en_forcem.ent of theu.Ru.les. .xIt was’<\/p>\n
done to remove stagnation a’nd”to afford garnopportunity to the
\neligible persons to enter the service. Inour view the State
\nGovernment was jus\ufb01fied ini’issuing “the impugned noti\ufb01cation
\nin exercise of its executive-‘pow.er*<an.d 'the High Court fell into
\nerror in guashing the same")     A.\n<\/p>\n
30. On the :issu:e’,’_-.as to llllhlethig-if~{9_ifnotiifthve State government
\ncould have t;a_nning .’.7export” of iron ore, it is
\nsought to” Advocavte General, that there is no<\/p>\n
provision”._under theV.’v’MiniesV’na_nd__’Minerals Act, which prevents the<\/p>\n
V.”;’~3tat’\u00a2:\u00bb..{‘go’vern.menti”f’rom passing any such orders. It is<\/p>\n
GG’subrnitteiciyihthvat.Ithe impugned orders had been passed under<\/p>\n
autiaorityvveisted with the State government to take preventive<\/p>\n
 ‘action against illegal mining, illegal transportation of minerals, as
\n“‘ia_lao,’.il_iega| storage of minerals under Section 23C of the Mines
\n ..__1″‘:an’d Minerals Act. it was also asserted, that it was open for the<\/p>\n
upstate government to pass the impugned orders, whereby<\/p>\n
“export” of illegally mined ore could be prevented, so long as the<\/p>\n
same was for the objects and reasons emerging from clauses (a)<\/p>\n
89<\/span><\/p>\n
to (g) of sub–section (2) of Section 23C of the Mines and
\nMinerals Act. This action, according to the Advocate\ufb01ienerai,<\/p>\n
wouid also fall within the purview of the regu|atory”m_’easures<\/p>\n
entrusted to State governments under Section 23C <\/p>\n
and Minerais Act.\n<\/p>\n
General differed from the submissions
\nAdditional Soiicitor Generai of A if if A if\n<\/p>\n
31. We have given our thou-gh’tfu’|”consildlervationi to the first
\ncontention advanced by   for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
Before recording4ourgconcluVs’io:n,.:’it..V}Nouv!’d’essentiai to notice
\nthat the provisions;:.co’.ntai_ne_dLin  and Minerais Act can
\nbe dividpe.d_.,i_ni~of”‘tri.ree_’  ”  part” is covered by
\nSectionsg\u00e9i to  in the first part deai with the<\/p>\n
subject of “‘–f_’regui’ati’on”‘\u00bb–oi\ufb02mining, of minerais. The “second<\/p>\n
  ‘by Sections 18 and i8A. The provision in the<\/p>\n
 the subiect of “deveiopment” of minerais.\n<\/p>\n
 _ The””thirvi;1:  is covered by Sections 19 to 33. The provisions
\nthe  part deal with “misceiianeous” matters connected<\/p>\n
3′ . with-dieveiopment and reguiation of mines and minerals.<\/p>\n
 327- From the “first part” which pertains to regulation of<\/p>\n
 mining of minerals, it is relevant to make a reference to Section<\/p>\n
13 of the Mines and Minerals Act, which deals with framing of<\/p>\n
To the aforesa_id.\u00bb.e_x4ten:’,” learried”‘Aciivo\u20ac.\u00a73t\u00a7. _ <\/p>\n
90<\/span><\/p>\n
ruies for the grant of prospecting licences and mining ieases.<\/p>\n
Section 13 aforesaid, has been extracted hereunder:<\/p>\n
“13. Power of Central Government to makejV’riiiies*.,in
\nrespect of minerals:  v i” ‘ I<\/p>\n
(1)The Central Government may, by notification. in the
\nOfficial Gazette, make rules for,[[regulatin”g” ~ the “grant ,0f”
\n[reconnaissance permits, prospe’cting’\u00ablic’ence5_ and’ ‘–‘:ini’n’g
\nleases] in respect of minerals and ,for5pu’r,poses con-n_ect;e:l
\ntherewith.   ” \u00bb .\n<\/p>\n
(2) In particular, and witho–u_t*prejudice to the VVg_en’era’lity of” l<\/p>\n
the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of
\nthe following matters__namely;..–._    .\n<\/p>\n
(a)the person by whom, ‘and ‘”the”‘\u00bb–imanner in which,
\napplications for Vfreconnaissiance..perrn’its;, prospecting licences
\nor mining leases] in respect ofland ‘inwhich the minerals vest
\nin the Government’ .r_r.’ay..be ~..made and the fees to be paid
\ntherefor;   .   ;\n<\/p>\n
rbjih\u00e9i’ “tithe itiigithih’~,fwhich,”””‘.\u00a7’nd the form in which,
\nacl<novvledgement,of'\u00abth'e…_re–ceipt of any such application may
\nbe sent,' '    '<\/p>\n
(c)the’matters’ which  be considered where applications in<\/p>\n
respect of the’ same’-land are received on the same day;\n<\/p>\n
–  [d)(‘o.mi’tted by ‘c\u00e9heai Act 37 of 1 986);\n<\/p>\n
  ~u”a.ut”hority by which [reconnaissance permits,
\n” ._prospec_ting”iicences or mining leases] in respect of land in<\/p>\n
it A V “which ‘the minerals vest in the Government may be granted;<\/p>\n
r:)tl”l’e procedure for obtaining [a reconnaissance permit, a<\/p>\n
prospecting licence or a mining lease] in respect of any land in<\/p>\n
it ‘*..which the minerals vest in a person other than the<\/p>\n
Government and the terms on which, and the conditions<\/p>\n
it ‘subject to which, such [a permit, licence or lease] may be<\/p>\n
granted or renewed;\n<\/p>\n
(g)the terms on which, and the conditions subject to which,
\nany other [reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or
\nmining lease] may be granted or renewed;\n<\/p>\n
(h)the faci’liti’es to be afforded by holders of mining leases to
\npersons deputed by the Government for the purpose of<\/p>\n
*'”a:\u00b0'”‘”1,.?*W\u00e9r”\n<\/p>\n
91<\/span><\/p>\n
undertaking research or training in matters relating to mining
\noperations;\n<\/p>\n
(i)the \ufb01xing and collection of fees for [reconnaissance
\npermits, prospecting licences or mining leases], surface rent,
\nsecurity deposit, fines, other fees or charges and the”-Vtime<\/p>\n
within which and the manner in which the dead rent 9,-.;\u00a2\u00a2y,;it;\u00ab<\/p>\n
shall be payable;\n<\/p>\n
(j)the manner in which rights__.o.f.__third be]<\/p>\n
protected ( whether by payment of “.compen;-zation’ or
\notherwise) in cases where any such p:artyc’ma\u00bby be prej’u”c’ici’aii’y<\/p>\n
affected by reason of any [recon.nais_sance, _–prospectin’g~_o’r_<\/p>\n
mining operations];  ..\n<\/p>\n
(l<)the grouping of associated3.minerais' the purposes of
\nsection 6,' _     <\/p>\n
(l)the mannerir} wh,ich,”a.n1d the’s.conditioris subject to which,
\n[a reconnaissance pierrr\u00a7lt,–~~’a prospecting licence or a mining
\nlease] may’..beg’;tiansferred,’ ‘<\/p>\n
(m)the construction, =.m’a.intenAance and use of roads, power
\ntransf’n;’ssAi’c-Ln lines, “‘-tra-mwa”ys,V– “railways, aerial ropeways,
\npipelines ‘and the niiaking of passages for water for mining
\npurposes on ar.r’y..laiad co__rn’pri’sed in a mining lease;<\/p>\n
(n )the” fortm_oti’registers”_.to be maintained under this Act;<\/p>\n
,, ._@)(omitted by Central Act 37 of 1 986);\n<\/p>\n
 (‘p)the reports and statements to be submitted by holders of<\/p>\n
“[re’connaissance permits or prospecting licences] or owners of<\/p>\n
 mines .andfth~e authority to which such reports and statements
\n“shall be ‘Submitted;\n<\/p>\n
4’x(q)”‘rheV ‘period within which applications for revision of any<\/p>\n
order passed by a State Government or other authority in<\/p>\n
” I exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act, may be
\n made the fees to be paid therefor and the documents which
\n‘ ‘shall accompany such applications and the manner in which<\/p>\n
such applications shall be disposed of;\n<\/p>\n
(qq) the manner in which rehabilitation of \ufb02ora and other
\nvegetation; such as trees, shrubs and the like destroyed by
\nreason of any prospecting or mining operations shall be made
\nin the same area or in any other area selected by the Central
\ngovernment (whether by way of reimbursement of the cost of<\/p>\n
Q <\/p>\n
92<\/span><\/p>\n
rehabilitation or otherwise) by the person holding the
\nprospecting licence or mining lease; and<\/p>\n
(r) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed
\nunder this Act”.  ..\n<\/p>\n
A perusai of Section 13 reveals, that the <\/p>\n
rules, relating to the grant of prospecting |_iC”en’ce’s.a’nd”.mEning_<\/p>\n
leases is vested with the CentralV”g0vernjment.”~’
\nsubstance, it emerges that theh_’Ce_,ntral’gdvegrnhnvent’controls
\nfield of the “regulatory”    grant of
\nreconnaissance permits,   and mining leases.\n<\/p>\n
It is also essen’tiei,i:’o rriake  refe’re.i1ce__to Section 17A of the
\nMines and Miinera’irsRl\\’ct,.wh’i,’Cii’a1soV’*f.aIis’ in the first part. Section
\n17A aforemenrtiened:7;\/s’  extracted hereunder:
\nV””‘_1\u00a7’A. V . Vlt\u00e9setmra\ufb01oiz of area for purposes of
\nconservation’  I  \u00e9
\n_ ‘ V _ (1 Thefentral “Government, with a View to conserving
\n5a~ny..cmi’neral and~—a–ft’er consultation with the State Government
\n1 * .. _Vmayireserve any area not already held under any prospecting
\nV  narfmiiinlng lease and, where it proposes to do so, it
\n g”‘shall,.”V5y vlnotification in the Official Gazette, specify the
\nE”bounda’ri’es of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect
\ng oi a~v.liich such area will be reserved.\n<\/p>\n
V L’ _ (IA) The Central Government may, in consultation with
\nh h the State Government reserve any area not already held under
\nany prospecting licence or mining lease, for undertaking
\nprospecting or mining operations through a government<\/p>\n
company or corporation owned or controlled by it, and where it
\nproposes to do so, it shall, by notification in the Official<\/p>\n
.w—–\n<\/p>\n
93<\/span><\/p>\n
Gazette, specify the boundaries of such area and the mineral or
\nminerals in respect of which such area will be reserved.<\/p>\n
(2) The State Government may, with the approval-,of the
\nCentral Government reserve any area not already jheld–\u00ab.un,der<\/p>\n
any prospecting licence or mining leasefw’undertaiiring<\/p>\n
prospecting or mining operations through”-ax giovernmentbi<\/p>\n
company or corporation owned by it,\u00bb.a,nd i\u00e9i\/here\ufb01t, ‘propojses._VtoV ‘<\/p>\n
do so, it shall, by notification in the Official (\u00a7a2?e.tte, ‘spe-;_ify;tr}e<\/p>\n
boundaries of such area and the m’lnera_l or min;erai’s”in ‘respect<\/p>\n
of which such areas will belreslerved.  __ V, _
\n(3) Where in exercise of.the.upowe’i*’s._conferred by sub-<\/p>\n
section ( 1A ) or sub~sez:tion  Central Government or the<\/p>\n
State Goverr:ment,\ufb01’as- fthe  be, undertakes
\nprospecting \u20aco,c)’erations-“in.any area in which the
\nmineralsv’est1″in3V’..a.Vpri*l{at’e,__p’erson,g_ it shall be liable to pay
\nprovspecting”fee,__royalty,’surface rent or dead rent, as the case
\nmay be, “r’rom  to”ti_me at the same rate at which it would
\nhave been pgayable  act if such prospecting or mining
\noperations had beeng\ufb01undertaken by a private person under<\/p>\n
prospecting. licence or mining lease. ”\n<\/p>\n
  .pe’rusa’lf oVfA..Section””\u00abi7A extracted above reveals, that the<\/p>\n
VAa.u’throrii’t:.,:.:”to”reserve any area for conserving any mineral also<\/p>\n
vests_:wi_t,h~ Central government. Although the aforesaid<\/p>\n
 ~’~___V’provision,clarifies, that the aforesaid regulatory measure has to<\/p>\n
  g”‘tte’v_,_c:a’rried out in consultation of the concerned State
\ngovernment, the fact remains, that the ultimate and the final<\/p>\n
 control in the matter rests with the Central government.<\/p>\n
ffnf”\n<\/p>\n
no–may<\/p>\n
\u00abJ3.ad\u00a3,i,.,L_,e\\,<\/p>\n
33.<\/p>\n
subject of minerai development. Section 18 aforesaid “is being<\/p>\n
94<\/span><\/p>\n
From the “second part”, reference deserves to be made<\/p>\n
to Section 18 of the Mines and Minerais Act, which covers the<\/p>\n
extracted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
“18. Mineral Development<\/p>\n
(1) It shall be the duty of the Central Government. to,:talEe~
\nsuch steps as may be necessary for the–~con.se.rvation and\u00bb.<\/p>\n
systematic development of mineraisin India ‘and Vfor’, the
\nprotection of environment by preventing or ‘con.tro.!i’ing any
\npollution which may be caused”-by\u00a5__prospecting or rmining<\/p>\n
operations and for such purposes’—- the Central. ,Goverhment”g
\nmay, by notification in the Cjfficial Gazette, mal<<e'~su,ch* rules, '<\/p>\n
as it thinks fit. V, .\n<\/p>\n
(2) In particular, andgwithout prejudice to the generality of
\nthe foregoing power,~–..such rules m”a.y*prov_ide for all or any of
\nthe following matters, na;mely.;*   ” .\n<\/p>\n
a.  ——– –..th\u00e9’~opeii:?ng_ ofnew mines and the regulation of mining
\noperatioinsjin any area;,’ .\n<\/p>\n
b. the reg’u_lat.*on”~_,of._ the excavation or collection of
\nminerals from any ‘mine;\n<\/p>\n
c. ‘the. measures ,.to”—be taken by owners of mines for the
\npurpose’~,of*beneficaiation of ores, including the provision of
\nsuitable contrivances for such purpose;\n<\/p>\n
  V ‘ the de veiopment of mineral resources in any area;
\n, e.  the noti\ufb01cation of all new borings and shaft sinkings
\n and t=.’fie4.preservation of bore–hole records, and specimens of
\nV V . cores,of altnew bore~holes,’<\/p>\n
”  ” A “_th_egregulation of the arrangements for the storage of<\/p>\n
 mineraisiand the stocks thereof that may be kept by any<\/p>\n
“”‘—-pers_;on;.\n<\/p>\n
g…  the submission of samples of minerals from any mine
\nbyrthe owner thereof and the manner in which and the<\/p>\n
\u00bb if authority to which such samples shall be submitted ; and the
\n* . _ talcing of samples of any minerals from any mine by the State<\/p>\n
Government or any other authority specified by it in that
\nbehalf;\n<\/p>\n
h. the submission by owners of mines of such special or
\nperiodical returns and reports as may be speci\ufb01ed, and the
\nform in which and the authority to which such returns and
\nreports shall be submitted;\n<\/p>\n
i. the regulation of prospecting operations;<\/p>\n
j. the employment of quali\ufb01ed geologists or mining
\nengineers to supervise prospecting or mining operations;<\/p>\n
‘-n—-\n<\/p>\n
96<\/span><\/p>\n
“23C. Power of State Government to make rules for
\npreventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of
\nminerals:\n<\/p>\n
(1) The State Government may, by notification in the ~-.C,)’ir’\ufb02_f_cial<\/p>\n
Gazette, make rules for preventing illega.l’_\u00bb.:niining,<\/p>\n
transportation and storage of minerals and :’the._pL:rposes <\/p>\n
connected therewith.\n<\/p>\n
(2) In particular and without prejudice_”Lo’iVthe\u00bbgeneraiityioisogfit\ufb01e<\/p>\n
foregoing power, such rules? may provide forgali. anyijofitthe\ufb02<\/p>\n
following matters, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
( a )establishment .or’..,_check-‘posts for checking “of minerals
\nunder transit; ” ” p   <\/p>\n
(b) establishment of Aweigh-.bridg:es “to,mea:3tire the quantity of
\nmineral beingatranspgortedfyg ‘ ” ‘  ‘<\/p>\n
(c)reguiat.’o.n_ ‘o.f.’;V–min.eral \u00bb..being=f transported from the area
\ngranted under a prospecting..licence or a mining lease or a
\nqua.ITyingv.,;licence or _a “pa-_rmit.,3′ in whatever name the
\npermissionlto excavateggminerals,’ has been given;<\/p>\n
(d)””insp.ection,  search of minerals at the place of
\nexcavation or”sto’ra’ge orgyduring transit;<\/p>\n
g fe)5m’ain’tenanceVH’of \u00abregisters and forms for the purposes of
\n” -\u00bb _, tilt-,’se* .rul’es,’ __<\/p>\n
 within which and the authority to which<\/p>\n
applications for revision of any order passed by any authority<\/p>\n
,.,,,..pe preferred under any rule made under this section and the<\/p>\n
fe.es’~_to be paid therefor and powers of such authority for<\/p>\n
 .,  disposing of such applications; and<\/p>\n
 _lg)any other matter which is required to be, or may be,<\/p>\n
prescribed for the purpose of prevention of illegal mining,
\ntransportation and storage of minerals.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 30, the
\nCentral Government shall have no power to revise any order<\/p>\n
passed by a State Government or any of its authorised<\/p>\n
97<\/span><\/p>\n
officers” or any authority under the rufes made under sub-
\nsections (1) and (2). ”\n<\/p>\n
A perusal of Section 23C leaves no room for any doubt, that<\/p>\n
under the ” third part ” the subject of “preventing” i|legaii~.,rni.ning,<\/p>\n
iliegai transportation of minerals and illegai storagfe’oi\u00a7n2i:nier.ra’ls_,<\/p>\n
has been vested with the concerned State goveir”‘nrn:e.nts:.: <\/p>\n
35. On the basis of the inferen.ces’_”draw’n.in the:V’i5re\u00a7’o_i:ng<\/p>\n
three paragraphs it would be rea’so.nablev~to conic.vlude,…t,ha3t if the<\/p>\n
subject matter of the irnpugned:Vo’;=ci_er__ fa.l.|’s’–iuhAdejr% the ” first
\npart”, the State governrnentw\u00e9.ulci\u00bb’h.avev’n’o authority. Likewise,
\nif the subject matter of   fall under the
\n“second part’7_.     would have no<\/p>\n
authority. But.,if::~ttien  the impugned order would<\/p>\n
 fali unicleriisection. oi’ the Mines and Minerals Act under the ”<\/p>\n
 i.hiFd,vi”part;ii,  in our view, the State government would have<\/p>\n
 gzioinfer and authority, to pass the required orders.<\/p>\n
 it sigma c:o’l’iec_tive perusai of Sections 13, 15, 1._?A, 1.8 and
\nV’  the Minesnand M’inera|’Ac:t, the scheme of controi over
\n di\ufb01ferent fieicis, cnvered by the Mines and Minerals Act, becomes<\/p>\n
clear. From the aforesaid, there can be no dnubt, that the<\/p>\n
scheme of the Mines and Minerals Act vests the authority of<\/p>\n
making rules for preventing iliegai mining, transportation and<\/p>\n
“”‘”t”‘”‘”t_5_'”%(”\n<\/p>\n
98<\/span><\/p>\n
storage of minerals under Section 23C aforementioned, “with the
\nconcerned State government. And thereby, also\u00ab.ve.._st~3_ the<\/p>\n
concerned State government with the executive a.ti:t.horliVty’*—to-cleatl<\/p>\n
with the subjects envisaged under Section 23\u20ac1″of:the”‘Mines__and,
\nMinerals Act. The question which airtisestifc\ufb01r lconsid-er’ati-o_n”from ‘<\/p>\n
the impugned orders dated 26f(}?_,201vi}.,_andt2G’i'(5Z;2Qt10jlneyilther.<\/p>\n
relates to “regulation” of mines alri’d_:mitnera’l’s in the first
\npart), nor to “developme–nzt,’~’ of–‘_Vrni;iels:’anclfmlnerailis ifalling in the
\nsecond part), but p_ointedl.y._rel-ates’,    of “preventing”
\nillegal mining”  third part) under
\nSection 23C\u20ac’their_e4_oif,”;”AS:::s’uCh:,”‘ ten be no doubt that the
\nState   authority, and competence<\/p>\n
to issue the i’inpu’g.ned]ordteirsi.\n<\/p>\n
 37. It needst–_.Vto  kept in mind, that if the measures<\/p>\n
 introduced.,bvtl’the Central government, under the first two parts<\/p>\n
o\ufb01tlhet,\u00abMVi’r’ie’sv._ar’:~d”Minerals Act, are legitimately carried on, there<\/p>\n
V _ would bev–..’:rto’difficulty. The difficulty would arise only on account<\/p>\n
  violation thereof. But then, if the “regulatory” and<\/p>\n
” within the territories of different States?<\/p>\n
g-_”d_ev’e–lopmental” measures are violated, would the Central<\/p>\n
 government he in an effective position to deal with the same<\/p>\n
It must also be<\/p>\n
understood, that the minerais found in the geographical area of<\/p>\n
“”acWvEW~a’i<\/p>\n
100<\/span><\/p>\n
We, therefore, have no hesitation in concluding that the State<\/p>\n
government was fully competent to issue the impugned ordgers.<\/p>\n
38. It is also possibie to conciude, from a co_|_i;ect’iv,e–.’..re’a_ding<\/p>\n
of Sections 23C and 30 of the Mines and Min_er-al.AsfAct,.::: thatthe
\narea of jurisdiction vested in theI_Sta.t.e’ jj.gove.r_nri\u00a7ent5,Heats? is *<\/p>\n
covered under Section 23C of? the M’i”n_es– and,V.’Miivnerais’:’;Act,Ais\u00bb<\/p>\n
exclusiveiy vested in the State g’ovei’nment;.. ‘,”‘S-ectioin 30 of the
\nMines and Minerals Act, ‘i:s”bein_ge eVxtracteci~-hereunder:–<\/p>\n
“30. Power of revision “of Centi’aI.–Gove3-nment:<\/p>\n
The Central Government “iney, of itsxown motion or on
\nappiication~vn’i’a,dr? with me p’rescri’b.ed time by an aggrieved
\nparty, rejvisve a[n”y._ioro’er m_ade_byf–a State Government or other
\nauthority iri,_’exerc’ise o-f.j,’the’-,o__o’Wers conferred on it by or under
\nthis Act,~.. (‘with rerspect-fto any fminerai other than minor<\/p>\n
A perusaiof that the Central government has<\/p>\n
the regvisiognal eauthoreity to examine and consider the veracity of<\/p>\n
 A’a’i:.Qvr\u00e9ier\u00a7.l:;’3afsse.d by  State government, under the provisions<\/p>\n
iiI,’i.in.erais Act. The jurisdiction vested in the Central<\/p>\n
gove-rnmentunder Section 30 of the Mines and Minerais Act,<\/p>\n
R””r__e’nowgeve.r,,_.tioes not extend to the \ufb01eid of jurisdiction covered
\nA  j:.’L:,nder’,.’.–Section 23C of Mines and Minerals Act. in so far as the
\n hignstant aspect of the matter is concerned, reference may be<\/p>\n
 made to sub section (3) of Section 23C of the Mines and Minerais<\/p>\n
Act, which expressiy exciudes the jurisdiction of the Centrai<\/p>\n
government, from exercising revisionai jurisdiction, in respect of<\/p>\n
‘XWM 33%”\n<\/p>\n
191<\/span><\/p>\n
the orders passed by the State government under the ru\u00e9es
\nframed by the State government under Section 23C of the Mines
\nand Minerals Act. In the aforesaid View of the matter_\u00a7:’i’t,.needs<\/p>\n
to be appreciated, that orders passed by the State.g’oyeirn’m’e.nt,<\/p>\n
on the basis of rules framed by the State _9.Ql\/’e,rnm’ent und_er”–w_._<\/p>\n
Section 23C, are not revisable underf.;Sect’ion 730 ~:oflt_h’e_VVMVVi’nVes and  A<\/p>\n
Minerals Act. On the instant aspect of the matter’ reyferelnce<\/p>\n
deserves to be made to Sectighj.,g3C(.2)”(f)”‘ot’.=th’ev’VMVines and<\/p>\n
Minerals Act, which  doubt, that the
\nF\u20acVl5l0na’ J’UFi’S&:|_iic’t’::,1on’_,   assail’th-egorders passed by the
\nState  of the Mines and Minerals
\nAct, also Accordingly we
\nhereby  that of the State government under<\/p>\n
Sectio,n_,23Ca”‘of_:Vthe Mines: and Minerals Act is absolute and<\/p>\n
‘ V’ ‘=excl’u.s’i’veg,-Aand even ‘t’he’Central government cannot traverse into<\/p>\n
 the sa’me, .\n<\/p>\n
  v_T,.n’_r’s-cglfar as the contention advanced by the Additional<\/p>\n
‘<Solicitor_G:enera| of India is concerned, namely, that the State
\n,,:i,go.vVer'nment has no authority to ban "export" of minerals from
\n State of Karnataka, in as much as, the jurisdiction to pass<\/p>\n
 such an order is with the Central government, We are of the<\/p>\n
view, that the instant submission does not arise for<\/p>\n
\u00b0~rW~.__'\u00b0%Wnli"\n<\/p>\n
102<\/span><\/p>\n
consideration, under the provisions of Mines and Minerais Act.
\nThe veracity of the instant contention advanced by the Additional
\nSolicitor General of India, shall be taken into considera;tio_n~,.Vat a<\/p>\n
later stage of the instant order, wherein we <\/p>\n
dealt with the contention pertaining to the  “export”.<\/p>\n
raised at the hands of the learned counseiAfortheiipe’titi’ohie’rs.;,at<\/p>\n
40. We also find no merit ‘:’n_v’thze contention’l,a’dv_a\u00abn.cerfi by
\nlearned counsel for the petitioners,’:A’th_a’t_,the.exe_rciAse_Vbf executive
\nauthority at the hands  in matters
\nspecially defined under    and Minerals
\nAct, would \ufb01e under the rules
\nframed.    e::;_4w’\u00abheth”er or not the rules have been<\/p>\n
 framed. hedetermination by the Apex Court, in State of Sikkim<\/p>\n
 |3hutia’s case (supra), relied on by the<\/p>\n
V _ learned Adlvoclate General, leaves no room for any doubt on the<\/p>\n
 _in;:tant a’s’pect of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
_    Having read and re–read the contents of the impugned
\n “orders dated 26.07.2010 and 28.07.2010, we have no doubt,<\/p>\n
0. that the impugned orders have been passed keeping in view the<\/p>\n
alleged activity of illegal mining, illegai transportation, as also,<\/p>\n
$  S\u00e9vvxza\ufb01v<\/p>\n
103<\/span><\/p>\n
iilegai storage of iron ore in the State of Karnataka. Thus
\nviewed, we are satis\ufb01ed, that the impugned orders dated<\/p>\n
26.07.2010 and 28.07.2010, were weii within the ..jurisdiction,<\/p>\n
competence and authority of the State <\/p>\n
Section 23C of the Mines and Min_er.ai_s Ac-ti””In;vView’_’..oi’;o’u’i\u00bb1<\/p>\n
aforesaid conclusion, we are satisfied t_h’at”th’ie.re’~ is no.:”im\u00e9’r,it’ in 2<\/p>\n
the first contention advanced’iV_b”,I_V. the’-ieameci”g:’co.un,sei ..3for
\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
The Second Contention  the   State government in<\/p>\n
the impugned orders .2.-beiiiq’-. f’prohi.bito1rv”‘ in nature. is
\nunacceptable inigzyylg. ‘  –  ‘\n<\/p>\n
42. The ;ne>\u00a7t–.co-rit’entiojn__Tadvaxncedby the iearned counsel for
\nthe petitioners’Vy\ufb01xasatizat a.n’actior’i’vw.h’ich is “prohibitory” in nature<\/p>\n
as the S’ir_npugne:d”:’j\u00a2.f\u00a2ie.f\u00a7’-a…d’ated 26.07.2010 and 20.07.2010,<\/p>\n
 canno\ufb01t ‘be.consixde.red to be “regu|atory” in nature. Referring to<\/p>\n
 the,provision’s’\u00abcontained in Mines and Minerais Act, it is the<\/p>\n
c0nte_n\u00abtion”_0.Vf__thjeiearned counsei for the petitioners, that iiberty<\/p>\n
 _ has “‘beeri:gra”nted to the State government to frame ruies for
\n;i”reguiati’r’u”g” certain activities connected with mining. It is<\/p>\n
4:’\u00ab.’_A’siI_Vb’m–i.tted that aii kinds of “reguiatory” actions resuit in
\npromoting the activity under reference, whereas, ail<\/p>\n
“v”prohibitory” actions, totaiiy put an end to the concerned<\/p>\n
activity. It is submitted , that even if it is presumed for the sake<\/p>\n
“”‘?:'”‘”‘=’i__'”Wai”‘<\/p>\n
104<\/span><\/p>\n
of arguments, that the State government, had the authority to
\n23\u00a2,
\npass certain orders under Sectiont\ufb01it was open to the State<\/p>\n
government to pass oniy such orders, which were…:a’\u00a7.me,d at<\/p>\n
“reguiating” activities relating to mining and mi_rieraiAs’;-0C’]I–nv’v:–tir:–g
\nour attention to the language of the.p_rovis’ion’,’~it;.is’=asserte’ti_.u<\/p>\n
that under Section 23C of the Mines=-_and”‘Mineii’ai|s~ ii.tii~.is”*oipen <\/p>\n
to the State government oni’y–.__to “‘”-reigaiwiateiii
\npertaining to mines and minerais:-‘..:I_t is,  asserted,
\nthat it is not open to to put an end
\nthereto, by issuing the nature of the
\nimpugned  28.07.2010. It is
\npointed out:  dated 26.07.2010<\/p>\n
and “cp,roh_ibitory” in nature, they were iegaliy<\/p>\n
unsustainabie”L:,nder’.’–Sec.tio’n 23C of the Mines and Minerals Act<\/p>\n
.– V. .,43_  :,,,”iF?iefe.rence\u00e9vvasaiso made to paragraph 35 ofjudgment<\/p>\n
inthervio\ufb01iligutomobiie Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. Etc. V.<\/p>\n
Sta”te4’Vof R.aja:s_.than and others, AIR 1962 sc 1406.<\/p>\n
” _”5%5. …..Restrictions obstruct the freedom, whereas
\nregulations promote it. Police regulations, though they
\nmay superficially appear to restrict the freedom of
\nmovement, in fact provide the necessary conditions for the
\nfree movement. Regulations such as provision for lighting,
\nspeed, good conditions of vehicles, timings, rule of the
\nroad and. similar others, really facilitate the freedom of
\nmovement rather than retard it. So too, licensing system
\nwith compensatory fees would not be restrictions but
\nregulatory provisions: for without it, the necessary lines of<\/p>\n
CS” ‘ Swab<\/p>\n
1189). Learned<\/p>\n
105<\/span><\/p>\n
communications, such as roads, watenways and air\u00abways
\ncannot effectively be maintained and the freedom declared
\nmay in practice turn out to be an empty one. _So too,
\nregulations providing for necessary services to eriabie the
\nfree movement of traffic, whether charged or _”r:ar”inot
\nalso be described as restrictions impeding the”free(do__inL  \u00e9 <\/p>\n
44. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in .o’rde–r:j’to”sup–por_t’4his
\naforesaid contention, pieced reliance ._-‘also <\/p>\n
rendered in State of Mysore7v…__  1396.7 <\/p>\n
counsel _ ‘placed<\/p>\n
reliance on the foiiowing –obser\\lfatif.2n’s”:..:’._ <\/p>\n
(4) It was contended..on–,b’e.ha.lf obfvvthelfftate that the two
\nprovisos were regu.{‘atory”.and”not._P”onibitory. It was urged
\nthat every i’njunctiori,ir%the  rif”‘a”‘prohibi’tion Cannot be
\nregarded as,a’-“restrict–ion*~.uponfthe’ right to transport, and
\nreliance was placed upon’ th’e”bforr;n of clauses (b), (j) and (1)
\nof~sub’-s.((;.2) oi?.;:’}. 3–7,.”*-What”‘is* decisive in each case, it was
\nsubmitted,” .:’5..,not, th.e’form [of the rule, but the substance
\nth\u00e9re0f,_ and V that ‘then provisos sought merely to regulate<\/p>\n
gjjtrarrsport of forest produce. Clause (b) of 5. 37(2) prohibits\n<\/p>\n
– import,-. zexport,V”‘collection and movement of forest produce<\/p>\n
without_Va~,pass. The prohibition is, it is common ground,<\/p>\n
V , it reg’i.’.’latory__of the right to transport forest produce. Under
\nb” -..,clause”_~(;’)’;:ules may be made imposing prohibition against the
\nA  closing i’op’bor obstruction of the channel, or banks of any river<\/p>\n
” used for the transport of forest produce, and under clause (1)<\/p>\n
ruies may be made prohibiting absolutely or subject to<\/p>\n
, A’ conditions, the establishment of sawpits, or saw mills or any
\n* . _ other sawing contn’vance. But cls. (j) and (i) do not operate to<\/p>\n
prohibit or restrict the transport of any forest produce.<\/p>\n
(5) Power to impose restrictions of the nature contemplated
\nby the 6 two provisos to R. 2 is not to be found in any of the
\nclauses of subs. (2) of S. 37. By sub–sec. (1) the State
\nGovernment is invested with the power to regulate transport
\nof forest produce “in transit by land or water.” The power<\/p>\n
specific<\/p>\n
3′”~%**””\u00b0__3*”%'”\n<\/p>\n
 by? him, iearned counsei for the petitioners piaced reiiance on<\/p>\n
  Union of India and others v. Asian Food Industries<\/a> (2006)13 SCC<\/p>\n
106<\/span><\/p>\n
which the State Government may exercise is however power
\nto regulate transport of forest produce, and not the power to
\nprohibit or restrict transport. Prima facie, a rule which.__totaiiy
\nprohibits the movement of forest produce during vtheperiod
\nbetween sun~set and sun\u00bb-rise is prohibitory or restr’-ict’ivevv,,of<\/p>\n
the right to transport forest produce. A ru’le’~reg.uletin’g
\ntransport in i’ts essence permits transport, suhjectiito”ce:’tai’n V __
\nconditions, devised to promote transport : _su’~.:h. :a..rule a.ims__at V. b <\/p>\n
making transport orderly so thatiitihdoes. not harm’ “or endanger
\nother persons following a similar, voCa.ticrn at the- bub’l-i.c_._’, w3jr:i:l<\/p>\n
enables transport to function for.__tne public. good. VI_tV.was_V
\nobserved by one of us <(Subba Rao, ),=, iti:'.A.tIf0i\u00a7n0bli8VVi'<\/p>\n
Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd, v;.,s,3St\u00abate of Rajasithan, 1953\u00bb: SCR
\n491 at p.549: (AIR 1962 sc1__fi0\u00a7_a=:_p.143a);v E<\/p>\n
"Restrictions ob,st;"uct'._ ;the"=._"fre'e-riom, whereas
\nregulations promote it.' Po'iice'Vregui'a_tions, though they
\nmay superficially,-iappearv =toa_restrict"-the freedom of
\nmovemer;-t, in fact proviide'\u00abthe'.necess'ary conditions for
\nthe free miovenierit. 'R_egu'iati'ons such as provision for
\nlighting,.."'spee'd,  co.nditions* of vehicles, timings,
\nrule o~f,the'\u00ab:road and. sirnilar others, really facilitate the
\n:'iVfreedorn. of rnoveiiqeiit rather than retard it. So too,
\n',_licensing'"svstern withiv–co'.11pensa tory fees would not be
\nresti<ictions"b_ut_ regulatory provisions: for without it,<\/p>\n
i 'V the necessary lines of communications, such as roads,
\nzgwater-ways'"=–an'd air\u00bb-ways cannot effectively be
\ninaintained and the freedom declared may in practice
\n"'turn.""oi_Jt"–..to be an empty one. So too, regulations
\n"provvidin'g'V for necessary services to enable the free
\nmovement of traffic, whether charged or not cannot
\n"also be described as restrictions impeding the<\/p>\n
" freedom. "\n<\/p>\n
 order to support the legai proposition being projected<\/p>\n
“”%'”‘W&__5″”‘*<t"\n<\/p>\n
107<\/span><\/p>\n
542, wnerefrorn, our attention was invited to the following<\/p>\n
observations.\n<\/p>\n
“1 1. Before adverting to the questions raised in these’ ‘app_e’als,
\nwe may notice the statutory pro visions operatinglii\u00abthe\ufb01eld. <\/p>\n
12. Parliament enacted the Customs Act, 1962._(‘fo.:~ short “the<\/p>\n
1962 Act”) to consolidate and amend the-\u00bb.laiw., relating to\u00bb. <\/p>\n
Customs. Section 11 of the 196-2″”ACf. ’empowersthe Central ‘
\nGovernment to prohibit importation and fexpoitation–of_egoods.
\nSection 16 provides for date for determination of rate of ‘duty
\nand tariff valuation of export goodsvin the following’ ta-rrr:.s:”w ‘
\n“16. Date for determination of rate of dtity”..;nd”ta’ri’ff
\nvaluation of export goods.\u00a5.-._ ”  ” * ”\n<\/p>\n
(1) The rate of duty ,landne_”tar’iff_ valuation,-‘V if any,
\napplicable to an’y_expoi.ft g,o.ods;._ as_h’all be the rate and
\nvaluation in force,       _\n<\/p>\n
(a) in the case. ‘goo.ds..,eente.re’d–‘for export under
\nSectiion 50, onyth.e”da–t_e onywhich the proper
\n%_’offi::er makesean order’perm.itting clearance and
\n “loading “of ._the goods for exportation under
\n‘ _ .$ecti’on=51’,”*-fa.  —\n<\/p>\n
 ——–  the case of anynther goods, on the date of
\n1 ‘ ‘P.9K”7’5’.”” st ~’W~
\nV”{2 The _pro”visionsi’a..of this section shall not apply to
\nbaggage and ‘good’s.._exp”orted by post.”\n<\/p>\n
1 3. xxx”xxx xxx ._<\/p>\n
 14.’ _Chapter VII of the 1962 Act inter alia provides for the
\nprocedures’ —for clearance of export of goods, Section 50
\n postulatesei’-.ttiat the exporter of any goods shall make entry
\n. Vthereofejby\ufb01presenting to the proper officer in the case of goods
\n to tie exported in a vessel or aircraft, a shipping bill and, while<\/p>\n
‘ presenting, shall at the foot thereof make and subscribe to a<\/p>\n
declaration as to the truth of its contents. Section 51 provides<\/p>\n
V ‘A :  for clearance of goods for exportation in the following terms:<\/p>\n
“51. Clearance of goods for exportation.—-Where the
\nproper officer is satisfied that any goods entered for export
\nare not prohibited goods and the exporter has paid the
\nduty, if any, assessed thereon and any charges payable
\nunder this Act in respect of the same, the proper officer
\nmay make an order permitting clearance and loading of the
\ngoods for exportation.”\n<\/p>\n
15. Parliament also enacted the 1992 Act to provide for the
\ndevelopment and regulation of foreign trade by facilitating<\/p>\n
i7<\/p>\n
109<\/span><\/p>\n
44. We may, however, notice that this Court in State of U. P. v.
\nHindustan Aluminium Corpn.<\/a> stated the law thus: (SCC p. .3243,
\npara 34) <\/p>\n
“34. It appears that a distinction between..”‘regulation’
\nand ‘restriction’ or ‘prohibition’ has always bee.n__ drawri, ever
\nsince Municipal Corpn. of the City of Toronto”a?.f=.Vii*goZ3.<\/p>\n
‘Regulation’ promotes the freedom or the”‘\u00abf_aci.lit;r, whicniisv’
\nrequired to be regulated in the interesi**~o.f_:’a.ll ‘c,oncei’ned,g
\nwhereas ‘prohibition’ obstructs”or*sl2ut;s ofif. or,denieL-3 it-to j<\/p>\n
those to whom it is applied. Oxford, Efnglish_Dictiohvary..,does
\nnot de\ufb01ne ‘regulate’ to include. prohibition so. that ir’\u00abit”hacl
\nbeen the intention i’O,’,Dl’Ohl’bli’A the supp–ijy, oistr}t’bu’t.’on;.
\nconsumption or use of .energy, the legis.latu,re’~would not
\nhave contended itself withgythe use of__the.woru’ ‘regulating’
\nwithout using the word ‘prohibiting’ or some such word, to
\nbring out that effect” ” ” ‘   <\/p>\n
46. In order to.i_repudviate.._the’secondvhcontettntion advanced by<\/p>\n
the learned  th~e:-..pTetitio_ne.rs,_it is the submission of the
\nlearned .\u00bb~Ad~l6C+3te;’:::f:,Geneife1|, httiiatfthe action of the State
\ngovernment’  considered as a total ban or<\/p>\n
“prohibitiorl”‘,..ihr’lasmuci1_astno mining activity has been banned,<\/p>\n
 and ifon ore is be’i-ngV____mi.ned by those who hold mining leases, as<\/p>\n
 hithe_rto.,Vbefore’;-. __ Referring to the pleadings in the writ petitions<\/p>\n
til~eed.-._by”‘th’e\u00bb–__petit.ioners to assail the validity of the impugned<\/p>\n
-V orders dated “26.7.2010 and 28.7.2010, it is submitted that none
\n,oi’ the petitioners has expressed, that it has been stopped from
\n.’  carrying out mining activity under the mining leases granted to<\/p>\n
 “them. It is also submitted, that none of the petitioners have<\/p>\n
actually stopped the activity of mining iron ore, as a<\/p>\n
consequence of the directions contained in the impugned orders.<\/p>\n
“WWW<\/p>\n
110<\/span><\/p>\n
It is, therefore, asserted that aii mining activity in the State of
\nKarnataka is continuing uninterrupted. Secondly, it is asserted,<\/p>\n
that the transportation of iron ore for domestic ..u’3.e=.._\u00a7is’-Vvaiso<\/p>\n
carrying on undeterred, and that, the impugnedjczrde’rs\u00a7’jhav’e_Tno
\neffect over any domestic activity. L_i_kew_ise, _~itV”is”c:ont’ended\u00bbt_h’at_ <\/p>\n
even if iron ore is to be used domestica:iI’y,.*t’in 1a._S’tate ot’i-*.er’7than 2<\/p>\n
the State of Karnataka, min\u00e9ng”<–\u00a7.ezase"'hoiciersViarenpermiitted-to
\ntransport iron ore evens  the State of
\nKarnataka. According|y,\u00ab._._it' is  suggested that the
\npiea of total "prohibitionfT.Vpresse.d.V of the petitioners<\/p>\n
is wholiy unjusti-t_iedVh.V  t 'I <\/p>\n
47. Ag.ain*– i’rivit’i’r.g*-.t:his,4″Co0rt’s”attention to the fact, that there<\/p>\n
was extens’iv,eiiiiiegai iron’ ore mining, coupled with transportation<\/p>\n
 of iii,e_g’aViity mined ore, as aiso, iilegai storage thereof, the<\/p>\n
  go_\ufb01vern,me,nt vide orders dated 12.03.2007 and 09.09.2008<\/p>\n
ir’efe’rred””th’e.V_matter pertaining to the aforestated iliegai mining<\/p>\n
 _ activities-..’:for:”‘investigation to the Karnataka Lokayukta, and
\n::sou,g_htzhi*s:. specific recommendations. It is contended, that the<\/p>\n
 .’_A’fi~r_ia’i~ report of the Lokayukta is expected in about six months.
\n   then, it is in the interest of the State of Karnataka, as aiso in<\/p>\n
the national interest, that iron ore be not exported. It is<\/p>\n
asserted at the hands of the Advocate Generai, that restrictions<\/p>\n
111<\/span><\/p>\n
on the transportation of iron ore for export out of India, had
\nbeen imposed because it would be impossibie to recover iilegally
\nmined iron ore, if the same crosses over the bord.e_:rs_dof the<\/p>\n
country. The aforesaid iimited ban, according <\/p>\n
General, has been imposed to prevent any:’pevrm’anent’–,ios_s “of<\/p>\n
revenue to the State of Karnataica, as,,,aiso.,1a’ny”pVe-rm’3;nent”‘*<\/p>\n
consequentiai ioss of minerai.7re_sourc’es”of th.e”‘n;3.t.i_0n._:’\u00a7 Vitiiis<\/p>\n
submitted, that once iron has exported, the<\/p>\n
investigating agencies  .. handicapped from
\ndetermining, w_he’ti,::er the exporte’d.,:Viror~.._ore was procured out of<\/p>\n
iegitimate  re\u00bbsu’it of iiiegal operations .\n<\/p>\n
48.  -It .isia’iso’ithe.:con’tention of the learned Advocate<\/p>\n
General, that ithveV”5Stat.eigoyernment had framed the Karnataka<\/p>\n
 Mineraiu(i?.egu|a”t;.Qfyof Transport) Ruies 2008 to prevent iilegal
\n mining oipierantioyns. It is submitted that some of the petitioners<\/p>\n
 Court by filing writ petitions, wherein this<\/p>\n
Court hadstaiyed the operation of the aforesaid Ruies. Since<\/p>\n
Jo;1er_.atio’h~’\u00a2of the Ruies framed by the State government under
\n ,._’SeVctio’n 23C of the Mines and Minerai Act has been stayed, the
\n.. -tate government was handicapped from taking any action<\/p>\n
V against those engaged in the iliegai activity of mining iron ore.<\/p>\n
It is submitted, that after the operation of the provisions of the<\/p>\n
112<\/span><\/p>\n
Karnataka Mineral (Regulation of Transport), Rules, were stayed,
\nthe said rules could not be invoked to stop illegal mining activity
\nin the State. It is, therefore, that it became imperative for the
\nState government to issue the orders dated 26.07.2010 and<\/p>\n
28.07.2010. it is acknowledged, that this Court.gonV:’2-4j;\u00a7.i.’2.010<\/p>\n
passed an order in WS. Kumaraswamy Minerals ,Exp”o’rts’_”‘an”d,__<\/p>\n
others vs. State of Karnataka and Zothe-rs, ‘4’e.\u00a7\u00a78i3)f2000)j\u00ab <\/p>\n
bringing back to life the provisions  tli.eA’afores,aid.,V<\/p>\n
submitted, that by the aforeVsa.igti”~.,orde.r dated ( <\/p>\n
which all the a’fo’i’es-agidgiivritih disposed of) certain
\n carried out in the
\n being in consonance with
\nthe views State government, would not<\/p>\n
obstruct thet”ec_tivit_y- oi*_tVh’e State government in implementing<\/p>\n
‘”‘\u00abtheV-‘.._o”bjectiv*ie.s conta’i’rii’ed in Section 23C of the Mines and<\/p>\n
 “prevent iliegal mining, illegal transportation and<\/p>\n
illegalt storage of iron ore, from within the State of Karnataka).<\/p>\n
‘x__But the.nV”(i_t is pointed out), the Court order dated 24.9.2010 was
\nA ‘~.0fnotvl0aVailab|e when the impugned orders dated 26.7.2010 and
\n‘  22.8.2010 were passed. It is the vehement contention of the<\/p>\n
 learned Advocate General, that the State government had no<\/p>\n
other alternative, but to pass the said orders, specially during<\/p>\n
113<\/span><\/p>\n
the period when the operation of the Karnataka Mineral<\/p>\n
(Regulation of Transport) Rules, 2008 had been stayed.\n<\/p>\n
49. Continuing his submission further, it is asserted by the<\/p>\n
learned Advocate General, that the State had to strearnline the<\/p>\n
measures required for preventing recurrence of illeg,i~a_,i:”\u00abinf1iining,<\/p>\n
and in this regard, several steps like constitution 4o’f’f”–‘sfp-%.=..<;:ia,l<\/p>\n
ceiis", constitution of "composite c_hec_k–pos'ts"','~–inst'ai|at,ion off<\/p>\n
"closed circuit television" "cameras"',_ co'n\u00b0.p–uteri_zatVion'''of.__cr::i3ci<– .<\/p>\n
posts, regulation of stockyard*|icences–,'-etc.V haiv'e..,jal.read3y
\nput in place. It is submitted,  soon'  entire process
\nof preventing the activitvoz" _i'i|egal:rn"i~–n_i'ng,~illegal transportation
\nand illegal storageof iron.  f.inal;:sin–a"pe, the impugned<\/p>\n
orders dated be withdrawn,<\/p>\n
  open 'to~—–t-he petitioners, to carry on with their<\/p>\n
the basis of their contractuai undertakings, even<\/p>\n
with"parties:'outside the territories of India. It is, therefore,<\/p>\n
'v,reiterated*\u00abthat the action of the State government in issuing the
\nA .,:l\u00a7'n'lVp'u'g.ned orders, cannot be described as "prohibitory". In order
\ntogsubstantiate the instant contention advanced on behaif of the<\/p>\n
""v.,.'V-'.\u00a73'l':'ate government, the Court's attention was invited to the<\/p>\n
observations recorded in State of Madhya Pradesh and another<\/p>\n
Wit"\n<\/p>\n
\\l<\/p>\n
115<\/span><\/p>\n
Legislature of the State has the power to legislate in regard to
\nthe subject on which the executive order is issued”.<\/p>\n
50. We have considered the submissions advanced by the
\nlearned Counsel for the rival parties, in so far as thelsecond<\/p>\n
contention is concerned. In our considered view,_t’he\u00ab.ea.u’it’iesi~in<\/p>\n
respect of the controversy have to be determineritby’ itakinglb into
\nconsideration the factual position depictedojjn”belia’lf.h:of.,t.i\u00a7,\u00e9gtate <\/p>\n
government, as have been noticed “h.e’reinab,ov.eiVb” 1 It*:is’~n’ot<\/p>\n
possible for us to-.ignoi~e.~theifgint_eriim”.A.repo.iftisubmitteci by the
\nKamataka   C,\u00a7’:l-iii:the’irregularities in mining
\nincluding__mini’ngi:..frQ[T!V’V”firelaisbl.’ by the mining lease,
\nmining   >i’n.t_o’-….f_ore.st areas and into government
\nrevenue ‘la=nci.. not possible to ignore, illegal<\/p>\n
transpgortationaof  ore and the effect thereof on the biological<\/p>\n
 am Vlsncib}-eclonomic environment of the area, where mining<\/p>\n
Aactivityll isfbeben”jca~rried out. It is also not possible to overlook,<\/p>\n
misbuse o_f>b’,il.l< transport permits which are used for transporting<\/p>\n
ll""-__V'i"l!eg,ally" mined iron ore. Or to ignore, even the irregularities in
\nA   .grant and use of stock yard licenses mentioned in the interim
\n   report of Karnataka Lokayukta. A balanced view has to be taken<\/p>\n
:."by weighing the private individual interests of the petitioners<\/p>\n
(who are engaged in the export of iron ore from the State of<\/p>\n
Karnataka to countries beyond the territories of India), and the<\/p>\n
3'\u00b0~r2r""*"'"f""i2"\u00b0<\/p>\n
117<\/span><\/p>\n
Advocate Generai, the operation of the impugned orders would<\/p>\n
ordinarily not extend beyond the period of six monthsV.V(V_f.”-ohm the<\/p>\n
date of their issue), as by then everything <\/p>\n
the State government wouid have .i~i’Ti’p-!e:men~ted,V <\/p>\n
recommendations made by the Ka’rnat_ai<a1'  =\u00a2_An<\/p>\n
issue, which by its very natu-re is't'.',tempo::aryVf'.:4_cari_i;iotl be<\/p>\n
considered to be "prohibitory".  the lacti_Vo_nv5tal:<fen is, only
\nfor introducing "regu|at.o"r:y'_'  ail the
\nactivities wouid stand restored-.,,   of iron~ore,
\nit is difficult  are "prohibitory"\n<\/p>\n
in nature.   whether the measures
\nadoptedaiare  has to be deciphered
\nfrom thezpleadingsv,V’iri:_lthe”w:ri’tfpetitions. The pleadings in the writ<\/p>\n
petitiogns, to a’ss,aiE~th~e ibnpufgned orders, are of no assistance to<\/p>\n
‘l V’ “iead”lto’an”‘,I such in’fe’re’nce. The categoric stance of the Advocate<\/p>\n
l”*{\u00a7eiierae!_.:’th.at”ith_e’i..impugned orders were issued so as to put in<\/p>\n
place Vmeasuresffor preventing export of illegally mined iron ore,<\/p>\n
also leads: to the same inference. For the reasons recorded
\n“aherei’n*above we find no merit in the second contention advanced<\/p>\n
 byllgthe iearned counsel for the petitioner.<\/p>\n
_…..-no<\/p>\n
we<\/p>\n
Q <\/p>\n
 301jofe. the<\/p>\n
121<\/span><\/p>\n
relate to an activity , which was hitherto being carried out by the
\npetitioners, and which has now been prevented from due
\nexecution. The impugned orders dated  and<\/p>\n
28.7.2010 have no such effect. Herein the si;;-ice”‘ge’y:e%riir.:;_eint<\/p>\n
has banned certain activities, so as to enabieitve in piece,
\nregulatory measures, so as to preventiggiirlegaii_m-inin’g,__ iiiegai ‘<\/p>\n
transportation and illegai stora.:je..of iro’n,_o’re, so’th’at:the iron ore.<\/p>\n
reserves found in Karnataka are_no_t sto’i’en:b’y uliqscrupuious<\/p>\n
persons. And so that,  State is not lost
\nfor ali times  on account mining activities at
\nthe hands of ihirdly, according to the
\nlearned  th\u00e9iiiiffipugned orders are of a
\ntemporary  to be operative after the expiry<\/p>\n
of a Period about  months. It is difficult for us to<\/p>\n
.0 0’ ”’appr0ec’iate. the relianc’e”at the hands of the petitioners, on Article<\/p>\n
ic\u00e9onstitution of India. Article 301, extracted above,<\/p>\n
deaiswith ,i’ss1ue’s pertaining to trade, commerce and intercourse<\/p>\n
iffwithin” territory of India”. The impugned orders dated
\n“e216,.0’7″*;_2010 and 28.07.2010 have no effect on trade, commerce
\nand intercourse “within the territory of India”, and as such<\/p>\n
 reiiance thereon at the hands of the petitioners, is whoiiy<\/p>\n
misconceived. From the inferences drawn by us hereinabove, it<\/p>\n
is not possible for us to accept, the instant contention advanced<\/p>\n
iwww<\/p>\n
122<\/span><\/p>\n
on behalf of the petitioners. For the reasons recorded
\nhereinabove, we find no merit in the third contention advanced<\/p>\n
on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioners.<\/p>\n
The Fourth Contention (.., investigations carried  the<\/p>\n
Lokavukta cannot be a ieoitimate basis for Dassinci .th_e\u00bb_i.rri;if;Jtjiwed<\/p>\n
orders):\n<\/p>\n
55. The fourth contention advanced_ by th’e”‘learne’dcounsei. <\/p>\n
for the petitioner was, that  iri’i’pL3gned-.’o’rderss..__,datedl<\/p>\n
26.07.2010 and 28.07.2010,<w'e_re passiedViriter{avi:i.aV,VHbecause\u00bb<\/p>\n
certain investigations were carrieid".',out,_vby"i\u00e9arnataka State
\nLokayukta, whereafter   were made by
\nhim. In this behalf, it  learned counsel
\nfor the petitionevr,\ufb02thiaVt the s_u"i\u00a7;ject.:njiatte–r'iAof controversy raised<\/p>\n
in the present. v;i.rit_peVtitiorir'~.:,co:u"id' have been vested by the<\/p>\n
"Vii-State,;"i3o,vern.rnent,V'with' the Karnataka State Lokayukta. It is<\/p>\n
"i:o_:"be.,:'s–uggested that the State government was<\/p>\n
delegating'gfuinttiions which it was bound to discharge on its own.<\/p>\n
".E:earnedr'c;ounsel for the petitioner, also placed reliance on
\nA XSe,ction 7(2A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, which is<\/p>\n
' being extracted hereunder: —\n<\/p>\n
“‘7. Matters which may be investigated by the
\nLakayukta and an Upalokayukta.~ (1) Subject to the<\/p>\n
provisions of this Act, the Lokayukta may investigate any<\/p>\n
‘\u00b0'”c””\u00b0hj”W*%h<\/p>\n
123<\/span><\/p>\n
action which is taken by or with the general or specific<\/p>\n
approval of<\/p>\n
(i) the Chief Minister;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) a Minister or a Secretary;   A.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) a member of the State Legislature,’ or  ”\n<\/p>\n
(iv) any other public servantbeing a pub.l_ic servant _ <\/p>\n
of a class noti\ufb01ed by the State fiovernment in”
\nconsultation with the Loikayulk ta in’ this beihalfg—.in’ir:1,a_’
\nany case where a Vcomplaintinvolving\u00bba”grievance ‘
\nor an allegation is made inrespect ofsfucll 5-ct_iion.h<\/p>\n
(2) Subject to the proxiisions’-.  ‘ “the; Act, an
\nUpalokayukta may investiga.te”afi;lE5500 WhlC’\u00bb5″l5Trv3\/<\u20aci7 by 0!'
\nwith the general or specific appro:'.\/all' ..a'ny_public servant not
\nbeing the Chief MinisAter,.,:hMinisteirb,  the Legislature,
\nSecretary \u00a7g,*'\u00abatti\u20acF public.,'servahlt_j_Vrefereed to in sub–section
\n(1), in any"cas5eb,.w.hel"e: a compiairit involving a grievance or an
\nallegation, is:..rn'adeuifr  of suchiaction or such action can
\nbe 'ior"couldl'havefVbeen,.in theihopinlion of the Upalokayukta, the<\/p>\n
subject or .a Vg\ufb02ex\/_ai7ce' "an ' allega tion.<\/p>\n
 . Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-<\/p>\n
_.se'ctions {1} and (2), the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta may
\nV-investigate any action taken by or with the general or specific\n<\/p>\n
 –.app.roval\u00ab,_o”f .a public servant, if it is referred to him by the<\/p>\n
 State’\u20acgov’er.n*ment.\n<\/p>\n
  Where two or more Upalokayuktas are appointed
\nunder this Act, the i_ol<ayul<ta may, by general or special<\/p>\n
'harder, assign to each of them matters which may be<\/p>\n
A ' 'investigated by them under this Act.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that no investigation made by an
\nUpalokayukta under this Act, and no action taken or things
\ndone by him in respect of such investigation shall be open to
\nquestion on the ground only that such investigation relates to<\/p>\n
a matter which is not assigned to him by such order.<\/p>\n
ua\ufb01aii\/;\u00bb6uw_6\u00abwwg?\u00ab<\/p>\n
124<\/span><\/p>\n
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub–sections
\n(1) to (3), when an Upalokayukta is unable to discharge his
\nfunctions owing to absence, illness or any other
\nfunction may be discharged by the other Upa!okayukta,j’ _
\nand if there is no other Upaiokayukta by the Lotta-yui{ta’il” if S<\/p>\n
It is the submission of the |earned:=,,_cou.nszel Sir’-or:4.t’he4pevt,i_’tiQn\u00e9rs S’<\/p>\n
based on Section 7(2A) of thei’l<._arnat'ak_a" Lokay'ui3:.ta_l.Act;, i;98:'4i,<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as the  Act).  irrespective of
\nthe "interim" findings  Lokayukta
\n(though no "final"finding'sH_ recorded by the
\nLokayukta) no  thereon. And no
\naction can     of the report of the
\nLokayuk_ta,WiV orlviliifiynal. According to learned
\ncounse|,VVVt–al:<:ingVactio.nijV~oni\u00ab.tne'i:'b~asis of investigations carried out<\/p>\n
by the Lokayuiitga, . w–asl"v_cie'aur|y unreasonable and arbitrary. It is<\/p>\n
 that firstwthe State government must verify the<\/p>\n
 '.of,:th-e investigation carried out by the Karnataka<\/p>\n
Lok*ayukta.."VlIf_the same are found to be correct, it should apply<\/p>\n
'xi__ts independent mind, to determine what remedial measures
\nA fshlot3ll'd., be adopted. It is submitted, that it appears that the
\nState government has abrogated its authority to the Karnataka<\/p>\n
tokayukta. It is also contended, that the factuai position<\/p>\n
expressed by the petitioners (noted under the heading \u00bb Preface<\/p>\n
to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
125<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioners) wouid demonstrate, that the instant action against
\nthe petitioners is totally uncaiied for, as the sanfaeV_i’~h:as_ far<\/p>\n
reaching adverse consequences.\n<\/p>\n
56. Keeping in view the fourth:’co’n’tention _adjya’r_-.ced.TatVl’the’ j<\/p>\n
hands of the petitioners, we were\u00ab,_c’onstrained’~.to. <\/p>\n
Advocate General ‘whether the’-i.,:C\u00a7e.yern.nient–,,m’acVh-in’\u00e9r*y”:in the<\/p>\n
State of Karnataka had \u00a73.,,iiec1′.7g7.i~*’~–‘..’\\.l\u00e9\\Wanted tovv~kno’w whether;<\/p>\n
the Police Department, the and Geoiogy,<\/p>\n
the Forest Department, the?’<\/p>\n
 Deiipa”rtment, as weii as,<\/p>\n
the Revenue,Depairt.n;}ent.:_were i.ncompetent to discharge their<\/p>\n
:=-ai~<\/p>\n
duties? V,\\Nee.d’e’sivre;’to_ be-.jsa_tisfied._wh\u00a7y the Revenue Department
\ncould not, on its”‘ow.n4,ir;l\u00e9t.ermine whether mining lease holders<\/p>\n
were carryi”r.g_4 outxtheir’ acitiyities, within or beyond, the specific<\/p>\n
Ii”\n<\/p>\n
 areaatipulated  lease agreements? We also wished to
\n Department could not on its own protect
\n according to the impugned orders dated
\n _ 26.o”7—-.2o..1:c)-arena 28.07.2010 were being exploited by
\n.V,unscifupu’io.us persons engaged in iiiegai mining and<\/p>\n
”.’_\u00abtransportation of iron ore? We also wished to find out, why the
\n Transport Department couid not ensure that lorries and trucks<\/p>\n
“are not permitted to carry ion~ore beyond the permissible<\/p>\n
capacity? As aiso, why transport permits issued to carry iron~ore<\/p>\n
126<\/span><\/p>\n
from the mine head, to the factory\/port\/railway head, were<\/p>\n
being permitted to be misused?\n<\/p>\n
57. In response to the averments mad-e::”in,it,he””4_<\/p>\n
submission advanced by the learnedecou-n.sel ‘petitijoners,f it<\/p>\n
as also the querries posed by us, the’.|Vearn”ed Advocate C?T’ene’ral,<\/p>\n
invited our attention to the factua’l”..narratiQ_n ‘reco:rd’ed”‘under the<\/p>\n
heading– “Preface to the,..submi,ssio,.ns ‘a\u00bbdAvance’d,..by;the learned
\ncounsel for the respondent:s’_’,~ to”c:on:tend, that the action
\ntaken by the StateV’g_over’n’m’e’nt,   bona fide but was
\nalso justified:_.l\u00abr~.   of the present case,
\nwhich involved’vdiesitiiuction’ oii’Ati.e:::eVm,\u00a7ironment and plundering of
\nthe States  He painstakingly, reiterated the<\/p>\n
entire\ufb01 background,  prompted the State government,<\/p>\n
 to pass the impugned orders. He concluded by submitting, that
\n the’._a’ction:_takan was bona fide and for a genuine and valid<\/p>\n
c’0.nsi_de ratio.n_.  ‘ v V <\/p>\n
T_58. it ..  ‘We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
\nit ‘.fi=ourti’:..,Acontention advanced by the learned counsel for the
\n‘\u00abi\u00ab.–‘petit’ioners. In so far as the instant aspect of the matter is<\/p>\n
 concerned, it would be relevant to notice, that a spurt of demand<\/p>\n
of iron ore in the global market commenced from the year 2001.<\/p>\n
The aforesaid demand led to its deficiency and accordingly,<\/p>\n
128<\/span><\/p>\n
carrying out investigations into the ailegations was vested with<\/p>\n
the Karnataka Lokayukta. It wouid be pertinent to m_entio_:n,.._that<\/p>\n
Hon’bie Mr. Justice N.Santosh Hegde, a former.\u00a7’_,i.ud”ge’—iio.f1~,_t_he
\nSupreme Court of India was holding the office’
\nLokayukta, at the reievant juncture.  -iimagei-i,.__of.,1Vt.i1e S’<\/p>\n
Karnataka Lokayukta in tiies’St_ate of”‘i<arnatai\u00a7a,__.injg <\/p>\n
perception, being that of impeccabilie _integ'riti\/if'andifihonesty, it
\nwas felt that an  hands, and the
\nimplementation of__his recorrimendVat,ionsvV.'(i,4;ihic'h wouid be made
\nby him)   and eievate the
\ngovernment's  V"S,in'ce under Section 7(2A) of
\nthe  xcfafnv\ufb02be issued to the Karnataka
\nLokavukta  Out an investigation. An order<\/p>\n
cameto bekpassed, A"ifecfu"iring the Karnataka Lokayukta to<\/p>\n
' "'inve'sti{gaft-e and mai<e""n'ecessary recommendations on the issue<\/p>\n
 "of iron-ore in the State of Karnataka. In his<\/p>\n
interim reportiiildated 18.12.2008, the Karnataka Lokayukta<\/p>\n
'<affirmed,'t'hat iarge scaie iliegal mining and transportation of iron
\n"i.oreViin"\u00ab_the State of Karnataka were going on at the hands of the
\nS  mining mafia. The interim report referred to above, found<\/p>\n
aimost aii those engaged in mining of iron-ore, were either<\/p>\n
facing prosecution, or had assailed (before one court, or the<\/p>\n
\u00a7—-q<\/p>\n
130<\/span><\/p>\n
and when, the matter reaches the iegislatures in the State, it is
\nnot easy for a Court to ignore the out~cry, that something is<\/p>\n
seriousiy wrong. Even the Karnataka Lokayukta has”‘a’i:’fi:r’i<ried<\/p>\n
the prevaience of mass scaie iiiega! mining-'.,a:ctiVvi,ty',:"'"in,'.'_"'his~.t<\/p>\n
interim report dated 18.12.2OO8;""'~.A|t%iou,g"h.–VI,'4the-v4.'_jg.State'5ix'<\/p>\n
government should have acted withia  <\/p>\n
seeds of the said illegai activity'–_c"o.rnme'ncedt tgoiiv-sp"rout,..yet it is<\/p>\n
futiie to cry over spiiled milk. VIt——is:"neve,r too"ia.te,"tb act in the
\ninterest of the State, so remains. It is
\nimproper to igno_re,__thatwtheiiii the impugned
\norders were Ea  the interim report of
\nthe   have been taken into
\nconsideraAtio_n-,A  of huge quantities of iliegaiiy<\/p>\n
mined ironvogre at"'–va'i"iotisdliorts in the State, readv for being<\/p>\n
'JV'"e.xpoitt'ed:,.;-to 'foreig'n"c'o'untries, reveal a substantial truth in the<\/p>\n
"mai;ter..:"-,As.4"a,n"emergent measure, the State government,<\/p>\n
passed thegiriripulgned orders to put the mining activities in order.<\/p>\n
S2510 courtidcan come in the way of such a cause. The State
\nA 5fgover'n.ment acted on the basis of a long sequence of facts
\n"iincgiuding the interim report of the Karnataka Lokayukta. And<\/p>\n
 not, soieiy on the said report of the Lokayukta. Thus viewed, it<\/p>\n
is difficult for us to accept the contention of the petitioners, that<\/p>\n
the action taken by the State government was arbitrary, or that<\/p>\n
':i;%ai~;J2~ f\u00bbv\u00bb\u00abg{'~<\/p>\n
131<\/span><\/p>\n
it was mereiy based on the recommendation of the Karnataka
\nLokayukta, in his interim report. For the aforesaid reasrsns, it is
\nnot possibie to accept the submissions canvassed ori”‘aeh:aif of<\/p>\n
the petitioners, even in the fourth contention.<\/p>\n
The Fifth Contention (… the impugned.,.4,or:de–rs’,4_to4’th’e’Ve.x_t;n__t 7<\/p>\n
“export” of iron ore has been banned\ufb01are withoutiu.risdictio_n’i–:g<\/p>\n
60.. The fifth contention adva0’n.ce’d by the iyearneiidi counsei for
\nthe petitioners was base4d’w~,_on,.”AVth_e”co!.|,ective effect of reading<\/p>\n
Articies 245 and 246 of theV_Co_nstitVi.itio.n..:oiA-i1,_nd’i–a along with entry<\/p>\n
41 of Union….,i_n Schedule of the
\nConstitution.  relied upon by the iearned
\ncounsel ifor  under: –~<\/p>\n
“41.\u00ab Tracievand  foreign countries; import<\/p>\n
and export across Customs frontiers; definition of customs
\n_g_Froritiers’i ”\n<\/p>\n
 “‘Ba\u00abseo’ oni’uent’r?,r,_.41 ofxthe Union List, which reiates to the subject<\/p>\n
of tr’ad’eg.._,;jn;I” commerce with foreign countries, as aiso, import<\/p>\n
and export’ across custom frontiers, it was the submission of the<\/p>\n
02″”-__V’i’eargnedzcounsei for the petitioner, that the impugned orders
\n,i’d.a’ted,?526.07.2010 and 28.07.2010 were pointedly aimed at
\n_3t,0\u00a7p|:>ing “export” of iron–ore from the State of Karnataka.<\/p>\n
i’According to the iearned counsei for the petitioners, the<\/p>\n
legislative authority on the subjects, contained in entry 41 of the<\/p>\n
Union List, falls within the domain of the Parliament. The<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
Ci<\/p>\n
\u00abum.-\n<\/p>\n
“V Parliament.\n<\/p>\n
132<\/span><\/p>\n
jurisdiction to exercise executive authority, on the aforesaid<\/p>\n
subject, therefore, would exclusively fall within the domain of<\/p>\n
the Central government (under Article 73 of the Consti’tuj’t.i,on of<\/p>\n
India). As such, it was asserted, that even without refevt’-erice’_’ito\u00bb<\/p>\n
the provisions of the Constitution of~In’d–i–a, and  leg’is.|ax’ti.vef <\/p>\n
enactments (relied upon while advalncilng th_e–.ear|’ie’i*._,tour<\/p>\n
submissions) the action of the-Sta_te executive’-,1 i”n_:”isswui:ng the<\/p>\n
impugned orders dated 25,07.201$.and-\u00bb.28.07″.20.1Q,,.are liable to<\/p>\n
be set aside. Stated in other itlllwvasgithe contention of the<\/p>\n
learned counsei: entered into
\nby the  countries, cannot be
\nby the State government,
\nthrough   execution authority. It was<\/p>\n
submitted,  the: State”. of Karnataka does not enjoy the<\/p>\n
‘JV'”privi’i:g.ge:,.;t0 control’or”‘interfere with, any aspect of trade and<\/p>\n
A’commerc’e._’withAforeign countries and import and\/or “export”<\/p>\n
across custyoinfrontiers.\n<\/p>\n
:.6:.  $ased on the subject of entry 41, it is the submission of
\n ,dth,e*\u00bb!earned counsel for the petitioners, that import as well as<\/p>\n
f,$e.xp0rt” across custom frontiers, falls within the domain of<\/p>\n
It was asserted that the Parliament had
\npromulgated the Customs Act, 1962, and the Foreign Trade<\/p>\n
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, which cover the field<\/p>\n
“‘”a”*\u00b0'””””aQ’<\/p>\n
133<\/span><\/p>\n
of import and “export” across custom frontiers. It was pointed
\nout, that the executive power on the aforesaid subjects”-.vest in<\/p>\n
the Centrai government, under Article 73 of the Cgoiisti\ufb02itigon, of<\/p>\n
India. It was contended, that all matters within\ufb02theSatin-b’itt,,.and’\u00bb,_<\/p>\n
scope of the subjects contained in the'”Union -iisistyofltijef Sieventh’; if<\/p>\n
Schedule of the Constitution of Indiaiifwhetfherfforginont <\/p>\n
has iegislated thereon), as a|sc3\u00ab,.__fa.I._|% matters in-.the'”Cor.’currer.t<\/p>\n
List in respect whereof i.egisiationshes”-~..not been,,e,n\u00a7acted by a<\/p>\n
State iegisiature, are  only of the
\nCentrai governthent,:.”V   ‘\u00e9gitijwasiasserted, the subjects
\nfaliing under?ent:ry%ii:””of must be deemed to be
\nout of   at the hands of a State<\/p>\n
government. ‘-\n<\/p>\n
_ 62. V, was also cofntenfdedfi, that the Pariiament having enacted
\n%(“‘[“)eveIopment and Reguiation) Act, 1992
\nif to as ‘Foreign Trade Act’) for which the<\/p>\n
 _ juristi-ictiojn’ arkifthe authority of the Parliament flows out of Entry
\n  the—:Union List contained in the Seventh Schedule of the
\n igficonstiiftution of India. Accordingly it was submitted, that the
\nCe\u00e9ntrai government aione can issue orders\/directions on the<\/p>\n
‘subject of “export”. In order to substantiate the instant<\/p>\n
contention, teamed counsei for the petitioners, aiso placed<\/p>\n
reliance on Article 162 of the Constitution of India, defining the<\/p>\n
l”?\n<\/p>\n
134<\/span><\/p>\n
scope and extent of the executive power of a State. Based on
\nArticle 162 of the Constitution of India, it was asserte.d.___at the<\/p>\n
hands of the petitioners, that the power of the State ta-nf”eVx’t.end<\/p>\n
to matters, with respect to which the legislature-iof <\/p>\n
power to make laws. It was Submitted._t&hat <\/p>\n
power to make laws in respect of”\u00abeith_’e’r’l impoitngorl -‘fexb1oji~t”<\/p>\n
across customs frontiers, and as-_,s”‘uch, the State ,of”i{_’a’vrnatjaka, ‘in’<\/p>\n
exercise of its executive powVer.,x:’cou’ldg not”‘h.aveJ\u00a7issued the
\nimpugned orders ‘dated  E3’li(jV’>28.,.’G7.201O, whereby
\nthe State governmenht, be-.nnied”the’  iron-ore.<\/p>\n
63.   Act is concerned, it was
\nsubmitted, thatvt’he”-sam’e’~was enacted for the development and<\/p>\n
regulation of.__foreig’n_ t’i*adei”f.orfacilitating imports into India, and<\/p>\n
 for atigmenting’\u00abexports from india, as also, for matters<\/p>\n
 (.’A0:r’,r.]\u00a7eVc.*.”e_v3icivA..therewith or incidental thereto. On the issue of<\/p>\n
 ifDirectwV.ljn'{\/estment, learned counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
subm’~ittevd,. that in the first instance, the limit of Foreign Direct<\/p>\n
H ,:Iriv:e.stme*n.t came to be enhanced up to 51% and thereafter to<\/p>\n
 -_’1;(_V)VO%, whereupon, everybody engaged in mining was allowed to
\n  ~\u00bbe-xfport 100% of the mineral ore produced. For the definition of<\/p>\n
A the term ‘import and export’ under Foreign Trade Act, learned<\/p>\n
“t’\u00b0W”..?”””‘zf”\n<\/p>\n
137<\/span><\/p>\n
natural resources, and carrying on of foreign trade by a State,
\ncan be ordered only by the Central government by way, of a<\/p>\n
notification. In order to demonstrate, that the afo.resa’iti:’i;:o’wer<\/p>\n
on earlier occasions was exclusively being exercised -the
\nCentral government, learned counsel’ for .;the’W.peti*ti\u00aboners T<\/p>\n
presented for our consideration,v4K,a*._Notifie_ation= S-bearirig<\/p>\n
No.18\/2006 dated 04.07.2006 w’h:e”reby theCentrallfgovelrnment
\nhad prohibited export of’\u00a7u_gar.tii’i’  e”r’.id_ of the’~fis’c:ai year. It<\/p>\n
was, therefore, the subrniss_ion7of’ ithe’ii’l~efa.rned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners, that  gov”ern’m:enVt”h.asl no authority to pass
\no1’der(s) on the sjuilsject’of,:”e’x.;\u00a7o’:’trs, in,ci’uding the total prohibition
\nof export of ‘ii~..:vie_vv of.Section 11 of the Customs Act<\/p>\n
referred to hereinab:ove’;–~._A_”‘~Besides the aforesaid provisions,<\/p>\n
learneyriycounseyivy for th.e”‘petitioners also placed reliance on<\/p>\n
 1;-1H’-oef the ‘Customs Act, wherein clause (a) defines the<\/p>\n
 Sub–section (a) of Section 11H of the<\/p>\n
Custorns Actltjiisibeing extracted hereunder:<\/p>\n
“.3  Def:’nitians.~ In this Chapter, unless the context
\n.,  otherwise requires,-\n<\/p>\n
a) “illegal export” means the export of any goods in<\/p>\n
” — _ contravention of the provisions of this Act or any other law for
\nthe time being in force. ”\n<\/p>\n
 In addition to the aforesaid, the learned counsel desired us to<\/p>\n
examine the provisions, which had been brought to the notice of<\/p>\n
this Court by him, along with Section 2(g) of the Foreign Trade<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
53″\n<\/p>\n
141<\/span><\/p>\n
26.07.2010 and 28.07.2010, whereby the State government<\/p>\n
banned the export of iron–ore mined in Karnataka.<\/p>\n
65. It was also the emphatic contention.–,A’of <\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioners, that aliowing  <\/p>\n
action of the State government (in:”1\u00abissi_i_’iin\u00a7j lathe’ <\/p>\n
26.07.2010 and 20.07.2010) w0.uid.,_hav\u00e9’-the.effect\u00a5of~destroying”<\/p>\n
the federai structure en__visage:d_..__b:y.__thez Constitnutioii of India.
\nInsofar as the federal stru-eture’. the Constitution of
\nIndia is concerr3ied’,i,;i,.i:t’ was the learned counsel
\nfor the  o’f~.,3re’gjulation of “export” from
\nIndia   either with the Parliament
\nor with lathe  According to the learned<\/p>\n
counsel,’ thei'”‘State_goverra~~:i0ent has breached the weil-defined<\/p>\n
 of theV’fv——-de’ral structure, based on the scheme of<\/p>\n
powers, both iegislative and executive, under the<\/p>\n
Corwsitiitutionof India.\n<\/p>\n
it  “In so far as the fifth submission advanced at the hands
\n‘  oifbthe petitioners is concerned, it wouid be pertinent to mention,<\/p>\n
 that the plea advanced at the hands of the petitioners was fully<\/p>\n
supported by Additional Solicitor General of India, who entered<\/p>\n
appearance on behaif of the Union of India ie., respondent No.6<\/p>\n
143<\/span><\/p>\n
we are of the view, that none of the provisions relied upon by
\nthe iearned counsel for the petitioners are reievant””to the<\/p>\n
present controversy. The reasons for arriving at _th_e.a’fo’res~aid<\/p>\n
conclusion are being recorded by us in the jsu.ct;eeid_i_,ng”.__V<\/p>\n
paragraphs.\n<\/p>\n
68. Whiie examining the7pr.esent*eoVntrovie’rsy,,in o_rder to:<\/p>\n
determine the purpose for  orgciers dated
\n26.07.2010 and 28.07.20;ii:’0wAe–%ie  necessary for us to
\npose two questions, and to the same. The
\nfirst question.w;)u1idi::.:be_V: ”  _  V V  it
\n“Whether.the’State-I;;gov’ernn*i’er:t.,:isVV_a:\u00a7;grieved with the action of
\nthe petitioners  ?”\n<\/p>\n
And the second, V V<\/p>\n
 “Whet%herii.the  government is desirous of annuliing the<\/p>\n
 export conytracts procured by the petitioners for exporting iron-<\/p>\n
d.re”eut o’r;i’%i,d:’a.1?\n<\/p>\n
 _ it istnot  to answer either of the aforesaid questions, for
\n ,s.imzpie:reason, that it is not the case of the petitioners either<\/p>\n
  pleadings, or during the course of hearing, that the State\n<\/p>\n
 -government was aggrieved by the action of the petitioners in<\/p>\n
“V”exporting” iron~ore, or that, the State government was<\/p>\n
interested in annuiiing\/canceling the export contracts procured<\/p>\n
144<\/span><\/p>\n
by the petitioners for exporting iron ore. It is therefore
\napparent, that the impugned orders had not been issued, with<\/p>\n
reference to the activity of “export” of iron-ore,  <\/p>\n
petitioners are engaged. The impugned orders
\nbeen issued, on account of the fac’t”Athat_,_ iiargeig'”:ca:|e~.fi~tieg,a|ij’
\nmining activities were being car:r’\u00abieci~._\/_on i\u00bbn_..,A’t’i1.ei,<\/p>\n
Karnataka, and for curtailing the.._:sa,me, V. the –St’a,te’~-,g’ov’e’rnmentV<\/p>\n
had passed the impuggnecl ord’e’i*s..”,_:’–  wouidi,v–..therefore, be
\nreasonable to conciude that mind was not “export”<\/p>\n
of iron~ore; but f’tnei’t,_” of;_iron’~’ore.,’ <\/p>\n
69. OnEt.he~:\ufb01_sag_rne'”‘e’na’l’oigy,:,”‘as hasbeen considered by us in
\nthe preceding may venture to pose two further<\/p>\n
questions, asauinder’:  i<\/p>\n
 “Whetheriii.t hasbeen the endeavour of the State government to
\n  anyhoi’ the petitioners licenses for “export” of
\n,ntto  <\/p>\n
‘  _ Arad,”\u00ab.\n<\/p>\n
 action of the State government taken through the
\n riVi*1fiV[jL!\u20acgiAi;ied orders has resulted in the annulment of the “export
\n  ff_|i_censes obtained by the petitioners”? .<\/p>\n
V’ In our considered view, although the second question posed<\/p>\n
herein above, would seem to fall in some grey area, yet the<\/p>\n
—.–u<\/p>\n
Mi<\/p>\n
Q <\/p>\n
146<\/span><\/p>\n
passed with the primary object s\ufb01stopping illegal activities
\nconnected with mining, transportation and storage of .i–ron~ore.<\/p>\n
71. At the cost of repetition, it may be stat_ed”,~ so<\/p>\n
far as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned,  a* <\/p>\n
spurt of demand of iron ore in theggllobal. nlarketli’comrn.e~nci.ngf<\/p>\n
from the year 2901. The aforesaid   <\/p>\n
deficiency of the available iron t.he.__g’loVba.l: rna”r’i<\u00bbet:. This<\/p>\n
resulted in the escalation of they-price and profitaibiuty from the<\/p>\n
activity of iron ore  licenses which
\nwere earlier    considered as an
\noutstanding  l\ufb01accolrdingly, those who were
\nchosen  were considered as
\nfavoured'inVdi'vidu*alVs',.\u00bb at the hands of those who were<\/p>\n
denied. mining leases. A*Sivn'*ce making a quick buck, came to be<\/p>\n
 "'associate_d. with the lactivvity of iron ore mining, the activity of iron<\/p>\n
ore to be extended, beyond the area for which<\/p>\n
mini__FI'\u00a73 leasershlad been granted ie., miners started to transgress<\/p>\n
'zinto government revenue land and forest areas. In order to sell
\n'fii!ega'i~l_y mined iron ore, it had to be transported to the relevant
\n'  locations either for use in the domestic market, or to ports from<\/p>\n
 where it could be exported. This couid be done, only by illegal<\/p>\n
transport of illegally mined ironwore. There were far reaching<\/p>\n
social and environmental implications from the aforesaid illegal<\/p>\n
14?\n<\/p>\n
activities. Existing means of livelihood like agriculture, etc:.,<\/p>\n
were given up in favour of iilegal mining of iron-ore. Individ_Vuais<\/p>\n
owning private farm–lands were more interested in;'”\u00e9’xtr.fa–c:tion of
\niron–ore, rather than carrying on their farming~wa\u00bbc.tiviti’es. ._’i’he’re.o
\nwas extensive pubiic debate on the is_sue-offliIl4egalyl’y—-.rn*i.r’iediron~ ‘<\/p>\n
ore in Karnataka. Public debateon the”iss’ue tooiclvexypressi’;notice’<\/p>\n
of the ioss caused to the State mVliin:evra|_uweaithlg: as also, revenue
\nloss caused to the State’ gl’:’E_v’egvnt.ua||yythematter was
\nconsidered on theAV_i’|oors’y,C.>_f_V:”‘Lf5″~i.\u20ac\u00e9 in the State.
\nAliegations and icrossihaileigatioris  by politicai parties.
\nVarious enqL:if\\r to examine the
\nallegatiognllolt  :m}1i\u00a2’r\u00e9. The Karnataka Lokayukta
\nin his  endorsed the fact, that on<\/p>\n
minim_al.yfinan”cEaVi’ inputs”, there was likelihood of huge profits, in<\/p>\n
.w.”t.hQ..’:oa&tiy’ity’vi.Apf iron “”” ‘ore mining. According to Karnataka<\/p>\n
L_.o”l’\u00ab_a’.yuikt’a.,:those”-engaged in the export of iron ore in Karnataka<\/p>\n
itseifllearnedlii’profits of about Rs.60,000 crores during the year<\/p>\n
 “w2007–2{iv(u)%3. The interim report of the Karnataka Lokayukta also<\/p>\n
‘7.revela”i~\u00abed, that illegai mining activity was being carried out in a
\nl   way. From the pleadings contained in the joint statement of<\/p>\n
 objections filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, as also from the<\/p>\n
interim report of the Karnataka Lokayukta, it emerges that out<\/p>\n
of 153 mining lease holders engaged in mining of major<\/p>\n
150<\/span><\/p>\n
furtherance thereof, is a question of “law and order”, rather than<\/p>\n
a question of “import and export”.\n<\/p>\n
74. We may draw an analogy, to settle <\/p>\n
hand, from a simple illustration. v~-it-mayf” it<\/p>\n
presumed, that a jeweler is autho1riV2edlA’to  <\/p>\n
from the State of Karnataka, to -av,”‘Fo_reigAn” country, “‘:I:nv”est:igatior.’<\/p>\n
carried out in the State of :,.l<arnatal\u00a7a .revealed, that the
\ndiamonds sought to be jeweler, were
\nstolen. Whereupon, the  vve_r'e..co\u00abn'ti'scated by the State
\ngovernment.:_. by the concerned
\nauthorities.i.n_con'fisc;at,i_ng_jthieldiaimgiiids, be treated as an action
\npreventing  Or alternatively, would it be<\/p>\n
treated as aninherent' State government to prevent an<\/p>\n
 activiyt-y"'of. "thei"t.'f__,V"Vso as to maintain law and order? The<\/p>\n
 ivnewtxableiSan_sw.er has to be, that the action of confiscation of<\/p>\n
 unrelatabie to the activity of "export:". On<\/p>\n
 the same__"ana'logy, the only possible inference in the present
\n"that even though the State government has taken<\/p>\n
 i'act:i'on,..Ai'Awhereby it has banned the "export" of iron-ore, the said
\n is for the purpose of preventing illegal mining,<\/p>\n
"transportation and storage of iron ore in the territorial<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of Karnataka, and has no nexus with the "export" of<\/p>\n
iron ore.\n<\/p>\n
152<\/span><\/p>\n
The Sixth contention i… the impugned orders violate the rights
\nvested in the petitioners under Article 300A of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
India):\n<\/p>\n
76. The sixth submission advanced by the iearn.ed*-counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioners was based on the rights ve\u00a7s’ted\u00abl..’_witi.i:_.v_tize
\npetitioners under Article 300A of the <\/p>\n
Article 300A of the Constitution of Ifftdgidajl is  7<\/p>\n
hereurider:–\n<\/p>\n
“30OA. Persons not to belvlvde\ufb01rivedlof  save by<\/p>\n
authority of law- No person___shaii be depri’veo’_ ofvhis property
\nsave by authority of il_aw_”. ‘ ‘   ” ”\n<\/p>\n
It was the submissiojin  for the petitioners,
\nthat profits  petitioners from extracting
\niron\u00abore,~”bas-ed’:;on;\\;.g’i~id”‘rni-ninlgieases, issued by the State of
\nKarnatai\u00e9ag. “The  legitimately mined iron-ore,<\/p>\n
either in theadiomelstic’inariiet, or by way of export to foreign<\/p>\n
 ,_mari<etts, _constitu"tes__t__h_e. petitioner's property under Article 300A<\/p>\n
ofyltiiegCo_nsti't.ut'io_n of India. It was therefore submitted, that the<\/p>\n
hetgiitioner'ucennotlyv be deprived of the right to such property,<\/p>\n
–V through “‘the”impugned executive orders dated 26.07.2010 and
\n it was submitted, that heavy iosses are being
\n.0 suffered by the petitioners, on account of the passing of the<\/p>\n
“impugned orders, which have the effect of depriving the<\/p>\n
petitioners the right to fuifiil their contractual obligations, which<\/p>\n
they had executed with parties beyond the boundaries of the<\/p>\n
‘liei\/W@i__5″W~\u00a54<\/p>\n
154<\/span><\/p>\n
case of the petitioners, that the activity being carried out by the
\npetitioners has been taken over by the State government.<\/p>\n
Fourthly, it is not the case of the petitioners, that the”co’nt,’ra’c.t4ual<\/p>\n
obiigations executed by them with overseas pari;’ies,V.hVa’v”el b’eer.v.’<\/p>\n
frustrated
\ncontention advanced on behalf of the \u00a7:\u00a7.etition’ers <\/p>\n
300A of the Constitution of <\/p>\n
78. At the cost of r’ep.etiti_.o”n’,’ iris n’ecessary”‘to” notice, that<\/p>\n
the action takelfby  by issuing the
\nimpugned   28.07.2010, is of a
\ntemporary._nat’u.re,5*so,,_as_toI’VliAn’sta:,lViVVV_certain measures to prevent
\nillegal mining, and storage of iron–ore. Herein,<\/p>\n
what has beenl sou’g.htiV,’toVb*e done is to temporarily prevent the<\/p>\n
 petityiciners from’ mined iron ore, with the object of
\n mined iron–ore is retained within the
\n of the country, so that, the same is not lost<\/p>\n
 _ for ail titfnesito come. The export of illegaliy mined iron ore
\n result in legitimizing the illegal activity, in as much as,
\n ._\u00e9’af_Vte’i–‘  said iron~ore leaves the shores of the country, it would\n<\/p>\n
  -be; weli nigh impossible for the Governmental agencies either to<\/p>\n
recover the aforesaid iron~ore or to prosecute those involved in<\/p>\n
the illegal mining activity. We are, therefore, unable to agree<\/p>\n
with the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The<\/p>\n
Accordingly, we reaiiy~fin–d_no_ su4b’st,anc’e,_’_in ‘trhe\ufb01. ”<\/p>\n
155<\/span><\/p>\n
State government through the impugned orders cannot be
\ndeemed to have deprived the petitioners, of any of<\/p>\n
property vested in them. For the reasons record-ed”4abo.ve;_(‘4as<\/p>\n
also in the preceding paragraph), we find no <\/p>\n
contention advanced on behaif of th\u00e9;,Apetit4ioner_s.’:4_’  4′<\/p>\n
The Seventh contention (… therelbeinq no Vtr:..ith”i:n l’t:hev–.a.Ss3ertions’<\/p>\n
made in the statement of obiectio_ns, the”i.mpiur:=neCi,’ orders are
\nbound to be set aside):    9<\/p>\n
79. It is the case oi’  we are recording
\nas their seventh,_c0.ntention’,’ depicted in the
\nforegoing   out to demonstrate,
\nthat the_,av.errnent:s-:;rnaci.e’  7, 8, 12 and 13 of the
\njoint staitementiviof.objecti’ons~-._filed on behalf of respondents 1 to
\nS, are on’ly~i:nten’d’ed  u\u00e9nirigecessariiy malign the iron–ore mining<\/p>\n
commiunity, inc|”ud_ing the petitioners, whereas, there is no truth<\/p>\n
  matter. Learned counsei pointediy assailed
\nin depicted in paragraph 16 of the statement of<\/p>\n
 I obje’ction__s,’ -wherein, it was sought to be projected, that the
\nR.”4″-..ng’i’~JatVionai’v…i5iinera| Policy 2008, as also the Karnataka Mineral
\nit  ri’..oii–cyf?2008, do not encourage export of minerais outside India,
\n  instead suggest the establishment of industrial units within<\/p>\n
 the country for processing the same. Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners having invited the court’s attention to Annexures R9<\/p>\n
and R10, contends that the National Mineral Poiicy, as aiso, the<\/p>\n
Cl”\n<\/p>\n
156<\/span><\/p>\n
Karnataka Mineral poiicy encourages export of minerals to
\nforeign countries. On the express issue of illegal mining of iron-
\nore, it was “the submission of the learned counsel’i’,_for the<\/p>\n
petitioner, that an exhaustive report has been sul3:Vi’1″iittje.r,_i__;’iivfthe<\/p>\n
Karnataka Lokayukta , wherein, even the  of’tl-mg’
\npetitioners do not find mention. It iivasathe\u00abre’fore’ athat T.<\/p>\n
it is wholly unfair for the authorities to..irnpose aa,.”_b,|a’iii<et'=-ban"en<\/p>\n
the movement and export of iro"rn;o.re, whicVh"'ih:asAlthemeffect of<\/p>\n
unnecessarily harassing innocent, honest
\nentl'el3i"\u20ac|'i\u20acUl"S_V  "i–V.itv-was also pointed out,
\nthat the  initiative of the State
\ngevernn\u00e9ien–t,'_' stop the activity of iilegai
\nmining   aforesaid process, it is wholly<\/p>\n
unfairfor the'4"St:ate.government to have imposed a bianket ban<\/p>\n
 '"whiCi\u00bb,. igargeiis, innocent and honest individuais\/business-<\/p>\n
the petitioners . It was asserted, that the<\/p>\n
acti~'3_\u00a51'ltat Vfhleijlihailnds of the State government, not oniy results in<\/p>\n
 'less of" revenue to the State government, it has far-reaching
\n'7con:see.uetz<:es even at the nationat ievel, as it deprives the
\n  country of vaiuabie foreign exchange. It was submitted, that the<\/p>\n
empioyment generated by the mining industry cannot be<\/p>\n
everieoked, as a iot of peopie in the State of Karnataka are<\/p>\n
dependent on the mining industry for their iivelihood. It was<\/p>\n
?:""6&"\n<\/p>\n
162<\/span><\/p>\n
executive had the jurisdiction and authority to pass the
\nimpugned orders dated 26.07.2010 and 28.07.20104…,:(\u00bb\\l,,iVlh_ the<\/p>\n
object of preventing illegal mining of ir0n~ore <\/p>\n
Karnataka), the action taken at the hands of.State*_~g0’ver–nmen’t~,y
\ncannot be sustained under the doctrine ofoi\/e4rabre.ath,”ah-d_ Uifidel’ 0′<\/p>\n
the doctrine of proportionaiity..*In.__thisVbehalf, <\/p>\n
that the State government has  an approach, in
\nprohibiting export of  i\u00a7h.Ain\u00a7:.g_V..v,,l’ir:.’Karnataka, without
\nreference to those who_..a_reV-.,geVn\u00a2u:igne’lyV,h’ in bona fide
\nmining activities,”gs,’egg-gng\u20act__””tho’SeVwtio….;\u00a7re involved in iltegal
\nmining opera.tioni_<._"filth the action of the State
\n thellvllirnpugned orders, would not
\naffect the'ac'tivity It was asserted, that even<\/p>\n
after the issuance of-the. impugned orders, illegal mining activity<\/p>\n
.0 V' "has "noit bjeen'r-prevent'e'd,Vand is stilt continuing unabated. It was<\/p>\n
pointed  rvt\u00e9hatlwhat has been prevented is, the export of iron-<\/p>\n
ore' ._mineVd,'ir1__ the State of Karnataka, at the hands of those<\/p>\n
l'~.,'Vengaged_ih legal and legitimate mining activities. It was the
\n"st.-.b:rh'i'ssion of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that since
\n  only export of iron-ore had been banned by the impugned orders<\/p>\n
 dated 26.07.2010 and 28.07.2010, itlegaily mined Eron~ore in the<\/p>\n
State, is still available for domestic use, within the State. As a<\/p>\n
matter of illustration, learned counsel for the petitioners posed<\/p>\n
ET<\/p>\n
173<\/span><\/p>\n
wherein serious concerns were expressed about illegal mining of<\/p>\n
iron ore in Karnataka. The aforesaid even led to, th.eVih,an_ding<\/p>\n
over of investigation in the matter to the Karnatak\u00e9i’iaokaiyiurxta,_
\nThe sole purpose of issuing theMimpug_ned–\n<\/p>\n
26.07.2010, as is apparent from the,aforesiaiudlorder\u00e9litselfluwals,  <\/p>\n
to formulate guidelines, so as to,-initiate.V.necess,a’r’y;action;withfa,<\/p>\n
view to curb unauthorised\/illelgaill _tran’spo;rtatio.n,{export of
\nminerals from the Stat\u00a7;\\’\\,,,,i,n’  Vvifnsofar as the
\nsubsequent impugned or’d.e_r:”‘d.ate.._dl  is concerned, it
\nmade referenceilt\u00e9olthe  83,05,991 metric
\ntones of  from genkerg port,
\nand   of illegal stock of iron-\n<\/p>\n
ore fromV”‘i other ports, with the intention of export thereof. Having
\n  taken into consideration, the quantity of iron~ore being illegally<\/p>\n
 produced in the State, in comparison to the quantity of iron ore<\/p>\n
required for local use, as also for export, it was concluded by the<\/p>\n
State government, that iron-ore in excess of the<\/p>\n
  :3″\n<\/p>\n
174<\/span><\/p>\n
permitted\/authorized quantity, was being excavated. And a<\/p>\n
large quantity of the said illegally mined iron–ore ggwaisggidhgeing<\/p>\n
exported to foreign countries. it was also :.,the_
\nsecond impugned order dated 28.07d.,2i)10, that\u00bb
\nseriousness of the issue in hand, invlestigatiio\u00e9rzi_in_the’~n’iatterof ”<\/p>\n
illegai mining, transportation and-.storagie_ of ironr+ore,:came to be<\/p>\n
vested with the Karnataka Loi<'vaiyciktaVV,   was also
\nrequired to suggest measures   aforesaid activity.
\nThe latter impugned order._ai'soV  that guidelines
\nfor mining and   being formulated
\nso as to  a fool proof system of
\ntransportatiioni t_h'i.'si'3ehalf, it was asserted, that
\nit was   government to gather material<\/p>\n
necessary for"irnpiernenting. reformatory actions, with a view to<\/p>\n
. .'''contr-o:l' ii.l"ega-l._miningactivities and export of iron–ore, so that<\/p>\n
t.h'V'esg_iSVtat:e:2'\u00ab..govvern"ment could be in an effective position, to seize<\/p>\n
such' iilegaiiiyfn mined, transported and stored iron–ore.<\/p>\n
T3"-v.__"~Accordi'ngii'1y, the State government prohibited the issuance of
\n'ii'_ihi_n'e'i7ai dispatch permits" for transportation of iron–ore, for the
\n piirpose of exporting the same from the State with immediate<\/p>\n
 effect.\n<\/p>\n
175<\/span><\/p>\n
85. In view of the factual position depicted in the impugned<\/p>\n
orders dated 26.07.2010 and 28.07.2010, it is not  for<\/p>\n
us to concur with the learned counsei for the pet:it”i’o\ufb01\u00a2–r\u00a7_,” that
\niliogicai or unreasonable considerations were\u00bb.-.the”*~i3:asis
\npassing the impugned orders. it is alsonotIpossi’bie~~fo,r as to ‘<\/p>\n
accept, that the action of’ -the Staite  ‘.VVJa:’S*’<\/p>\n
discriminatory in any manner, ‘V’Vo’i=_:’th_at, Vthe_VV:petiti’oners were
\narbitrariiy singied out ad-if\/Veris.ei” asviiagxainst those
\nengaged in miningand  ore for domestic
\nuse within ti’? Df3~E..nT:Aso far as the instant
\naspect of  we are satisfied, that the
\n ieairned Advocate General, that as
\nsoon as “ore  the territorial jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
country, it becomes. hi’-mpossibie to investigate, whether the same<\/p>\n
. i”‘wa\u00a7-.,,aijta’ined._out ‘oVf”i’\u00e9gitirnate mining activity, and as such, it<\/p>\n
 wouldiai:s’o,,_beco_me impossibie to prosecute those who may have<\/p>\n
expo\u00e9rtedyironifoire, obtained out of iilegai mining activities.<\/p>\n
 “hit was attractive to hear iearned counsei for the
\n0 petitioners canvass, that the State government had used a<\/p>\n
it  “siedge-hammer when it couid have used a hammer, or that, the<\/p>\n
State government had used a hammer when it couid have used<\/p>\n
a f|y-fiapper or a fiy-swat. The submission, however, remained<\/p>\n
177<\/span><\/p>\n
been created by the impugned orders dated 26.07.2010 and<\/p>\n
28.07.2010, inasmuch as, transportation of ironV~o.r:e.__ for<\/p>\n
“domestic use” has been allowed to continue,’C.’_w.herea\u00abs
\ntransportation of iron-ore for “export” has beer*r*ba’:r:ne’d:. .It
\nsubmitted, that there is no material on the record.,of-.this-..caSe to 0<\/p>\n
show, that illegal mining is onlyiibeing carried ouit”a1;Vithe hands of,<\/p>\n
exporters of iron–ore. It was coln’teruded,V”t~;q.a:_Vt:tvhe\ufb02lsuppliers of
\niron-ore for domestic  eVi:,ilu’a\u00abi.l_y’..i,,l’beresponsible for the
\nalleged illegal mining. Itwais of the learned
\ncounsel for the   a’ny.jac.t’io.n.V:taken at the hands of
\nthe State   the activity of illegal
\nmining  However, it is not
\nunderstandable’  of iron~ore, “for export” only,<\/p>\n
is subject matter ofithe. prohibition envisaged in the impugned<\/p>\n
0 i\u00b0orders\u00ab:’d5a’ted’i~.26.02.2U’10 and 28.07.2010. It was pointed out,<\/p>\n
“‘t.h’a:l;..uby::”p,revewn:t’i_ng honest entrepreneurs, as the petitioners<\/p>\n
herein, who ‘a_.re. engaged in honest mining only, from areas ear-<\/p>\n
 _’=marked fol: licenced mining, and are carrying on the aforesaid
\n within the parameters of the conditions prescribed, can
\n  be arbitrarily barred from the process of transportation of iron-<\/p>\n
 ore, and thereby, prevented from honouring the export orders<\/p>\n
executed by them. This action at the hands of the State<\/p>\n
government, according to the petitioners, is clearly arbitrary and<\/p>\n
3.80<\/p>\n
legislator concerned holds or had held at the relevant time. The
\nprinciple for debarring a holder of office of profit under the
\nGovernment from being a Member of Parliament is, tlaatsuch
\nperson cannot exercise his functions i’ndepende’ntly.g:’of’-the
\nexecutive of which he becomes a part by receiving ..’ip-ecurziary
\ngain”. Under Article 102(1)(a), of course, Parliament<has,'thev.<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to declare an "office" as not to _disq'ualii";r.:'its_ lzolder  ,(y
\nto be a Member of Parliament, and lil<ewise'=.i'.gnder_Article  '
\n.I91(1)(a) the State Legislature has the ju'risdic–ti_on-_to declare *<\/p>\n
an "office" as not to disqualify its7holcler..s:;o  a~Meimber.\u00abo'r?t'he
\nState Legislatures. Moreover, apart from the_~-office being an<\/p>\n
"office of profit", it must also.__be an'.office urnvdervtljse State <\/p>\n
Central Government. "\n<\/p>\n
89. On the basis of the corit-e’ntiV_ons”-noticed’-hereiinabove, as
\naiso, the declared proposition  submitted that the
\nimpugned orders dated  are liabie to
\nbe set aside? of”‘thVe’fac’tiV–that the same violate
\nthe fundya.me_nVtai”‘ri;gh:t.s  peitiitsioiriers enshrined under Articie
\n14 of    ‘has aiso, on account of the fact<\/p>\n
that the aft,craesaidx”a_ction iseidiscriminatory having no intelligibie<\/p>\n
 diffe,re:ntia~ whicVh”..distinguishes the petitioners (ie., those who<\/p>\n
 ha’v\u00abe:be_en..prevented from the activity of transporting iron-ore)<\/p>\n
as”agyainist’_;-v..__th.o’s’e who have been aliowed to continue the<\/p>\n
V _ afore”said..’.actEvity.\n<\/p>\n
  The question whether the action of the State Government\n<\/p>\n
—   biissuing the impugned orders dated 26.07.2010 and<\/p>\n
 “28.07.2010 has any nexus to the object sought to be achieved,<\/p>\n
cannot be treated to be a matter of very serious consideration in<\/p>\n
View of the conciusions repeatedly drawn by us during the<\/p>\n
Q”a..\u00ab\ufb01\u00abw;5iv <\/p>\n
181<\/span><\/p>\n
course of determination of various issues canvassed at the hands
\nof the iearned counsel for the petitioners. The obje_ct._so_ug_ht to<\/p>\n
be achieved, was to stop activities related to.-\u00a7i:l.leg’a.i,j’h*—-.mihjng,<\/p>\n
transportation and storage of iron–ore,,in Karnata*i<a'_.~i , it.h'as been <\/p>\n
asserted at the hands of responde.nts;fl..jto"=5,-that'm,.eas;;resl"<\/p>\n
necessary to be adopted for~'tne.h preav-ention
\ntransportation and storage of  are"b_e_in:g  in place,
\nand rules are being su;-i.ta:bl_yensure a complete
\ncheck on all mining reiat.ed._:acti.vAit:iesi"'inV'likarhataka. In this
\nbehaif, it is  r;e'slpo.nd:ents'–~15to 5 that the State
\nGovernment is of "special ceiis",
\n check~posts", instaiiation of
\n''closed circuit' "cameras", "computerization" of<\/p>\n
check_~-posts,uie.gu'lat*ion"-othstockyard licences, and other similar<\/p>\n
. V."'mAea'isure,5~. _CanHit""b'esaid that the aforesaid activities, which<\/p>\n
place by the State government, have no nexus.\n<\/p>\n
to”t.he objecit-hgsiought to be achieved? We are afraid not. The<\/p>\n
*..main reasion emerging out of the submissions advanced at the
\nof the iearned Advocate Genera! was, that it was possible
\n  to} search, get to, and deai with theft of iron-ore, so iong as the<\/p>\n
 mined ore remains in the country. But if the ore is permitted to<\/p>\n
leave the shores of India, it is impossible to identify, the<\/p>\n
particuiar mine (or mining area) from which it had been drawn.<\/p>\n
UI—“”””‘W<\/p>\n
182<\/span><\/p>\n
In the aforesaid situation, it becomes impossible to verify<\/p>\n
whether, the ore being exported was obtained out ofi.lfeg_itiimate<\/p>\n
operation, or out of illegal mining activity.
\naforesaid, it was the pointed assertlonof theiieamevdiiicounsei for <\/p>\n
the respondents, that there is no such  iirft-he”_si::,c_:ase <\/p>\n
of iron ore which is to be us’ei:3′–..,for Vp’ro’cess’ir:gv'”in\ufb01=d_om.esticalVly
\nlocated industry. Having consid_er\u00e9d:_th.e eitpiaiiiavt-ionyiyendered on
\nbehalf of the responden\u00abt..V:’:’5tAate  we are satisfied,
\nthat the choice ofimposing,’.theh”i.p,;ig’  ‘V”iron~ore meant for
\nexport, cannot;  bet.”unreasonable, or without
\napplication   ‘ ..,:s:ubmissi’on advanced by learned
\ncounsel, that are still going on, is only
\nconjecturat in  not based on any substantive<\/p>\n
materla..i.,, That..apa~rt, tfhefprocess has been initiated only in July<\/p>\n
. if\u00b02016-,’:’it:,,,wiil”l*take sfo\ufb02miefvtime to catch up with those engaged in<\/p>\n
ii_.|l:eg.aVi”operations. The action cannot be termed as<\/p>\n
arbit,rary,,.  violation of the provision of Article 14 of the<\/p>\n
f'”~\u00ab._”-Constitution of India. We are satisfied that there was a
\n7r_easo’rA_-able and legitimate purpose in limiting the ban only to
\n“export” of iron–ore. Therefore, it is not possible for us to<\/p>\n
 accept, that the action of the State government, was not object<\/p>\n
oriented, or that, its action had no nexus to the object sought to<\/p>\n
d w <\/p>\n
183<\/span><\/p>\n
be achieved. In view of the above, we find no merit in the<\/p>\n
instant contention as well.\n<\/p>\n
The Tenth contention (… the impuqned…_A4o’rders’ are”<\/p>\n
sustainabie in law because the Statei*'<:;.Qver.nmen't~has net been;<\/p>\n
abie to substantiate the source.\u00bb of th.e".ge'xha.ust.iv.e .,r3ower'—, ]<\/p>\n
exercised by it):\n<\/p>\n
91. The next contention.a’d.vance’d counsei
\nfor the petitioners was, thatitiwte*n.impug”nedA orders dated
\n26.07.2010 and 28.O7.V2’OiAO..a’re’ e’><e\u00a3:"0t.i;e.e'erders- AN executive
\norders, accordingito t|3e…pati:tiorie,fiS,  must emerge
\nfrom   to issue the same.\n<\/p>\n
Referring “””  (under the Mines and
\nMinerals, Ac__t, the Foreign Trade Act and the
\nCustomsii\ufb01kct\u00e9) to  pointed attention was invited<\/p>\n
duringthe courseyiofiihearintig, it was submitted that no power has<\/p>\n
itvbeen” in the State executive under any of the statutes<\/p>\n
 suggest that the State government, had<\/p>\n
been.__ves.tedi}with the authority to ban mining activity in the<\/p>\n
i.”‘~’~.__v’State oifisjarnataka, or couid ban transportation of mined minerai
\n  “”witih,in:”,.’the State of Karnataka, or could ban export of mineral
\n  mined in the State of Karnataka. Having pointedly referred to<\/p>\n
uifthe Mines and Minerais Act, as also to the Foreign Trade Act, it<\/p>\n
was the assertion of the iearned counsel for the petitioners, that<\/p>\n
no such power can be deemed to have been vested with the<\/p>\n
j <\/p>\n
189<\/span><\/p>\n
dependent on the petitioners. It was submitted, that the
\nrespondents are even now not aware of any u_,nia_cc_eptable<\/p>\n
behaviour or activity of any of the petitioners\u00a7V_f.o’n”l5t,tf:ej’ -b_a_”si_s<\/p>\n
whereof the impugned orders could have been”‘pa:s3e’di)_~_It_:was<\/p>\n
asserted, that even in the joint stateme;-‘nt..pf’opj~ectio’r;s<.filedion <\/p>\n
behalf of respondents Nos.\n<\/p>\n
been leveled against any of the   addition to the
\naforesaid, it was the  p’f.l”th.eLleiarned ‘counsel for the
\npetitioners, that before adverselyaffe\u00e9itivngiitthe civii rights of any
\nindividual, it   of natural justice, to
\nafford the   is right to respond to the
\nallegations this behaif, it was pointed
\nout, that  was ever afforded to the<\/p>\n
petitioners, so as totenabie them to demonstrate that the action<\/p>\n
\ufb02cont\u00e9mp’iated~againstmthem was unjustified.<\/p>\n
  x’VI’n7_s-0 farvlas the factual position is concerned, in order to<\/p>\n
.q den’ionst’rate,”.Vthat the action taken against the petitioners was<\/p>\n
ff”‘A4″tiprica.i_ledf'”for, certain details were highlighted on behalf of the<\/p>\n
_  peytfitioners. On the issue of transportation of iron~–ore, learned<\/p>\n
 “counsel for the petitioners invited the court’s attention to the<\/p>\n
fact, that a hologram is affixed on the permit granted to each
\nand every truck carrying iron—ore. The transportation permit<\/p>\n
issued for carrying the iron–ore, depicts the place of origin of the<\/p>\n
191<\/span><\/p>\n
orders should not have been issued, without affording an<\/p>\n
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
96. The instant action, according to the _I.e.a,.ih\u00bbevdcounsel” for”1._<\/p>\n
the petitioners, is akin to a black _|istj;o_rd’er,-:1wh’e,r’et;y,’:’an’.,,<\/p>\n
entrepreneur is prevented frovrn_seel4<'in,g"'any  'cor.,t}a.:\u00a3ua,i
\nengagement. On the instant""'ii~ssue, learned  i for the
\npetitioners submitted, that,_the\u00ab"dec|a'red:i"propositionyvof law, even
\nwhen the concerned authority.L_';piia_ck-list someone, or
\nsome party vii-asvaiiid,  itgwais i'nAi:tiiated.___t:hrough a notice to the
\nconcerned  of hearing . For the
\ninstant washipiaced on State of Orissa v. Dr.
\n(Miss)<\/a> sanapan; o\u00e9iand’~:\u00a7’t’r.\u00a7\u00a7’i’s_.'[A1R 1967 sc 1259}, wherein it is
\nobserved aVs’e,ndverr::-‘V__  <\/p>\n
_ V. V _”1.?, It is t’rue.__that some preliminary enquiry was made by
\n Dr’\u00bb*.S. Mitra. But the report, of that enquiry officer was never
\n _ disclosed “to the first respondent. fhereafter the first
\n“res’ponden_t was required to show cause why April 16, 1907
\n should,’ net-tie accepted as the date of birth and without
\n. “vrecordingany evidence the order was passed. We think that
\n such~anf..~ enquiry and decision were contrary to the basic
\n“concept of justice and cannot have any value, It is true that
\nthe ‘order is administrative in character, but even an
\n..  administrative order which involves civil consequences, as
\n“already stated, must be made consistently with the rules of
\nV . _ natural justice after informing the first respondent of the case
\nof the State, the evidence in support thereof and after giving
\nan opportunity to the first respondent of being heard and
\nmeeting or explaining the evidence. No such steps were
\nadmittedly taken, the High Court was, in our judgment, right<\/p>\n
in setting aside the order of the State. ”\n<\/p>\n
_\u00a7-~i”\n<\/p>\n
TS”\n<\/p>\n
193<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioners are in possession of vaiid mining iicenses., on the<\/p>\n
basis whereof, they in the first instance mine<\/p>\n
thereafter, transport the same to foreign cou-,rit.’ries..:fg:<\/p>\n
aforesaid purpose ,the petitioners—.hav_,e  vaiidj <\/p>\n
contractual agreements, with parties’.Vovers’ea’g’_~.
\nbe no deniai of the fact, of the
\npetitioners in transporting ironjore'”,fro’m_.the ‘Sta.te,of Karnataka
\nto foreign countries, hafsfiffbee-n_vf’tovtai’Iy,:’curtailed by the State
\ngovernment conseq__uent””o’n’ impugned orders
\ndated 26.o7;,25:,o 24$%,;.o’7..V,V2’o3,\u00bb{;;j;v.’5riiu\u00a7’veewed, it is apparent,
\nthat themay have been adverseiy
\naffecteda_by_  (if they are prevented from
\nexecutingfutheirvfC–biigati4o:n–.s””within a specified time frame).<\/p>\n
Accordingiy, thereffcfanvnbe no escape from accepting, that the<\/p>\n
impu’gne”d:orde_rs, may have adverse civii consequences on the<\/p>\n
Afpetit_i_one’rs’;~._it ifsbaiso not a matter of dispute, that no opportunity<\/p>\n
was”‘gran__ted,At’oA the petitioners, so as to inform them of the basis<\/p>\n
:’f0,r_thew.-contempiated action, and\/or to afford them an
\n .,”o.p’portunity of hearing, so as to enabie them to project their
\n.,in.div\u00e9dua| view points. In that sense, even though the civil<\/p>\n
0’ rights of the petitioners may have been affected, the rules of<\/p>\n
natural justice were not foliowed, before the impugned orders<\/p>\n
dated 26.07.2010 and 28.07.2010 were issued.<\/p>\n
200<\/span><\/p>\n
Secondly, where a decision is of an interim nature, and the
\noriginal position would be restored after ascertaining the factual<\/p>\n
position and\/or the required particulars.\n<\/p>\n
Thirdly, where the purpose would be defeated,  <\/p>\n
passed immediately. Or in other wo,r.ds,_ delay”‘w’–o.u:!dV”‘defeatvltlheh<\/p>\n
purpose of the contemplated action.’-._
\nFourthly, where public interest'<–.and\/oi=.. they iriteiest._,of_.'3justir;e,<\/p>\n
would not be safe~guarded, conteinpllated action is<\/p>\n
delayed.\n<\/p>\n
It is apparent  cojn.cAl’us_icyn\u00a7.,;de.*ived from the judgments
\nrendered”l”byi..,:tEle lV’i’5’\u00a7ip’ex””.C;ourt,'””as'”:have been noticed in the
\nforegoing, parag_rapfh5,’i\u00bb,,:’t3a:’laV.nc’ing of public interest as also<\/p>\n
interest ofjustiice,’ -__isI_a ‘vlery important consideration before a<\/p>\n
.–‘i.,_Vlegi::I’iiaate’ ciaim c’an..__bevraised under the plea of natural justice.<\/p>\n
 In.Vsituat._iVo’ns’\u00abwhere public interest would be adversely affected,<\/p>\n
private inte’ij’esi:”of an individual wiii have to give way. In<\/p>\n
j situaltiozn\ufb01sa wherein the damage would be irretrievabie (if the
\n ‘:jruies._.’of’natural justice were to be insisted upon), it would be
\nopenllto the competent authority, so as to prevent the<\/p>\n
 “commission of such action, to by~pass the procedure envisaged<\/p>\n
under the rules of natural justice. Even where the recovery of
\nthe loss\/harm would stand frustrated if the rules of natural<\/p>\n
justice were followed, the legal proposition declared by the<\/p>\n
_.?””~t”\n<\/p>\n
……u_..,_,<\/p>\n
\\.l<\/p>\n
201<\/span><\/p>\n
Supreme Court, is in favour of preventing such harm and\/or for
\nmaking such recovery, by taking recourse to the .,”ie_medial<\/p>\n
measures, without following the rules of natural Vj,u_stic’e-.,:”\u00bb,.i’nall<\/p>\n
the aforesaid situations, the rules of natural”-\u00ab,l__usticeV’i’can.w_4’ib’e.._V<\/p>\n
avoided even though the action,,”wo’u\u00ab!dA ‘have_x’a’dverse llcivilf <\/p>\n
CONSEQUENCES.\n<\/p>\n
100. It is in the background  aforesaiddietevrmlination at
\nthe hands of the Apex vve._,shal’l–VVn’owV venture to
\ndetermine, whether, it wasappropriate\u00ab:_a’tlx.t’he[hands of the State
\ngovernment to “:ha1\\xe   orders dated
\n26.07.2010   following the rules of
\nnatural the factual position narrated<\/p>\n
at the \ufb01aynldys ofl’th”e.:St.ate,:government, as also, the factual<\/p>\n
~”‘~._,posif;i’c}n Ee’xp,ressedvi..n…the impugned orders themselves, that<\/p>\n
‘H,tnelre\u00bbwasylsuif\ufb01cient material with the State government to arrive<\/p>\n
at”th”econclusion, that extensive illegal mining of iron-\u00bbore was<\/p>\n
‘pbeingk r;a”i’ried’.V out in the State of Karnataka, specially after
\n ‘2..j_min’ing’  iron ore had become an extremely profitable venture\n<\/p>\n
-‘ the past few years). There was also adequate material,
\n aslhas also been expressed in the impugned orders, that illegally<\/p>\n
A mined iron ore was also being exported beyond the territories of<\/p>\n
Karnataka to foreign countries. The instant activity of export of<\/p>\n
iron ore, would result in a permanent loss to the State, not only<\/p>\n
Cl”\n<\/p>\n
202<\/span><\/p>\n
as a matter of loss of State revenues (which the State would
\nhave earned through royaity therefrom), but also in terms of
\npermanent loss of minerai wealth of the State. Not o'”nl,y that,<\/p>\n
after the illegally mined iron ore had traveled…__’beyorid:”4the<\/p>\n
boundaries of India, it would be well nigh impos’s~i._bie;V’_ctoi’<\/p>\n
the same, or to initiate criminal)’prosecution .a’gainst5’thosef’. it<\/p>\n
engaged with the said illegal activityA,”.__”i1l’1_eA.choiceigwith \u00a3l{4e\u00abi.\u00a7;’tate
\ngovernment was, either to alVlow:V”‘t–he saidyhactivity\ufb02tiol’continue,
\nand simultaneously, put zinuxplace”‘nii\u00e9_6:S’u”l*es to liprevenit the same.
\nOr in the alternative, to”asta’l’l  -illegitimate activity
\ntemporarily,  (necessary to
\nprevent  State government<\/p>\n
chose thew-la,tte_r’ coi.z.rse-=_’.V -._In’ ou.r..v:Eonsidered view, the State<\/p>\n
government was,_rful!yV’ justified in doing so, even without<\/p>\n
 V  ‘rulves ofvmnaturai justice. For our instant conclusion,
\nwe four inferences derived by us hereinabove,<\/p>\n
S  _ from-\u00ab..the,___iiega:’i’ position declared by the Apex Court. Even if one
\nthem were to be applicabie, the rules of natural justice could
\nVA   been avoided. In so far as the instant case is concerned,
\n each one of four situations carved out by us, is applicable to the<\/p>\n
 controversy in hand.\n<\/p>\n
101. Adverse civil consequences to the petitioners would<\/p>\n
emerge from a conclusion, that the petitioners have been<\/p>\n
W4″\n<\/p>\n
._.mn…y<\/p>\n
U <\/p>\n
203<\/span><\/p>\n
deprived from fulfilling their contractual agreements, pertaining
\nto export of iron ore. None of the learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
before us, had drawn our attention to the breach of of<\/p>\n
contract executed by the petitioners. It was “b,\u00e9_fore’_<\/p>\n
us, in any case, on behalf of any one”of_the: Vpe4ti’tiO’neVis,f,th’a,tAVa’2. <\/p>\n
time schedule in their contract car’.\u00abnol:._’_Afnow’ff’be:i’
\nresult of afflux of time. In thev._a’b.s_ence”
\nat the hands of the ;:>etiti_oners,:yitiwifsrviditficulttoiconclude that the
\npetitioners have suffered”-an–‘,\/ -consequences, as a
\nresult of the passilr;g__ of   ’tilt is therefore not
\neven clear,   of the cases before
\nus, thatthe  compliance on the<\/p>\n
rules ofixnatu ral Vjust\u00bbi_ce.,  <\/p>\n
  view 0f”the…considerations recorded in the preceding<\/p>\n
tv\u00bb!o”paAra_graph:’s,.._we are satisfied, that the action of the State<\/p>\n
Gove’rnmeri–tT’,jinfnfot following the rules of natural justice, before<\/p>\n
‘,Vissuing.the impugned orders dated 26.07.2010 and 28.07.2010,
\n “.jcair1’not  held to be unjustified or illegal in any manner\n<\/p>\n
— whatsoever. We therefore find no merit even in the eleventh<\/p>\n
 “contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.<\/p>\n
The Twelfth contention (… the impudned orders cannot be
\nsustained, because the State government cannot affect the
\nrights of others, for its own faults}:\n<\/p>\n
We<\/p>\n
Cl”\n<\/p>\n
103.<\/p>\n
ie., Union of India. Paragraph IX is_i3~e.in_g ex_trac’t’ettv <\/p>\n
204<\/span><\/p>\n
In the twelfth contention advanced on behalf of the
\npetitioners, the Court’s attention was invited to parajg’riaf;>h”*IX of<\/p>\n
the statement of objections filed on behalf of <\/p>\n
“IX. In light of the increasing in’ciden’ce’iVof\ufb02lgegai’n’iira:iVng,”‘t.h:e<\/p>\n
Ministry of Mines had under takenV”the’*follov\u00a7iing nweaszjgres to?’<\/p>\n
curb the menace of illegal m’i’nin’g:\n<\/p>\n
(i) State Gover.-‘im_ents,i’have.:been._askedyvto “frame Rules
\nunder Section 23C of   _( Development and
\nRegulation) Act,  to ‘V._enbabiev,’Vtherri” to provide for
\ninspection, checf.'<ing:_ an:d.T.searchvi".of,,miifierals at the place of
\nexcavation,  'd.urir_ig iftransitil The Rules would also
\nprovide fori:.establishment ol"checi<\u00a5post and weigh~bridges at
\nimportantiii-centres; 'So;"far th'\u00e9"State Governments of Andhra
\nPradesh, Bihvar;t\ufb01liattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal
\nPradesh, ,Jharl\u00a7hand,i';la'm:hu & Kashmir, Karnataka, Madhya
\nA S S Rajasthan,<\/p>\n
Pradesh;.. "Maharashtra, Nagaland, Orissa,<\/p>\n
,.._\u00a7l:lttai*l<hand, 'atlttar Rradesh and West Bengal have framed<\/p>\n
V"  Rules under this 'Section.\n<\/p>\n
‘ (\u00abi’i}e’:i*h,e Suite Governments have been advised to constitute<\/p>\n
R ‘ _’w”i”asl{ .F”orces\/flying Squads at both State and district levels for<\/p>\n
u’tal<ing.Veffective action against illegal mining.
\n_ Forces\/Flying Squads are assigned the job of collecting
\n'inforrnation of the cases of illegal mining, taking action to curb<\/p>\n
'such illegal activities and ensuring co–ordination among<\/p>\n
The Task<\/p>\n
various agencies so that effective action is ensured against
\nillegal mining. The Task Force at the State level would be
\nheaded by the Secretary, Department of Mining & Geology of
\nthe State Governments and includes State Police Department,
\nState Transport Department, State Forest Department, Indian<\/p>\n
m…—u<\/p>\n
x)<\/p>\n
_,,a—-\n<\/p>\n
205<\/span><\/p>\n
Bureau of Mines and State Pollution Control Board. ___At the
\nDistrict Level the Task Force would be headed by the. _D’is_trict<\/p>\n
Collector and comprises of Superintendent of <\/p>\n
Collector (Revenue 8: Mining), District Mini’ng_.’O:f\ufb01ce,r,’
\nForest Officer and officials from concerned –di.stricts[:of State.. 9 <\/p>\n
Pollution Control Board and Transport ‘Department; a_So’l’ar the
\nStates of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, ibiihar, lCha’ttisgarh,*–,Golo,<\/p>\n
Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal._Pradesh,”.7harl<l7anc{.V'_Jam;rnul <\/p>\n
Kashmir, Karnataka, Madhya'vs.Pradesh, i'laharashtra,HlVlanipur,
\nMizoram, Nagaland,Orissa,y..Punjab;–._,Rajasti7~an, Tfamil Nadu,
\nUttarkhand, Uttar Pradesh -and _B"engal have constituted<\/p>\n
Task Forces.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Regular”\u00abm’_onitc=ring  Government of
\ninstances of 5:.ili.’_\u00a7_gal..:_mining,” action taken by the State
\nGovernrnenit Vagainsit  activitiesband other steps taken by
\n curb illegal mining with the Secretaries
\noft._5ta~te vGoVeingments,,_:in the review meeting held for the
\npurpose. . In the State Governments have been<\/p>\n
asked to furn.islf: quarterly returns in the prescribed proforma<\/p>\n
.\u00bb’.\u00a7on instances\u00bbof___illegal mining and action taken by State
\n Golvemrrients thereof to Indian Bureau of Mines, which are<\/p>\n
 ” re  b_ the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
A.__r(iv)V.Th’e’1_.’ll\/linistry of Mines with a view to facilitate
\nV development of a holistic action plan at the State level using
\n ..  modern technology to curb illegal mining, has requested all
\nC’ x_’.”t’.’7e State Governments to prepare an Action Plan on the<\/p>\n
‘following points:\n<\/p>\n
a. Use of Satellite Imagery sourced from State Remote<\/p>\n
Sensing Organisations to curb illegal mining,<\/p>\n
b. Developing reliable mechanism in the State Government<\/p>\n
for collecting and monitoring of data regarding prices of<\/p>\n
Cl”\n<\/p>\n
206<\/span><\/p>\n
various minerals, wherein the price trend could indicate<\/p>\n
possible chances of illegal mining in certain minerals, <\/p>\n
c. Developing a mechanism for integrated\u00a7rnonltoring;_of,_<\/p>\n
information on movement of trucks\/vehicles,’ frorn lmining <\/p>\n
areas to ports\/markets\/manufacturing units, ‘which_ use
\nmineral ores, and correlating the same with..the productloiw<\/p>\n
data capture any spurt in miningactlvity,  A<\/p>\n
d. Maintaining and collecting information ‘form ports,
\ncustom authorities, Ministry”s’of’Commercve.. on export of<\/p>\n
ores out of the country;  g_’ V ”\n<\/p>\n
e. Bar–coding, use’~of’ Holograms for’ transport permits,
\nroyalty,  pern\u00e9its; etc,  means of tracing<\/p>\n
una uthorized ‘ trans-p0rf’*or ‘sale; of_ores,’<\/p>\n
 re’gistration”ofV all the end~users and issue<\/p>\n
‘;_of –.d:’recti’v’e\u00a3A4tiog ‘”–end’–user industries to mandatorily<\/p>\n
cl?ecl-{payment o”f.___roy’alty before purchase of ores for<\/p>\n
various * manufactu.-r’ing processes, with penalties for<\/p>\n
V violations,.._, A V<\/p>\n
, g;A.D,ev–elopment of reporting mechanism for the traders of<\/p>\n
‘ vvminera’l-ores and end–use industries to report receipt of ore<\/p>\n
for ‘vkiyich royalty payments have not been made;<\/p>\n
” hg; Constltuting and empowering Joint teams of officials<\/p>\n
from various Departments of the State Government
\nincluding, Police, Forest, Revenue department to conduct<\/p>\n
checks and file cases,<\/p>\n
i, Coordinating and concentrating efforts of both State
\nGovernment and Indian Bureau of Mines through combined<\/p>\n
inspection in speci\ufb01c areas in which illegal mining is<\/p>\n
CT<\/p>\n
_fWc”\n<\/p>\n
purposes.\n<\/p>\n
20?\n<\/p>\n
suspected and to ensure safety and effective cessation of<\/p>\n
illegal mining.\n<\/p>\n
j. Creation of a Special Cell in Police force  _<\/p>\n
mining.\n<\/p>\n
So far, States Government Oi’: Andhra”‘.Pradesh,_xGujaratf,
\nJharkhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra OrissVa,–. ,vi'{aja_:sthan,_<\/p>\n
Tamilnadu, Uttar Pradesh: and Uttarl<hand'v"have_V_Hprepared<\/p>\n
Action Plan in terms of the advice\u00bb of the"Cen'tra-l Government.<\/p>\n
(v) Advising Statesgto ._set_ucommitteeshhhtovv coordinate
\naction in relation to hactiivitiesvliiiagflutling illegal mining,
\ntransportation, inclu’u’ing:= assogciatihg;j\u00e9presentatives of
\nRailways       <\/p>\n
(vi) iieloi:idisgcussionsiivith’Ministry.of Railways, as a result of
\nwhich,” *thgei:.Railii\u00a3’a;rs”‘have initiateid action in Orissa to ensure
\nproper ‘accouii’tsA:”for'”transported ore, and the same can be<\/p>\n
replica ted all  the” –coiiiritry.\n<\/p>\n
;{‘v’EE)_ Held-. iiisscussimg with the Ministry of Shipping which<\/p>\n
‘-‘:,.:’iFia_\u00a7’~.e,AlSSUed an””a~clvisory to all the Port Authorities in the
\n _country,_t’o, adopt measures similar to those introduced by\n<\/p>\n
– Paradip’ Po}-‘t.v’i’rust authorities to streamline the movements of<\/p>\n
” ._”’Vconsigiin;eht by road and rail upto the port for export<\/p>\n
The measures include providing list of mineral<\/p>\n
exporters to the State Government and m\/o railways verifying<\/p>\n
vihieceipt of minerals against valid permit\/challan, and<\/p>\n
‘restricting unauthorized movement of minerals within the<\/p>\n
Port, etc.<\/p>\n
(viii) Held discussions with the Customs authorities who have
\ninformed that instructions have been issued to customs offices
\nfor sharing the details of minerals exported through the ports<\/p>\n
with the concerned State Governments on a regular basis as<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
…_……..\n<\/p>\n
Mme<\/p>\n
208<\/span><\/p>\n
agreed for Goa.\n<\/p>\n
with whom exact modalities of information\/dataexchange<\/p>\n
Identi\ufb01cation of nodal officer of the State<\/p>\n
would need to be worked out by Customs
\nconsultation with the concerned State Governn}ents”‘\u00bb~ia’s :ti’r–e<\/p>\n
key issue from the point of view of customs:  .– ._ if. C’<\/p>\n
(ix) The steps taken by the State;_-Goi?erie2men’t- foriicuri\u00e9-:ir.g
\nillegal mining in coordination withthevariousi’_authorities”has*<\/p>\n
been discussed in Central’gmpoweredjcum’:rjoomination’i<\/p>\n
Committee meetings held o}+,24.t,V7.2009,i_y_22.12;2oo9 and
\n18.6.2010 with theSta.te c;o’\u00a7i”ei4ni%\u00a7aj’er\u00a7gts._g The it\/Vlinistry of Mines
\nhad been issuing various giiidelinesieiVanvd”\u00bbsuggestions on the
\nissue and rnonitors ptrogress. Vthrough this Central
\nCommittee. ‘tfngigthe last me’etin.gi”ue’ted__1:f8.5.2010, States were
\nadvised   -.nodal:_officer who will liaise with
\nRailways,’ ltortand tcustoinst atuthorities to collect information
\non”ttillegaliifmlnlfig’ ongicontinualvtbasis. As per information
\nreceived, \u00bb  ‘Governments of Andhra Pradesh,
\nChhtattisgarh,’-. V   Goa, Haryana, Karnataka,<\/p>\n
Maharashtra, .Orissa_, ltajasthan and West Bengal have set up
\n Coordinationecurnnifmpowered Committee. Other States
\n  been requested to ensure setting up of similar<\/p>\n
_ it Cornmitteesat the earliest”.\n<\/p>\n
In addition  the aforesaid, ieamed counsei for the petitioners<\/p>\n
3″‘”~.__v’a|so invited our attention to the statement of objections fiied on
\n   of respondent No.6, wherein in paragraph 5 of the
\n statement of objections “regarding paragraphs 24 to 27” of the<\/p>\n
 writ petition, it was asserted as under:~<\/p>\n
“Reg. Para 24: It is submitted that the State Governments
\nhave been sufficiently empowered under MMDR Act to take<\/p>\n
steps to prevent and curb illegal mining, transportation and<\/p>\n
209<\/span><\/p>\n
storage of minerals. imposition of a ban on issuing of Mineral
\nDe-spatch Permits for transportation of iron ore for exportis may
\nnot be the ideal measure to curb illegal mlningi )The’ae.State<\/p>\n
Governments had been advised to closely monitor 4ai7.d:”control.\u00bb
\nthe issue of Mineral Despatch Permits t_hrough_ Vcoordinated <\/p>\n
checking mechanisms using theiservices and_;date._ma’intained T<\/p>\n
with various State Departments i–nvol_ved. The’ state also<\/p>\n
been advised vide ministry.of\u00a2_Mines’ letter da_tee*.re.i1.::obs to ,<\/p>\n
co~relate the production in–.t.g:.n2lines hwith  transportation
\npermits issued and the ore finlally e2{portediin_ order to detect<\/p>\n
illegally mined materials.\n<\/p>\n
Para 25 & 25,; The l\\ia.tion_al rviiiveiral-“i>elic1y,; 27008, lays down the
\npolicy fra:ne’vvo’r’k  gde~velopniei*7\u00abt___o3′ mineral sector and
\nspecifies” in.) pate ”  that” mineral development will be
\nprioritized  :’terrn’s_ofuimpnrtlsutistitution, value addition and
\n  the\u00bb.:s’ame._’tirne the Policy (in pra 7.2) also
\nste\u00a7.tes’– that Vconj’serva4tionVV”of minerals shall be construed not in
\nthe ‘regstrictive  abstinence from consumption or<\/p>\n
preservat.ion for=us’e_ in” distant future but as a positive concept<\/p>\n
~ ‘-leading to augmventation of reserve base through improvement<\/p>\n
A  in :in’iningt__methods, beneficiation and utilization of low grade
\nV _ iianohrejects and recovery of associated minerals. The policy (in
\n‘rpara 8}. also recognizes that minerals continue to be an<\/p>\n
“‘<\u00ab..imp_ortan't source of foreign exchange earnings, and the policy<\/p>\n
of _ export shall keep in view the dynamics of mineral<\/p>\n
it inventories as well as the short, medium and long term needs\n<\/p>\n
 -of the country. The Policy (in para 8) also recognizes that<\/p>\n
exports shall be made in value added form as possible. There
\nare no restrictions in the MMDR Act, on the use of ore, unless
\nthe State Government has speci\ufb01cally imposed any such
\nconditions in any particular Mining lease under Rule 27(3) of
\nMineral Concession Rules, 1960 (MGR), after obtaining the
\napproval of Central Government. I t may therefore be observed<\/p>\n
3″\u00b0~%W5MW~t””\n<\/p>\n
210<\/span><\/p>\n
that the Policy and the legislation do not at present provide for
\nany restrictions on export of ore on any particular mineral as a
\nclass, but the legislation does provide for Mimpositi’on’-. of<\/p>\n
restrictions under Rule 27(3) of MCR in an iridividua:i:’*~rnii”:ing,<\/p>\n
lease. It is further submitted that the State…G_orver.’ir?1e_nts are <\/p>\n
the owners of minerals and controhl”Vthe._qrant .of_ic’cr_rcessions’;in T<\/p>\n
terms of the regulations set out in”the “MMD_R <\/p>\n
legislated by the Parliament, While the legislation regulatesg<\/p>\n
the entire system of gravn:t.V””i0’* COl}f.fE?VS\u00a3I.lC):lf!S,a”:Vlt’VVWIS State
\nGovernment mineral policy _(_inf’l.ineri_,vvith.’ti’7e_lVational Mineral
\nPolicy) that determines f_the_ ,hma._rin_er_in  the State
\nGovernment controls VA its Rmineral:R”-Concession dispensation<\/p>\n
regime, and _the__ mineral’ Litiliz_at’ion_ VregimeL’<\/p>\n
Para  l”t.._isA:sul;mitted’ that-“in’:t’errrrs of Section 23C of MMDR
\nAct, the..,5tate.;_, frame Rules to control illegal
\nmining,”transpoi?tation\u00bb.ai;d storage of minerals. Any step taken
\nbykthe State”f3o.vernme:nt in” this regard under the said Rules
\nwould._he. in rvt\u00e9rnjs  Act. However, it is not clear<\/p>\n
whether’ the.,..’-impugnsed orders dated 26.07.2010 and<\/p>\n
v_~’5.28. 07.2010 ‘are__lini<.ed to the said Rules. For this reason, the
\n Cehtralvu 'Government cannot comment on whether the
\nV '_ " i'mpugrrve"d,_orders are in terms of MMDR Act. The contention of\n<\/p>\n
0. “–.the’Vp’etitio.ner that the local steel industries would control the
\n“‘\u00ab\u00ab..pricfe’of:”iron ore is hypothetical, since the MMDR Act or the<\/p>\n
National Mineral Policy does not restrict the movement of ore<\/p>\n
it ._within the country. However, the contention of the petitioner<\/p>\n
0’ ‘ — that the natural resources would not be protected through ban<\/p>\n
on issue of transportation permits for export of iron ore has a
\npoint since efficient governance and controls at the field level
\nby the State Government cannot be substituted by any order”.<\/p>\n
It is therefore submitted, that the action sought to be taken by<\/p>\n
the State of Karnataka, through the impugned orders dated<\/p>\n
lo<\/p>\n
211<\/span><\/p>\n
26.07.2010 and 28.07.2010 is wholly impermissible in law, as it<\/p>\n
is an abuse of the executive authority vested inj”‘th’e.V.”State<\/p>\n
government. It is the pointed contention of thepetitiion’e’rs,i”‘that
\nthe State government failed to takeaction,.”when’.fVit iwaisscaylgleidc,<\/p>\n
for, and now, it has passed blanket:”:ordfers, to’~cov[ei’ ‘up’ll”its7own 0′<\/p>\n
faults, without any legal or va|Vi_ci’–~j.ustilicatio.n_.
\nprayed that the impugned order$..4.iSuljouid,_,be lsetiasldei<\/p>\n
104. We have giveinlgouirc~tho’ug:httu_\u00bbl.:.’consideration to the
\naforesaid twelfth.Fgnteinitiiolniiiadva\ufb01\ufb01egdvh latlviithe hands of the
\nlearned counsel’V,_foiri”-the.:p\u00e9_f;;ti\u00a7g.p,e\u00bb’;\u00e9\u00a7,::,_:bIn,_our considered view, it is
\na futile  ‘t~)i~Vlr’i0′ the. executive, to blame another.
\nWhether-~–_Qr”n_ot,v  could have been adopted so as<\/p>\n
to preventiVV”il.|gV\u00a7dgal’minding\u00bb.:a’::tivities in Karnataka, by the State<\/p>\n
 A government, is m.aVtt_er of the past, and as such, constitutes an<\/p>\n
irre’|evant’\u00ab.co,nsideration. The issue of relevance is, that<\/p>\n
unscru’puVlou”_s._elements in Karnataka are engaged in plundering<\/p>\n
-V the  mineral wealth, by illegal means. They have to be
\n” Whether they ought to have been stopped earlier, is
\n.0  p\u00b0r.es’e’ntly of no consequence. Whether some innocent parties<\/p>\n
would be affected, is also of no reievance. The only<\/p>\n
consideration relevant at the present juncture is, that illegal
\nmining activities in the State have to come to an end. The<\/p>\n
nation’s mineral wealth, should not be permitted to be drained,<\/p>\n
3″\n<\/p>\n
CT<\/p>\n
213<\/span><\/p>\n
dated 26.07.2010 and 28.07.20\u00a3G, has unwittingly been placed
\nby the State government, on an interim order passed-___by this<\/p>\n
Court. It was the submission of the learned counse:if”,:’foif.,,the<\/p>\n
petitioners, that the State government wishes” <\/p>\n
responsibility of its own wrong actirons, inctuvdhircigy fra,rning_, or. <\/p>\n
unacceptable rules, on to the shouidersigiloiiv  <\/p>\n
this behaif, Eearned counseil.fo’i<.__the"petitioners"'invi'ted our<\/p>\n
attention to the averments madAe..iVn'~pa'ragraph's–1%}, and 36(e)<\/p>\n
and (h) of the statementof\u00bb .ob_ie'ct,i'o_n's,'v_joint'iy fiied on behalf of
\nre5pondent5._1\u00a7-._ ..4'iThe_:"aforesaid"paragraphs are being
\nextracted heVreunde_:r:– lb ' V<\/p>\n
"_14._  recommendations and \ufb01ndings given
\nbythe Hon the Respondent — State has initiated
\nseveral.__4 dunaothori.zed:_"..'* transportation of iron ore. The
\nRespondent,' E? '1Sta'te has also formulated Rules called as<\/p>\n
V-':,.j.""K.sirnatal<a l\\ilin'ei'c'aiV(Regulation & Transport) Rules, 2008" by
\n __way'\u00abof\u00abp0blication of a Noti\ufb01cation in the Official Gazette of
\ng  l\u00e9arriat\u00e9-xa.i'a.t"No. CI 12 MMM 200? dated 20.03.2008 in exercise
\n' '  the powers conferred by Section 21 r\/w Section 23 (c) of the<\/p>\n
 and Minerals (Development and Regulation ) Act, 195 7 for
\n thewpurpose of prevention of illegal mining and transportation of
\n,_ iminerals. A copy of the same is sought to be produced as
\n' "iiiNNEXURE–R2. Being aggrieved by the formulation of such
\nRules, several mining lease holders challenged the same before
\nthis Hon'ble Court in W. P.No.6985 of 2008 C\/W W.P.No.16529 of
\n2007, W.P.No.18793 of 200?, W.P.l\\io.18907 of 2007 and
\nobtained interim orders of stay which is still continuing. A copy<\/p>\n
of the interim order is sought to be produced as ANNEXURE~R3.<\/p>\n
3%"\n<\/p>\n
U”\n<\/p>\n
215<\/span><\/p>\n
which has resulted in illegal mining and transportation of such
\nillegally mined minerals. To prevent all such activities of
\nillegally mined minerals and its transportation, the State
\nGovernment has now taken a decision not to issue  for
\nthe purpose of exports. The said decision is in acco’i’d\u00e9’nce,, with<\/p>\n
the provisions of M. M. D.R. Act, 1957.\n<\/p>\n
36(h). It is no doubt true that iron ore is;a”m.ajor”rriin-eral: and
\nMineral Concession Rules, 1960 Izapply\u00e9tor the -i’matterur_ela’ting\u00ab to<\/p>\n
mines and minerals. At the same time,
\nitself has entrusted the task_ on “the Stareli\ufb01overnilnent to<\/p>\n
prevent illegal mining and illegall’transportation-; Itis in exercise<\/p>\n
of that power, the Rules in questi’o’n”‘ha’veg,”been framed. As the
\nRules have law’ been sta;r\u00e9d,”<th'e–:fState,f Government has issued
\nthe Govei'nmer-it it C)r.:j_er._ to 'prevent illegal mining and<\/p>\n
transpor**tatio.*i.ff.gg\n<\/p>\n
106. 1′-it wasVthe-._\u00bbsubm.ission -of the learned counsel for the
\npetitionersgthiat if the government had actually framed<\/p>\n
rulesgunder the”‘M_in’es and Minerals Act, in consonance with law,<\/p>\n
 Ttize frame work of the provisions of Mines and<\/p>\n
Aii\\1i_ne_rals’~Vv’A:t,  also, the Constitution of India, the State<\/p>\n
gove\u00abrnm.ent.,lAs’hould have assailed the interim order passed by<\/p>\n
:’this_Court’, whereby the operation of the Karnataka Mineral
\n ,..”(–.FV{e-guiation and Transport) Rules, 2008, had been stayed by the
\n Court. It was, sought to be contended by the learned<\/p>\n
it counsel for the petitioners, that the State government is itself<\/p>\n
violating legal norms, so as to harass genuine and bona~ fide<\/p>\n
exporters of iron–ore without any justification or cause, specially<\/p>\n
l7<\/p>\n
 benalfyi’ ..t:5ft..i.v”th’e.,:_1~~petitioners withers away.<\/p>\n
218<\/span><\/p>\n
juncture, it is a futiie exercise to biame the State government,
\nfor not having moved an appropriate application for modification
\nor for recalling of the interim directions issued by this.,’co,urt, as<\/p>\n
also, for not having sought a final decision in the_,m_’atte*t,’~V,.o’r\u00ab for<\/p>\n
not having availed of its appellate remedy. N’o,netiV1eiVe:\u00a7”s, <\/p>\n
not possibie to loose sight of th,e’mfa’ct,,_ r:e’guiaitoryf. <\/p>\n
measures introduced by the State go__ve–rnmentby..frarn:ir~sgi”‘thVe
\naforesaid rules, which had  be ‘.er.:ii’psed_, b’y:th’e’V’interim<\/p>\n
directions issued by this .court,i-“now-sta,nd revi’viedv,’:with a few<\/p>\n
modification?  mind, that the basis
\ndepicted M9,,’ .p,e’t;.e:i,f:’v_o’i  to support the instant
\nsubmission,_  ofjthe many considerations which
\nhad weighed iNith’i..the,”;’ita’te”‘government to pass the impugned<\/p>\n
orders.’ ”  all V-thattwali. taken into consideration is examined<\/p>\n
 “‘co.iiective’I’y, “‘t~h_e potentiaiity of the submission advanced on<\/p>\n
it becomes<\/p>\n
inconseq_uenti’all. In that sense, no fault can be found with the<\/p>\n
l.'””~.__V’State government for having taken into consideration the interim
\nif  ,u”d,’i:’ecti1ons passed by this court. It is not as if, the interim orders
\n Hpa5ssed by the High Court constituted the sole basis for passing<\/p>\n
 the impugned orders. As a matter of fact, the interim orders<\/p>\n
passed by the High Court was just one of the facts in a series of<\/p>\n
facts taken into consideration. In that sense, the emphasis on<\/p>\n
‘;x:m,m’eVsw,ev<\/p>\n
” ‘ “cl is rni.s:sei_d.\n<\/p>\n
219<\/span><\/p>\n
the interim orders, as the sole basis for passing the impugned
\norders is not only misconceived, but is also fallacious. For the
\nreasons recorded herein above, we are not impressed even with
\nthe last contention advanced by the learned the<\/p>\n
petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
Conclusions and observations :\n<\/p>\n
C<\/p>\n
108. Despite our having’ considered a  <\/p>\n
submissions (thirteen in all) aVdv_a’r’iced at  hands of the<\/p>\n
learned    have been noticed
\nindividually  found no infirmity in the
\n  raised before us. We,
\ntherefore;yiereby,V_:’u:.phiold,:_:”the orders dated 26.07.2010 and<\/p>\n
28.07_.?._010.\ufb02” _fl”l”.~us- viewed, all the writ petitions are hereby<\/p>\n
   be  the fact, that we have found no merit in the<\/p>\n
writ.._petitVi.ons’,.V. we are of the view, that for maintaining law and<\/p>\n
 “order a”ll_n’ecessary measures should be permitted to be adopted
\n any interference. But while doing so, rights of the
\ninr\u00e9ocent parties should not be infringed, as far as it is<\/p>\n
 practically possible. While examining the submissions advanced<\/p>\n
at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we were<\/p>\n
satisfied, that the impugned orders were passed, for the sole aim<\/p>\n
,___5″”~tQ”\n<\/p>\n
CT<\/p>\n
220<\/span><\/p>\n
and object of eradicating iliegal activities related to mining,
\ntransportation and storage of iron-ore. Even though the
\ndominant purpose expressed by the State governriiient is<\/p>\n
laudable, yet the time taken to introduce regula.tor.yV\u00bb.mi’e.asu..res<\/p>\n
cannot be endless. Nor can the rights of _in_n’o’centA_:’peop’le5<\/p>\n
affected for an unlimited length  -I’ tl.jeteV’VVVgisV”\u00abani.__<\/p>\n
unreasonable extension thereof,_ by de.layi_ng
\nof the measures, for which”‘\u00abri’i:.:t4,:Xl:e im|5Lit3\ufb01eii.=  dated
\n26.07.2010 and 28.07.,2’G.ft0  tiiesame may have
\nthe effect of transgressing.”Vintvoi’una’cceptab__ie terrain. By a
\nblanket order,   wrong doers from
\nthose who  government cannot<\/p>\n
adversely “effect; thef:.;civi’i’rightsi’ofwaiv\u00e9l those who are engaged in<\/p>\n
the export ‘oi’ iron’~oi’e.hforh”a_n”‘unlimited period of time. For, law<\/p>\n
\ufb02vstlippiortsi’-“l’only.g legitimate causes, and not, an abuse of the<\/p>\n
Kprocgess it may well be, legitimate for the State<\/p>\n
gove.r_nm_ent:,lA,j’..to take about six months, to put in place the<\/p>\n
T.”-‘\u00ab\u00ab___V’contem’plated measures, for regulating activities connected with
\n   of iron ore, in the State of Karnataka. if the aforesaid
\n pgrrpose is achieved, within the time expressed by the iearried<\/p>\n
 Advocate General, during the course of hearing, we are of the<\/p>\n
view that the exercise carried out by the State government, may<\/p>\n
well be reasonable and legitimate. We, therefore, hope and<\/p>\n
222<\/span><\/p>\n
all the connected writ petitions are disposed of.<\/p>\n
Sch” ,
\nChiei \u00a71E’f{“‘\u20ac?’~>\u00a7*’39<\/p>\n
;S\ufb01f\u00a7\u00a7 \\<\/p>\n
Index: Yes\/No
\nSnb\/Ru<\/p>\n
‘W ju\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7 fI-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S V.S.Lad And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010 Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And Nazeer IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALGRE DATED THIS THE 19″‘ DAY OF NOVEMBER, PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. 3.5. KHEHAR, _:” AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE 5.._A’eouL,,N’;p:*E’EA’R A’ WRIT PETITION No.2,4_1f03_\/’201 0′ (GM:-MAMS) wp Nos. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21893","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S V.S.Lad And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S V.S.Lad And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-01T19:54:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"172 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S V.S.Lad And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-01T19:54:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":29039,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S V.S.Lad And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-01T19:54:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S V.S.Lad And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S V.S.Lad And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S V.S.Lad And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-01T19:54:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"172 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S V.S.Lad And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-01T19:54:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010"},"wordCount":29039,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010","name":"M\/S V.S.Lad And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-01T19:54:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-v-s-lad-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S V.S.Lad And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21893","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21893"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21893\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21893"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21893"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21893"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}